New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    OK, so I am working on a system and things are progressing well. Slowly, but good stuff is coming out of it.

    But one thing that has come up as I have been working on it is how to handled mass rolls. Basically, if two (or more) characters work together on something, how to resolve that. I have looked and looked for inspiration but so far I have been unable to find a solution to my liking. Which is weird actually I have seen a lot of systems but none of them seem to handle this. I have seen the treat a group of NPCs as a single character (crowd as character) and there are rules for one character helping another out.

    But apparently two PCs facing the same task together, shoulder-to-shoulder, is something that has never happened in the history of role-playing. At least I never found a rule for it. Or if I did I forgot about it. So it could have easily happened. I supposed they must just brake things up into two sub-tasks. That might be the solution I go with, but has anyone seen a system that handles this well? Or at all?

  2. - Top - End - #2

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Why wouldn't it be considered help? The better character for the task makes the main roll, the other character offers "help", in whatever sense help is considered in the system.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    What if you have two roughly equal thieves (in the right type of game, you could have two sneaks, a bruiser a face and a mastermind) and they are both sneaking in... which one is the assistant? You could do some narrative hand waving, after all if they are about equal than their times helping and times leading will balance each other out and be roughly equally effective.

    So you can work it. However it fits into some other design issues I'm having and I'm curious because it never seems to have been done before. And I kind of find that hard to believe.

  4. - Top - End - #4

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    There does not seem to be any group rolls like this.

    Really, for all TRPG's talk of being a ''cooperative groups game'', it is really much more of an Individual Game played in a group", at least by the rules.


    I guess the basic ''point'' idea might work? To do action X, you must do effect of up to X points. So like to open a stuck door would be 10 points, with each character forcing the door adding a roll plus strength. And when it get to 10, the door opens.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bamako

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    First thing to determine is whether there is synergy or not.

    For example, two thieves trying to sneak into a place don't have synergy. Probably even the contrary. So each has to make his attempt separately, and I'd judge even that if one fails both are detected (unless they give good reasons why not).

    If there is synergy, use the best score and add circumstance bonuses for assistance. The exact form these bonuses take will depend on your choice of resolution-system. Single d20 as in D&D will have different solutions for this than multiple dice systems with dice pools such as WoD or Shadowrun. I actually think dice-pool systems might more easily integrate group efforts: you usually need a number of successes to succeed at a task, so you can just rule that if there is synergy dice pools can be pooled. Under a d20 system you might pool your modifiers on a single roll?

  6. - Top - End - #6

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    What if you have two roughly equal thieves (in the right type of game, you could have two sneaks, a bruiser a face and a mastermind) and they are both sneaking in... which one is the assistant?
    In situations like this I like to invert it, the least stealthy person makes the roll and everyone else helps. If they're truly equal in all regards then it doesn't matter who rolls, just pick someone.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    On Stealth: Putting aside the issue of two equal thieves for a moment, why not just have the stealthy one go forward, check for guards and creep back if the guards are there or motion the less stealthy one forward if there are no guards?

    So you guys don't like the stealth example. What about two artificers trying to create a magic item? Or even, if we resolve it on a higher level than most systems, two fighters taking out a mob of enemies? The example doesn't really matter, if I get a solution I am probably going to try it a bunch of places and use something else in a bunch of those.

  8. - Top - End - #8

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    On Stealth: Putting aside the issue of two equal thieves for a moment, why not just have the stealthy one go forward, check for guards and creep back if the guards are there or motion the less stealthy one forward if there are no guards?
    Why not indeed? That sounds like a perfectly sensible idea to me. One could make the argument that two people is better than one, if they're working together they can keep a better eye out in multiple locations and alert each other to problems. But the concept of the sneakiest person clearing the way for everyone else is a perfectly serviceable one too.


    So you guys don't like the stealth example. What about two artificers trying to create a magic item?
    One of them makes the roll, the other one helps.

    Or alternatively, they both have important parts to play in the creation and they're handling different aspects. Both of them roll, both need to succeed.

    Or, to take Linked Tests from Burning Wheel, the one handling the less critical component makes his roll. If he succeeds then proceed to the next roll. If he succeeds well then the second guy gets a bonus on the main roll. If he fails then the second guy gets a penalty on the main roll.

    Or even, if we resolve it on a higher level than most systems, two fighters taking out a mob of enemies?
    One of them rolls, one of them helps.

