Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

[ClaytonCross]

World of Warcraft.... Video game RPGs.... Now that Tony Vargas is gone....

Why is it annoying to you that players help each other out in group that has band together to fight deadly monsters, explore trapped dungeons, and solve puzzles TOGETHER... when it actually makes since that they would help each other out as a team for their benefit and the benefit of the group?

I show up to a D&D game, the GM says he needs to move the table, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clean the table off and setup the map, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clear a spot on the counter, I say "I'll help". As iserith said, making a downs side to helping your party encourages them to NOT act like a party in a party based game... this seems silly to me. Sure I could pull my back helping my gm move his table but I don't any rule that is designed to convince players to play solo is a good rule. Any deficit to helping is just that. With advantage and requirement for the helping player to have the skill to help they can still role badly and narrate failure of a twitch in your back but mechanically discouraging the attempt seems against the premise of getting together with my friends to adventure both in and out of the game. I want players to help each other when ever possible because that's what people should do in or out of the game when they are working together for a common goal. Standing around watching one person do all the work you could help is jerk thing to do!

I understanding the restrictions on requiring the actual skills to help, room to get in there, lack of tools etc. but it seems to me if you don't want your players to work as a team there is a fundamental flaw to you sitting together to play a group game. If you want your players wanted to play solo they would play a video game. The inability for more than one player to help is a MUCH larger issue than player helping each other "too much". As iserith said,If your just tired or your players saying "I help" then call for fewer tests.

I really feel like this is GM perspective problem not a game design problem. It doesn't slow down the game, it doesn't cause issues with players, and the only people I have ever seen get mad or upset because a player got helped was the GM who wanted players to fail... oddly enough the commonly fail anyway and GM is mad about it on premise not because it actually worked out. Its the same line of arguments I hear about the Guidance spell. People band that spell because it reduces their chance of failure. The only reason that matters is if the GM WANTS players to fail. A GM … in my opinion… should not have a predetermined outcome in mind for tests but should let the chips fall where they may and have success and fail options. If the GM has a REQIREMENT that players fail, then set the test should auto Fail and their is no reason for the GM to call for role and no chance for the players to use the "help action". Don't blame players for working together to try to succeed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why is it annoying to you that players help each other out in group that has band together to fight deadly monsters, explore trapped dungeons, and solve puzzles TOGETHER... when it actually makes since that they would help each other out as a team for their benefit and the benefit of the group?

I suspect it has something to do with it being a non-decision. There's no 'price,' no qualifiers, it turns into a rubber stamp. The player needn't be there. He could say "I use help on whoever's doing stuff," and leave the table.

I don't see why that has to happen, though...

As iserith said, making a downs side to helping your party encourages them to NOT act like a party in a party based game... this seems silly to me.

Nod, but taking the participation out of helping can also rob the game of that element. Adding limitations or risks to it can make it more of a decision, which is a form of participation, but you still have a point: that'd be a solution that works against itself.
In most cases, Working Together will be more applicable than the Help action, anyway - as an aside, it seems to be a common issue among D&Ders to conflate combat actions with non-combat activities (people try to 'ready' out of combat, but it has no meaning until initiative is rolled, for instance), when you're not acting in initiative order, round by round, you're not taking actions, you're just doin' stuff, the 'action economy' is in abeyance.

The only reason that matters is if the GM WANTS players to fail.

Which certainly shouldn't be much of an issue in 5e: just narrate failure. Done.

More likely either the desire is to give a sense there is a risk of failure, so that success 'means something' to the players, a roll with a fair chance of failure is a facile, but not terribly dramatic way to do that.
Or, it could be to create a /greater/ sense of cooperation, that is to make the player of the helper more involved, or the helper more significant. I mean, if you could each be followed around by a completely ordinary commoner NPC who just helps you with everything, and get the same benefit - that'd deflate the contribution of a PC helper.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Helping another character already has a downside - you are not doing anything else.

Also, sometimes your help can make things worse.

To steal the examples from MrHotter.

>"I'm going to search for food."
>"I'm helping"

GM: You can certainly do that, and roll once with advantage to find food for 5 people. Alternatively, you can each search separately, roll separately, and if you both succeed, you find food for 10 people and if only one of you succeeds find food for 5 people.

> "I'm going to perform a song"
> "I'm helping"

GM: How are you helping? Oh, you are playing an instrument. Cool. Well, if either of you perform badly, it is going to screw up the performance for both of you, so you both need to roll and you both need to succeed, but if you do both succeed the king will be much more impressed that he would be with just the song. OK?

> "I'm going to pick the lock"
> "I'm helping"

GM: You can't. There is only enough room in front of the door for one person to kneel down and deal with the lock.

Alternatively...

GM: OK. As the two of them are working on the lock, some bugbears charge around the corner. Everyone roll Wisdom (Perception) to see if you noticed them. No, you two don't get to roll, you are working on the lock.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I suspect it has something to do with it being a non-decision. There's no 'price,' no qualifiers, it turns into a rubber stamp. The player needn't be there. He could say "I use help on whoever's doing stuff," and leave the table.

I don't see why that has to happen, though...

