Dealing with skill rerolls by several players

Question

I could use some advice as a GM on how to handle rolls which get repeated by several players one after the other.

Example 1

The PCs stand in front of a locked door and try to force it open. The tough guy: "Stand back, I'll handle this!" Gives it a try, fails his roll, the door stands. Up comes PC number 2. "Okay, I throw myself against the door". Rolls okay, but not sufficient; the door holds. Eventually, the Elf with back pain or the paraplegic Halfling succeeds with a lucky roll.

Example 2

The PCs come upon a strange herb that they found somewhere. First player checks herbology, zip. Second player, "Maybe I know the kraut?", rolls, nothing. Third player...

This happens kind of frequently in our game. I'm not entirely sure it is a bad thing, but somehow it feels wrong. Firstly it greatly changes the balance of skill checks: 'sneaking' rolls, for example, must be succeeded by everyone in the group, 'herbology' only by one out of many. Secondly, I feel it lessens the satisfaction of actually solving problems unless the players explicitly want their characters to work together (and somewhat act it out, maybe). It boils down to "Okay, you try it first, then you, then you, and you with 0.1% chance of succeeding, why don't you give it a shot as well?"

The problem is lessened in some situations:

• Some skill checks can have bad effects if they go wrong (e.g. Surgery, First Aid).
• Others will take time/resources that not all PCs are willing to spend.

But in many cases there is no game mechanical or rational way why players should not do it.

• Do you think this is an issue, i.e., does this bother you as a GM?
• How do you handle these kinds of situations? (Ignore it? Forbid rerolls by other players? Add penalties to consecutive tries?)

I am totally okay with answers involving just talking to your players, or suggesting they try this or that. I don't necessarily need a game-mechanical way to address this issue.

Answer 1

A few games resolve this situation by dealing with it explicitly in the rules, and building the check system to accomodate how it handles this situation. The most notable one is Burning Wheel and its Let It Ride rule:

The result of one test stands for the duration of the situation.

When in a situation like this, the success or failure of the attempt comes down to one roll. Players may cooperate or not, but once the dice are cast for the first time, the door will/will not be open and there can be no new roll by anyone for that goal until the situation significantly changes (like, they go fetch a battering ram, or they return a month later).

Lots of Burning Wheel's rules are tightly enmeshed in the rest of the rules, but this is one of the few that is easily separated and portable to other games. If your game of choice already has rules for assisting, you don't even need to houserule anything once you let your players know that you'll be following Let It Ride from now on. In the situation you describe, the fiction doesn't even need to change. "We all take turns bashing at the door. Eventually one of us must get through!" After establishing their method and their goal, they decide who's making the roll, everyone else adds bonuses for helping, and then the one roll is made.

This rule was built into Burning Wheel specifically because the author got the same feeling as you, that there's a problem with this common occurrence in games with skill systems. Most games test for the action, which under some circumstances virtually guarantees success (or failure) by just repeating the action. Instead of using task-based resolution like that for skills, Burning Wheel uses an intent-based resolution, where your goal is why you roll (and only once), but what you roll is determined by the method you use. Let It Ride is a key part of its intent-based resolution, in that it reminds everyone that they only get to do this once, so they need to bring all their resources to bear – or not, if someone in the party is opposed to the attempt. Either way, everyone has to commit to either pursuing this goal or not, before the roll happens. There's no hanging back to try after, because there's no second chance.

---

As an added bonus, it fixes a related problem, because the rule binds the GM too. The GM is forbidden from calling for multiple tests for the same task, so there's none of this sort of thing designed to railroad a failure:

GM: Roll to climb! Hm, success… okay, you get 10 feet up without falling. Roll again! Another success… What's your skill level? Oh, that's pretty good… So you reach a ledge 30' up. You've got 100' to go, so roll again! …Success. You get halfway up. It's a long way down now. Roll climb. Aw, you failed! You plummet to your death. But wait! Giant eagles save you and fly you halfway around the world.

Answer 2

Do they actually need to roll? No, seriously, why are they rolling dice to do this?...

You can have automatic successes if the character's skill is high enough. This would solve the vast majority of the problems you seem to have. Second, some things will not be possible unless you have a high skill enough. I might know kung fu but that does not help me in a parkour contest. Lastly, maybe a dice roll gets you something quicker. It might be worth rolling if you wanted to get the herb use now while knight Random is bleeding out but if you have a few days to spare, you do not need to roll.

If you insist on rolling, dice roll might not yield a binary result. It could mean you partially succeed. A door might bashed may make you fall loudly on your floor in the room. A herb might suggest that it is a healing one, but not give you the side effects or how to keep it. A fauna roll might tell you that the critter is a big cat but not that it is an juvenile with Mummy probably nearby.

Finally, whatever you decide on, I firmly believe that dice rolls should help enhance the story and not hinder it.

Answer 3

One good way to handle this is to assign one person as the "leader" in the action, and the others as "assistants." Even if they're undertaking the tasks independently, you can flavor their actions as the use of whatever aid-another mechanic your system uses. ("I loosened it for you!"; "Your joking comment reminds me of something my grandmother once told me about herbs.") Successful rolls give the leader a bonus to their attempt; failed ones add a penalty or use up precious time.

Answer 4

Only bother with rolls when they matter. If time makes no difference and there’s no consequence for failure, there’s no reason to break out the dice at all. If time does matter, then everyone giving it a try wastes time, and that might be important.

Answer 5

I have no problem with multiple rolls, on the understanding that extra attempts cost time and effort and cause attention. If characters A then B then C try to smash a door then it takes three times as long (and makes three times as much noise) as a single attempt.

Sometimes multiple attempts are allowed, by different or the same characters (it makes sense to allow multiple attempts at a door because each attempt weakens the door a little); sometimes they are not (if no-one in the party can translate the runes then it doesn't matter how many times they try). I decide on a case-by-case basis.

