Anstett
Emperor Mongoose
Matt added a new thread along these lines:
How is Working Together supposed to work?
- Thread starter amjxt9
- Start date
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
My thoughts are these, "Why fix something that isn't broken instead of fixing the millions of tiny things that do actually need fixed?" Also, the part about "Martin has been sneaking in some new rules"? F*cking stop that!!! I do not want to have to look through every Traveller book ever printed to find the rules for how to play the game! Keep rules in rulebooks, adventures in adventure books, and major setting details in setting books!Matt added a new thread along these lines:
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
They slipped a rule into one of the supplements that say they can slip rules into the supplements. It’s totally legal now.
CordwainerFish
Emperor Mongoose
Ever been to a Worldcon business meeting? Imagine the smartest people you know playing Nomic and the loser has to buy all the drinks. I once saw someone propose an amendment, then during discussion someone else moved to place a 'not' to reverse its effect. Motion and amended amendment both passed.
Well, you use the method to suit the task*. And you are indeed getting five individual effect numbers from 5 separate rolls. But this uses a common target number, which is not normally in play, unless that's the damn rule I can't find.
*If it's a team co-authoring, that would be a lead writer with helpers providing task chain modifiers. If it's a group all writing their own pieces that would be individual results. My suggestion is in addition to the other four options laid out in the rules for characters working together on a task. And "5 successes" is a bit different to "5 effect results that combine".
Last edited:
boggo2300
Emperor Mongoose
They made a movie about those meetings in the 80's
IMDB page of the Movie of Worldcon Business Meetings
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Vonatar
Mongoose
We’ve recently been discussing this at my table. I’ve tried to use the “Working Together” approach in the book, but my players complain that it’s silly. The helper has to succeed at the check in their own right to actually help, but if the other person still rolls poorly the task fails and they say it just doesn’t feel good to them. They say they feel it increases the chances of failure.
We’ve discussed using a boon die. However I don’t like this. I think a boon die should be played for (i.e. specialist equipment or information acquired - something to create an advantageous situation).
So my current approach is to add the DM of the helper to the test of the person making the check. This is for when 2 players are working together using the same skill for a check. I find it works well because (a) the person making the check likely has the highest DM anyway, (b) the helper must actually be able to help - they have a skill or attribute that contributes positive DM or if an unskilled person insists on helping they contribute negative DM and (c) it makes logical sense that if two suitably skilled people attempt something together then they have a higher chance of success.
In the example of Erik and Kathya forcing open the door, Kathya wouldn’t actually be able to help Erik (unless she has Athletics (Strength) 1) because she only has STR 7 so she’s just not strong enough to make a difference to Erik’s efforts. I think that’s a better situation than Kathya rolling 6+6 which would’ve opened the door (assuming it’s an Average 8+ check) but instead she just gives Erik DM+2 and then Erik rolls 1+2 and fails the check with a total of 5.
We’ve discussed using a boon die. However I don’t like this. I think a boon die should be played for (i.e. specialist equipment or information acquired - something to create an advantageous situation).
So my current approach is to add the DM of the helper to the test of the person making the check. This is for when 2 players are working together using the same skill for a check. I find it works well because (a) the person making the check likely has the highest DM anyway, (b) the helper must actually be able to help - they have a skill or attribute that contributes positive DM or if an unskilled person insists on helping they contribute negative DM and (c) it makes logical sense that if two suitably skilled people attempt something together then they have a higher chance of success.
In the example of Erik and Kathya forcing open the door, Kathya wouldn’t actually be able to help Erik (unless she has Athletics (Strength) 1) because she only has STR 7 so she’s just not strong enough to make a difference to Erik’s efforts. I think that’s a better situation than Kathya rolling 6+6 which would’ve opened the door (assuming it’s an Average 8+ check) but instead she just gives Erik DM+2 and then Erik rolls 1+2 and fails the check with a total of 5.
Last edited:
I think the rule works, it is players that break it by the "oh I might as well have a go as well" approach. If players just sat back occasionally and let another player shine in the skill they have then things would be fine, but players sometimes suffer from FOMO. This is not unrealistic, watch any survival reality show and see the idiots with egos bigger than their skill sets wreck the efforts of less forceful people who actually know what they are doing. It is also a fact of life that two competent people working together can disagree on the right answer or both agree on the wrong answer to the detriment of the task.