    Or, each of them make a roll to take on half the mob. So one of them can defeat his half and the other one can die valiantly if that's how the rolls go.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Friv's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    So, there are a number of ways that games have tried to resolve this in the past, many of which are based around the systems involved. A few of the ones I can recall off the top of my head:

    *) Everyone has to roll, and if anyone fails, you're plumb out of luck.
    *) Everyone gets to roll, and if even one person succeeds, all is good.
    *) One person rolls, and everyone else provides a bonus to that roll based on how much they're helping.
    *) Everyone has to roll; you take the best result, but if someone fails, it applies a cost of some kind.
    *) Everyone has to roll, and people can spend some of their successes to cover for people who fail.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2012

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    My favorite system for handling characters assisting each other is in Shadowrun. If one character is helping another they roll their pool first and any successes from that test to the dice pool of the character they are assisting.

    This is probably one of my favorite rules in Shadowrun as it really supports team work.

  11. - Top - End - #11

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Actually, I've thought of one now. Blades in the Dark.

    Sometimes there's a situation where everyone has to roll, like the group sneaking past something. One person is the leader and everyone rolls. You take the best result from the whole group and apply it to everyone, but every person who fails gives the leader one point of stress.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Seto's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Just a thought. I haven't taken to time to consider the ramifications, so it might be dumb. But how about: set a DC. (Say it's DC 10 in a d20 system). The players that roll above the DC pool together their points above the DC. For example Alice rolls 18, Bob rolls 13. They both beat DC 10, so they start with 10 (basic success in the collaborative task). To that, we add 8+3, for a total roll of 21. Thanks to their collaboration, they beat the DC by 11.
    That way, they still both have to roll and beat the DC (the idea is that you have to be competent to offer a contribution of value), but the final result (21) is truly a collaborative score, it's not any one PC's roll.

    Now that approach has issues.
    1) GMs need to define clearly what counts as a collaborative action and what doesn't. If not, it becomes easy to trivialize anything if the whole party rolls for it.
    2) The system must support scaling success. If beating DC10 is enough to succeed in exactly the same way as DC21, there's no point whatsoever to the cumulative points. So, scaling success. Or alternatively, maybe points get cumulative past-half DC, and that half-DC represents the minimum competence floor? (Like, the actual DC is 20, but you add points you got past 10, so Alice and Bob barely made it).
    3) DCs need to be calibrated ad-hoc and adjustable according to how many players participate, because a DC for a collaborative task is gonna be impossible to make if a player tries it alone, and inversely the DC for a single-player task is gonna be trivial if they get help. Which goes to reinforce 1) : it's easier to decide in advance which tasks allow for cooperation (maybe even require it), and which don't.

    To note: if Cathy decides to help Alice and Bob and rolls a 6, there are two ways to handle it: either she didn't beat DC10 so she simply doesn't give a bonus, or she actively gives a -4 malus (in this case, making them fail). Doing the latter could help mitigate 1) and 3), but it also could maybe make a bad roll too punishing for everyone. I still lean towards it.

    So with that idea, I feel like it could work, but requires case-by-case GM adjudication to make sense. There are tasks where you can collaborate and tasks where you can't. (Decide the nature of the roll). Then there are tasks where everyone can lend a hand, like pushing a boulder or solving a riddle, and tasks where only a limited number of people can, like playing a doubles tennis game. (Decide the number of participants). Finally, there are tasks where only a certain limited amount of competence is needed, and an incompetent person is merely useless, like assembling furniture - and tasks where one single incompetent person can really screw it up for everyone, like a baton passing relay race. (Decide if failures are neutral or detrimental). Actually, for that last one, you could make the case that truly collaborative actions by nature (instead of merely "help another") are ones where a single person's failure IS detrimental, and thus always apply the malus.

    What do you think? Too complicated, too much micromanagement?
    Avatar by Mr_Saturn
    ______________________
    • Kids, watch Buffy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bard1cKnowledge
    Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."
    My True Neutral Handbook, a resource for creating and playing TN characters.

    Check out my extended signature and the "Gitp regulars as..." that I've been honored with!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    They are meant to be co-operating, which is an involved process. So a bit of

    Using highest/median/mean/lowest already gives a fair amount of passive (dis)synergy, according to the situation.