Nod, but taking the participation out of helping can also rob the game of that element. Adding limitations or risks to it can make it more of a decision, which is a form of participation, but you still have a point: that'd be a solution that works against itself.
In most cases, Working Together will be more applicable than the Help action, anyway - as an aside, it seems to be a common issue among D&Ders to conflate combat actions with non-combat activities (people try to 'ready' out of combat, but it has no meaning until initiative is rolled, for instance), when you're not acting in initiative order, round by round, you're not taking actions, you're just doin' stuff, the 'action economy' is in abeyance.

Which certainly shouldn't be much of an issue in 5e: just narrate failure. Done.

More likely either the desire is to give a sense there is a risk of failure, so that success 'means something' to the players, a roll with a fair chance of failure is a facile, but not terribly dramatic way to do that.
Or, it could be to create a /greater/ sense of cooperation, that is to make the player of the helper more involved, or the helper more significant. I mean, if you could each be followed around by a completely ordinary commoner NPC who just helps you with everything, and get the same benefit - that'd deflate the contribution of a PC helper.

So I agree, I don't like "out of combat" combat, if you don't like stopping the flow of the game with "roll initiative" you can roll initiative 3 times when you sit down, right them down and then call out players as normal when its time to use it. As you said it messes with action economy and my GM doesn't have an order when he does that nor does everyone always get an action. Sometimes its just the first two who speak up resulting on my high initiative character with alert feat (immunity to surprise) not acting on the out of combat "first turn" after an enemy as if my character was surprised had lower initiative....

I digress. I understand your point about doing what an NPC could do, however, I make NPC characters as if they were player characters sometimes which means that qualifier means nothing and in fact might have a higher level NPC guide, master, or specialist of a different class with them for 1 mission, meaning NPCs can sometimes do things players can't. So this is a more a statement against "Auto Pilot playing" which I would resolve by letting the help role the advantage die, them comparing and players narrating the success and failure. Then the same help action becomes part of the story and player involving with not actual change to the mechanic. The same auto pilot playing issue could happen (and does) with the primary player preforming a repetitive tasks … Example: Rogue... I check the hall for paths, its clear, I check the 1st door for traps, its clear, I check to see if the door is locked, its open, I enter and check the connecting hallway for traps, it clear, next hallway for traps, its clear. The clear or locked, trapped or not trapped, doesn't matter. My GM will put 10 traps in a hall on doors and floors, with locked doors, and open door... then get annoyed because the rogue/scout character is on auto pilot and the only one doing anything.... doubly annoyed if someone is helping.... but the GM put traps their, the rogue is doing his job, and the "alt scout" is helping because the GM is putting potentially lethal traps everywhere. … If the players are fine … ok. If the GM gets mad about it … well its self inflicted and if the players get annoyed with it they are not mad about the rogue doing his job they are annoyed the GM is making the rogue check for traps every 5ft or the rogue misses a trap and someone takes massive damage. … to me... that is not a mechanical issue. GM just needs allow a number of passive perception successes to allow for the same traps with fewer rolls. Then the rogue only checks for trap when he did not notice them off hand. If you as a rogue walk down a 50ft hall way and spot traps passively 5 out of 5 times you are likely to trust your passive... you miss one trap and almost die your checking every 5ft and with good reason.

 

[Wyvern]

One thing I think was missed that the multiple d20 rolls of a repeated check that only needs one success to win or, very alternately, one failure to blow, is that, while they may make superficial sense, narratively, statistically they add up to near-certain success or failure, respectively, and not because of the best or worst character in the party (that becomes almost meaningless) as 'weakest link,' but just because of the sheer number of rolls - it's an obvious/intuitive bit of modeling that fails as a model of uncertainty.

I'm not really clear on why you think he "missed" that point. I mean, I'm aware of the problem you describe, but isn't the whole point of having a single player roll the check, in order to avoid that problem? Or is there something in the Angry GM's article (which I haven't read -- though now that I know of its existence, I plan to when I have the time) which leads you to believe that he had a *different* reason for suggesting that rule?

Angry's method is a simplification of the process and saves time - all the math is done on a single roll, rather than every player adjudicating a d20 roll.

That's not necessarily true. You still have to go around the table and ask each player what their skill bonus is, to determine who has the highest or lowest modifier. Whereas with the "majority rules" method of group checks, having all the players roll at the same time and then going around the table and getting their results should be just as quick. Especially if they know the DC and can just declare "pass" or "fail" rather than giving a number that the GM has to mentally process.

Wyvern

 

[Wyvern]

A PC can generally do a single task in that 10 minute round: Cast a Ritual, Check for Traps & Hazards, Figure Out a Trap or Hazard, Disable a Trap, Draw a Map, Forage or Loot, Keep Watch, Pick a Lock, Search for Clues, Search for Secret Doors, Figure Out a Secret Door, or Track. These are common tasks, but the PCs aren't limited to them. They're just examples of what takes about 10 minutes and come as a trade-off against each other. If you want to Search for Clues, for example, you're not Keeping Watch. If that wandering monster turns up and happens to be a lurker (it's random), then you're automatically surprised.