I had several skill checks "sabotaged" by a player who statistically was only going to add a negative modifier who insisted on chipping in. I though it would adversely impact the game, but the other players just accepted that this was the price of inclusion (and it is something they also did in real life with each other). When they failed by the 1 point the unskilled character contributed by their DM-1 they ribbed him about it (and he gleefully accepted it). When he got a lucky DM+1 they all congratulated the character on not "F%^$ing up for once." On the rare occasion when he succeeded and the competent characters failed he crowed and jeered them calling them "useless" and bragging how they'd all be dead without him. It may be a British* cultural thing (we call it banter) but a group of men engaging in the same task will generally behave this way in real life. It is what friend groups do. Having someone who is less good than you is a bit of an ego boost and you welcome their interaction because it allows you to feel better about your own efforts. It is also a psychological balm when you fail yourself as you don't feel like you are the only one. You all know that you failed, but as a group you have repeatedly shown that you accept and embrace failure. As long as it is done with good humour and fairly (acknowledging when the weaker characters do achieve rather than glossing over it or stealing their glory) there is no harm. It is harder if people are just generally weaker across the board, but we love the underdog or the plucky amateur (this may be another British stereotype). In RPGs diverse skill sets are de-facto, so it is rarely the case that a character is wholly useless (though some players choose "useless skills". Acceptance of failure makes the whole group stronger and actually led to a much better game than ones I played with power gamers".
The way to embrace this as a referee is to try to avoid "make this roll or you all die" situations. This is probably good advice in general. Equally you can't just keep allowing re-rolls with no consequence or there is no point calling for a roll. Good opportunities are where the check can be made again but with increasing consequences e.g. failed repair rolls use up supplies, as long as there are surplus supplies failure is only costing money. Another is where the story forks, e.g. you have to take the long way round, taking more time or facing other obstacles (where the group may actually be stronger). The failures do not derail the whole adventure, they are another brick in the story and one that binds the characters together.
If you do have an unavoidably pivotal skill check, as a referee you can manage it in the way you manage a child who wants to help you with the DIY. You give the less capable characters parts of the work that won't impact if they mess up, but could save time if they don't. Handing you tools, sorting out the screws, drilling the hole that isn't critical to the final outcome. Referees can recognise this by identifying less challenging elements of the bigger work package (most group work is not everyone doing the same thing). This might not be as a regular task chain, but actually two discrete tasks each taking an amount of time that need to both be completed before the "work" is complete. It will still likely save time with two groups working in parallel vs one individual working on each task sequentially but it allows you to spread the risk (and the weaker team could choose to take longer to improve their chance of success).
In bald, task focussed, game mechanic terms another player only needs to help if the lone player cannot succeed on their own. If they are needing to roll 7 then they don't need the added burden of a potential DM-1 from a "helper". On the other hand a DM-1 isn't going to hinder them that much. If they needed an 11 then turning that into needing a 12 reduces their chance of success to a third of what it was. However if they need to roll 13 after including all the DMs, risking another player adding a negative DM isn't a risk at all. The most pessimistic view is work alone and definitely fail or get some help and maybe fail, the optimistic view is that you might succeed where you absolutely couldn't. I think this is the example with the door. Erik cannot succeed alone. Kathya might just give that extra bit of oomph to make it possible. If they fail together then they have not lost anything as Erik was not going to succeed alone anyway.
The game is not supposed to be one you "win" or a maths exercise, it is an opportunity for roleplaying. Referees and players should not be obsessing about making every skill check. If that is all the game is then there is no point you might as well play Ludo. If a failure at any point will derail the adventure completely then it probably isn't a good adventure. Failure can be fun and we should allow people to fail in a make believe as they may be struggling to "succeed" in real life and really don't need the extra pressure in their time off.
*Banter needs to be a finely judged thing. Having worked with other nations it seems that other cultures could take offence at such behaviour. I have worked with Americans who were so success focussed that pointing out their failure was considered rude. I also worked with Americans who joined in the banter whole heartedly (and where then told off by the others for being disrespectful). There are, of course, also Brits that are pompous and would take offence, and in my experience British Women often do not react the same way (especially when they receive such "criticism" from men) so maybe it is cultural bias or that I am just better at reading the room when I share a cultural frame of reference.
Vonatar
Mongoose
I don’t disagree but this doesn’t change the odd mechanic of the helping player actually having to succeed on the check in their own right to be able to help someone else make the same check. I’m only here considering 2 players engaged in the same task, like the example in the book of trying to force open a locked door.
What my players dislike is the feeling that the helping player actually passed the check. But because they’re only helping the task is still to be resolved by another check which might fail.
I agree it’s a matter of player choice and the roll of the dice. Sometimes it’s better not to help at all. I just think other systems have cleaner mechanics for when two people are engaged in the same task which should, within limits, make the task more likely to succeed.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
I like it!
Similar threads