    Using some kind of a secondary transferable threshold score like Seto, does seem an easy way to give further grading.
    Many hands make light work, all numbers above a threshold go to boost the highest
    Too many cooks, all numbers below the threshold go to worsen the lowest (if this comes up too often the players are playing wrong)
    Unnamed Case 1, all numbers above the threshold go to boost the lowest
    Unnamed Case 2, all numbers below the threshold go to harm the best (NB this will actually give interesting results, and actually be an interesting gamble)

    Having got some theoretical system that gives a total score, it's not impossible to calculate the distribution and then give a remapping, anyway. So if you wanted a single group roll you could shift things anyway. (e.g. to say that instead of needing a 6 on either of 2 dice, the party needs a 13 on a d20). And to cover each situation is only going to be a smallish table.

    Highest roll used
    original target 1 2 3 4 5 6
    2 players remap X 1 2 5 9 14
    3 players remap ... ... ... ... ... ...
    4 players remap
    Note of course they aren't quite right (the odds of getting a 2 are 0.28, so the target role should be 0.5, and my D20 is clearly starting at 0)
    Using another roll to give the next duodecimal place would allow clear results to be resolved quickly while still allowing arbitrary precision. Or you can just consider the inaccuracies to be a feature.
    Last edited by jayem; 2018-04-20 at 06:51 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    5a Violista's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Next to the Mandolinist

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    On Stealth: Putting aside the issue of two equal thieves for a moment, why not just have the stealthy one go forward, check for guards and creep back if the guards are there or motion the less stealthy one forward if there are no guards?

    So you guys don't like the stealth example. What about two artificers trying to create a magic item? Or even, if we resolve it on a higher level than most systems, two fighters taking out a mob of enemies? The example doesn't really matter, if I get a solution I am probably going to try it a bunch of places and use something else in a bunch of those.
    I think how well the two cooperating characters work together (regardless of the situation) should be partially determined by how well the characters cooperate with each other or how well they work in a team in general. Maybe each character has a "teamwork" stat that can be modified by leadership involved, and their relationship with who they're working with? And how high (or low) their teamwork is affects how the skill is resolved? Or, possibly, there's two stats related to this, teamwork and agreeableness (or something along those lines) which are all affected by different stats and situations. To get more in-depth, relative skill level could also play a role in what happens. Instead of straight using the stats, you could use rolls with the stats as modifiers.

    As examples for each situation, there's many different possible outcomes that teamwork could potentially work.

    Note: in the following examples, I use "teamwork" as "ability to use their skills to the benefit of others" and "agreeableness" as "desire to work in concert with the other"
    Stealth, thieves sneaking in
    (1) The thieves can't successfully work together, getting in each other's way, adding a penalty to each other's check but still keep the better of two rolls: High agreeableness, low teamwork
    (2) The thieves help each other through lookout, adding a bonus or potential re-roll to each other's check: high teamwork and high agreeableness
    (3) The thieves go with their own plans and ideas, but don't get in each other's way, where each just rolls normally for themselves: low agreeableness, high teamwork.
    (4) The thieves can't agree on a good approach, leading to unintentional (or intentional) sabotage, leading to a keep-worst-roll situation: low teamwork, low agreeableness

    Two artificers working on a magic item
    (1) High agreeableness, low teamwork: The artificers get in each other's way, leading to time and resource delays compared to (2) but with potentially better results than working alone
    (2) High agreeableness, high teamwork: The artificers work together, speeding up construction and adding a random bonus to the magic item
    (3) Low agreeableness, high teamwork: The artificers can work together but, through differences in opinion and disagreements, make it standard or substandard quality even though it was faster than normal
    (4) Low agreeableness, low teamwork: The artificers, through disagreement and an inability to work together, get in each other's way, leading to a higher chance of mishap and a keep-worst-roll situation

    Two warriors fighting enemies
    (1) High A, low T: While fighting, the warriors can't coordinate their fighting, leading to enemies escaping/delays in defeating the enemies but the warrior's morale stays up and is resource-efficient
    (2) High A, High T: Due to their cooperation, the warriors have a bonus towards their goal and they defeat the enemies more quickly and resource-efficiently than normal
    (3) Low A, High T: While the warriors don't get in each other's way, they can't agree on a solid method so they both need to succeed on their skill check
    (4) Low A, Low T: The warriors, while trying to work together, just get in each other's way and accidentally sabotage each other, leading to larger penalties and resource waste

    If you need more granularity, you could have positive-little-negative instead of high-low, or you could have it be high-mediumhigh-mediumlow-low, or split into specific values on a 1-20 scale and specific DCs that affect the bonuses or results...and so on.