I think knowledge rolls, however, should be treated differently. For example, I'd roll (secretly) for all players who might possibly be able to identify the herb and then distribute results (verbally or by note). It is entirely possible that three characters think "this is kingsfoil" but one thinks "this is parsley" and all are certain they are correct. If nothing else, knowledge rolls are different in that I prefer to make the roll, out of sight of the players.

More generally, I follow the "karma, drama and fate" guideline (from, if I recall correctly, the game Everway). If a character attempts an action, I ask "does it make sense that the character might be able to do this?" (karma) and "does the success or failure affect the story?" (drama). If the answer to the first questions is "no" then the attempt either cannot be made or fails automatically. Otherwise, if the answer to the second question is "no" then the attempt succeeds automatically. Otherwise roll the die (fate).

Or, to put it another way, if the STR 18 warrior has failed and the STR 17 cleric has failed then I'm not even going to roll for the STR 8 mage trying to bash open the door.

Answer 6

It's the only way through...

When you absolutely need to break through a door, and there's nothing chasing you, you can let them make multiple "break door", "pick lock" and "search for hidden level" checks as they like. However, after the third failed attempt, a wandering monster/police/guard shows up.

Depending how much noise the team has made, they may be armed and ready. They can either come through the door, opening it, or something happens during combat that smashes the door open.

This is the price for failure. They still pass the obstacle, but with consequence.

Knowing your stuff

In the case of identifying herbs, allow the team to make one roll, with assist rolls from anyone who's interested. This check represents several minutes of collective analysis.

Select the roll target for the leader, and a lower target for the assistants. For each assistant that rolls over the target, the leader gets a small bonus to his roll. For each assistant that rolls under the target, the leader suffers a small penalty due to misleading input.

This gives the assistants responsibility. If they don't know their herbs, they're best to stay out of the conversation.

Answer 7

When I'm presented with such a situation, I usually ask everyone to roll the die at the same time. Whover got the better result determines whether the roll is a success or not.

Playing D&D 3.x this usually means that the "herbalist" has better chances at knowing herbs but anyone can contribute. I also allow them to roll first and choose later who's helping who, but this is an house rule.

For things that can be repeated even by the same character (smashing down the door) if they are in a hurry it's ok that they choose to help someone or try to bash it themselves, otherwise the stronger guy can just take 20 and do it. It takes time but eventually it's done.

Answer 8

When it makes sense to do so, I let people help each other. In the case of the door for example, there might be room for two people at the door to try and force it. One person makes the roll to do it, and the second person makes a (significantly easier) roll to assist. If the second person succeeds, the first person gets a bonus to their roll (it's +2 in D&D 3.5e, you may need to make up something appropriate for your game if no actual rule exists).

Sometimes this makes sense. Everyone for example can search a big room at the same time. They can either do it by splitting the room up into sections for each person (everyone makes a search check, the search goes a lot faster), or everyone can search everywhere (the search leader makes a search check, everyone else makes an assist check, the search takes longer but has better odds). The nice thing about something like that is that people get to feel like they're helping even if they don't have a high score in a skill.

This can go wrong, sometimes. If people are searching but they don't have the ability to find traps, you need to discount their rolls while deciding if a trap was found (you can't assist something you can't do). Delicate work like lock picking can't really be assisted because five pairs of hands are not better than one. Your herbology example is something I'd probably allow to be assisted if they were doing research in a lab (someone can be the lab assistant), but not to just look at something and identify it (you either know that or you don't).

Because of the subjective nature of it, YMMV. It's worked well for me, though.

Answer 9

My suggestion and something I've actively tried to do is use all skills as a Passive skill which unless they are trying to do something out of the performance range of their character they can achieve (obviously you would need to create a passive skill check success). Alternatively you can have a target success number (lets say 33 for example) and each attempt contributes to a total successes, thus even when the brawny fighter flubs it, he still contributes to the overall weakening of the door.

Answer 10

There is an awesome article you should see (a serious of articles): The tendency surrounding this roleplaying device is to look at your character sheet and try to find the right skill to fit into the slot, then find some way to work it in through roleplay. Since skill challenges are structured roleplay however, what’s important first and foremost are the actions your PCs take. Instead of:

PC:”I’ll intimidate. I rolled an 18.”

GM: “The kobold shakes in fear. One success.”

It is:

” I grab this kobold by the shoulders, nostrils flared. ‘Where is it, you worthless maggot? WHERE IS THE JEWEL?’ Intimidate…got an 18.”

GM: “‘ I-I-I-I can’t tell you, the master, he…he will kill me if I tell you! ‘ The kobold is trembling now, though. He looks ready to crumble. One success.”

Roleplay makes all the difference between an exciting and fun skill challenge and a boring bland dice-roll. Conversely, you get maximum action out of your players by giving them good reaction and feedback to their actions. If PCs aren’t getting it, you can shake them up. Roleplay and withhold some of the feedback to draw them in:

PC: “I’ll intimidate. I rolled an 18.”

GM: “‘Aaaaaaagh! No! Don’t hurt me!’”

PC: “‘…then tell me what I want to know.’”

GM: “I can’t! My master will kill me if I do!”

PC: ” ‘You’re not dealing with your master right now, are you?’”

GM ” Good stuff. One success.”

In the next part of this series, we’ll discuss the special rules for setting scenes in skill challenges, and the art of back-and-forth. Visit: http://at-will.omnivangelist.net/2008/12/how-to-make-a-skill-challenge-fun/ Go ahead and read it!

Answer 11

We've used the passive skill roll solution for a while, for perception. The problem is that if one person is really good at something (say spot) and another is just quite good, his ability adds very little to the party, since he'll never spot something the really good one missed.