I'd still like to see that system, if you can PM it to me. Or, like I suggested in the other thread, post it somewhere that's publicly accessible like Dropbox.

(One of my rules is to not use these flub flavor fluff on a character's strengths - only their weaknesses.)

I'm curious why you'd have that rule. Personally, I think "flub flavor fluff" as you put it is a fun way of explaining why a character failed at a task they should be good at, due to a poor roll. Just the other day in a Starfinder game, after missing two out of three ranged attack rolls, I moved forward to get a better shot and promptly rolled a natural 1 on the attack -- which I rationalized as "I wasn't watching my step and tripped over a rock."

Wyvern

 

[Li Shenron]

World of Warcraft.... Video game RPGs.... Now that Tony Vargas is gone....

Why is it annoying to you that players help each other out in group that has band together to fight deadly monsters, explore trapped dungeons, and solve puzzles TOGETHER... when it actually makes since that they would help each other out as a team for their benefit and the benefit of the group?

I show up to a D&D game, the GM says he needs to move the table, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clean the table off and setup the map, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clear a spot on the counter, I say "I'll help". As iserith said, making a downs side to helping your party encourages them to NOT act like a party in a party based game... this seems silly to me. Sure I could pull my back helping my gm move his table but I don't any rule that is designed to convince players to play solo is a good rule. Any deficit to helping is just that. With advantage and requirement for the helping player to have the skill to help they can still role badly and narrate failure of a twitch in your back but mechanically discouraging the attempt seems against the premise of getting together with my friends to adventure both in and out of the game. I want players to help each other when ever possible because that's what people should do in or out of the game when they are working together for a common goal. Standing around watching one person do all the work you could help is jerk thing to do!

I understanding the restrictions on requiring the actual skills to help, room to get in there, lack of tools etc. but it seems to me if you don't want your players to work as a team there is a fundamental flaw to you sitting together to play a group game. If you want your players wanted to play solo they would play a video game. The inability for more than one player to help is a MUCH larger issue than player helping each other "too much". As iserith said,If your just tired or your players saying "I help" then call for fewer tests.

I really feel like this is GM perspective problem not a game design problem. It doesn't slow down the game, it doesn't cause issues with players, and the only people I have ever seen get mad or upset because a player got helped was the GM who wanted players to fail... oddly enough the commonly fail anyway and GM is mad about it on premise not because it actually worked out. Its the same line of arguments I hear about the Guidance spell. People band that spell because it reduces their chance of failure. The only reason that matters is if the GM WANTS players to fail. A GM … in my opinion… should not have a predetermined outcome in mind for tests but should let the chips fall where they may and have success and fail options. If the GM has a REQIREMENT that players fail, then set the test should auto Fail and their is no reason for the GM to call for role and no chance for the players to use the "help action". Don't blame players for working together to try to succeed.

You are seeing it only from one side.

While you're focusing on the positive aspect of helping each other, you're not considering that a game can become terribly tedious if using Working Together or Guidance becomes a routine that only requires the second play to raise a hand and say "I help him" or "I cast Guidance", over and over and over. This is what concerns people who in this thread are suggesting to use circumstantial limitations. Such limitations are not meant to always impede helping, which would be tedious it its own way, but rather to make sure that not every occurrence is resolved in the identical way. Variability goes a long way to prevent boredom.

 

[iserith]

I'd still like to see that system, if you can PM it to me. Or, like I suggested in the other thread, post it somewhere that's publicly accessible like Dropbox.

Still can't PM you and I don't want to post it publicly.

 

[Satyrn]

[MENTION=2374]Wyvern[/MENTION], I think you'ge got "Conversations" disabled. You can enable it in the general settings bit of your account.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not really clear on why you think he "missed" that point. I mean, I'm aware of the problem you describe, but isn't the whole point of having a single player roll the check, in order to avoid that problem? Or is there something in the Angry GM's article (which I haven't read -- though now that I know of its existence, I plan to when I have the time) which leads you to believe that he had a *different* reason for suggesting that rule?

Maybe I read something into it that wasn't there, but the impression I got wasn't that the problem was being missed, but that the reason for going to a single roll, rather than the existing group check, to solve it was the assumption that in a single-success-succeeds situation the best roll is the one that matters, while in a single-failure-fails situation the worst roll is the one that matters.
IMHO, what's really critical is that there are multiple rolls, and the single-successs/failure decides assumption, though intuitive, is the source of the problem, not the multiple rolls. Thus the majority-rules of the Group Check seems a more logical (and more inclusive/dramatic in play) solution.

While you're focusing on the positive aspect of helping each other, you're not considering that a game can become terribly tedious if using Working Together or Guidance becomes a routine that only requires the second play to raise a hand and say "I help him" or "I cast Guidance", over and over and over. This is what concerns people who in this thread are suggesting to use circumstantial limitations. Such limitations are not meant to always impede helping, which would be tedious it its own way, but rather to make sure that not every occurrence is resolved in the identical way. Variability goes a long way to prevent boredom.

Exactly. As it stands, taking the 'Help' action or casting Guidance is a viable enough choice, but in the sort of instance you're talking about, it's no longer a meaningful choice.