Everyone trying their own rolls vs everyone supporting

[logan9a]

Thinking the easiest way to do this (when it makes sense to the GM - example navigation, etc) is 'just take the worst result' if everyone wants to make their own rolls.

Otherwise, how would you know 'who actually made it' vs 'who thought they had made it but was wrong'?

[PotatoJedi]

I think in those cases just ask for one single roll + any supporting rolls. So you designate one primary navigator and then the supporting navigators. Not sure what else this would apply to. Might not work for other things but I can't think of any right now.

[logan9a]

I usually do however people often say "Why can't we all try our own navigation rolls?" to which I would respond "How would you know who was right?"

Also happy to do this for bomb defusing if everyone is going to take their own crack at it.

Etc.

[Scott]

Inconsistent. Any other skill you know that you have failed. You only get a false positive if you fumble. Don't make failing the same as fumbling.

[logan9a]

But how would you know you'd failed something like navigation? Also with a fumble I mess with them as opposed to letting them believe the wrong person.

I suppose I could say (if one person made it and one failed) - one person thinks this way and one thinks you should go the other way but you don't know who is right.

But it breaks down if there are three people unless I lie about the results or give three different directions. To 'know' who got it right is metagaming.

[PotatoJedi]

Honestly in the two situations you gave as an example it doesn't make sense for more than one person to be the primary anyway. Unless the three people are competing against each other in navigation/bomb defusing, one person will always be the one they end up listening to. So just have them decide who that is, then the others can support. If the primary person fails, then someone else can give it a go (if it makes sense to do so).

[Scott]

Aug 12, 2019 18:17:27 GMT logan9a said:

But how would you know you'd failed something like navigation?

You're an avid traveler. Don't tell me that you've never not known that you didn't know which way to go. All I'm saying is that a failed navigate should be an "I don't know" response, not confidently leading people the wrong way. They might have to travel a short way to know that they don't know, but once they know that they don't know, then others should be able to make their attempt. So strictly speaking, everyone can try, but the attempts should be made sequentially rather than all at once. Just like if everyone wants to try to pick a lock, you don't let them all shove tools in at the same time, rather it's PC 1 tries, if they can't get it then they let PC 2 try, if they can't get it then they let PC 3 try.

So it should be:

Fumble: Wrong way, maybe bad stuff?
Fail: I don't know
Success: Right way
Crit: Right way, shorter or safer route?

Not:

Fumble: Wrong way and you die
Fail: Wrong way
Success: Right way
Crit: Right way, shorter or safer route?

If people insist on rolling navigate simultaneously, then they are probably just standing there arguing, much the same way that two players rolling lockpicking at the same time are instead trying to push each other out of the way to get at the lock.

[logan9a]

Often you think you know the way but you are wrong. This is why people get lost in the woods and die.

[Scott]

Aug 15, 2019 16:03:49 GMT logan9a said:

Often you think you know the way but you are wrong. This is why people get lost in the woods and die.

NPCs fumble a lot.

[logan9a]

LOL. No, I'm good with doing it the way I always have.