    tl;dr
    Basically, have two derivative stats/rolls: one about how well they can coordinate their efforts, and the other about how well they can agree about working together. Apply the results consistently to every situation. High rolls/stats lead to bonuses, benefits, and so on. Low rolls/stats lead to penalties, waste, and so on. Mixed (one high/one low or both medium or whatever) leads to some benefits and some penalties relative to just doing it on your own.
    Last edited by 5a Violista; 2018-04-20 at 10:46 PM.
    Favorite sports:
    Fencing
    Football (Soccer)
    Figure Skating
    (and basically everything else that starts with 'f')
    ALSO! Come roleplay FFRPG in the Nexus!
    Nexus Characters.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Each participant rolls at a penalty, add the results?
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Old Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Friv View Post
    *) Everyone has to roll; you take the best result, but if someone fails, it applies a cost of some kind.
    *) Everyone has to roll, and people can spend some of their successes to cover for people who fail.
    These two are more what I am looking for. Although it makes sense that someone really messing up would drag things down, I do want room for someone merely semi-competent to be able to chip in a little bit to avoid the face problem (where people stand aside and do nothing because someone else is better at it). More regular assist rules might world just as well or better in that case, so maybe just have both.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squared View Post
    My favorite system for handling characters assisting each other is in Shadowrun. If one character is helping another they roll their pool first and any successes from that test to the dice pool of the character they are assisting.
    I like that one. I'm surprised ShadowRun off all systems is the one that did it though. Usually it uses "alternating who can contribute here" (aka niche protection) to get everyone working together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seto View Post
    What do you think? Too complicated, too much micromanagement?
    As it is, yes. On the other hand it could be stream lined. I think the best way to do that is use a "contribution threshold" (calculated from the original target), like you said in your alternate example. That way we don't need to rule new target numbers. We will need the calculation though - which would probably just be category of task, so most might use 1/2, but all crafting might take 3/5 for its threshold, and maybe a yes or no on if negative contributions count or are ignored. I think who and how many people can contribute could probably be left to narrative with some guide lines. You can't get fifty people to push on that rock, it is wide enough for 4 at most.

    I don't think that some tasks being impossible for an individual and trivial for a group is necessarily a bad thing. I mean that is why people work together in real life after all.

    I would also reply to more posts but I got distracted, posts built up and now I don't think I have the time for that right now.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    OK, so I am working on a system ... how to handled mass rolls. Basically, if two (or more) characters work together on something, how to resolve that... has anyone seen a system that handles this well? Or at all?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    On Stealth: Putting aside the issue of two equal thieves for a moment, why not just have the stealthy one go forward, check for guards and creep back if the guards are there or motion the less stealthy one forward if there are no guards?

    So you guys don't like the stealth example. What about two artificers trying to create a magic item? Or even, if we resolve it on a higher level than most systems, two fighters taking out a mob of enemies? The example doesn't really matter, if I get a solution I am probably going to try it a bunch of places and use something else in a bunch of those.
    How do you define "well"? If you mean realistically, as a good simulation, well... then your examples are perfect.

    Stealth: additional people provide a penalty to the worst roll. Go ahead, try and sneak an army anywhere.

    Artifice: depends on synergy. If you have two programmers who complement each other well, help shore up each other's weaknesses, help each other out, they can finish the project in 40% of the time, and produce a better product. Otoh, if they lack synergy, or one is clueless, it might take twice as long, and produce a worse product to boot.

    So, what do you want?

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    How do you define "well"? If you mean realistically, as a good simulation, well... then your examples are perfect.
    Artifice: depends on synergy. If you have two programmers who complement each other well, help shore up each other's weaknesses, help each other out, they can finish the project in 40% of the time, and produce a better product. Otoh, if they lack synergy, or one is clueless, it might take twice as long, and produce a worse product to boot.
    Yes you won't find a single 'co-oporation' system that deals with mass events [without taking into account what the activity was].
    In the absence of interaction
    Stealth, one failure counts as a group failure
    Trivia Quiz, one success counts as a group success.
    Relay, everyones outcome contributes (you could use the mean or total) before comparing as a success

    So you will need a brief heuristic to at least categorise them.
    a) Does it make sense to describe it as individual passes or is it a team result.
    b) If it is post assessment look to see if it's X and Y must, or X or Y.

    By which I mean, you could describe a stealth mission as "A has to be undetected and B is undetected..."
    You could describe a trivia quiz as "A knows the answer or B knows the answer"
    While a relay you can't split up like that.
    And each of these clearly behave differently.

    I think you'll end up with around 10 categories (although with a fair degree of symmetry)
    Spoiler
    Show

    This is a guess, but 5 is easy, and at 7 I'm running out.

    Team good as total (no overlap) (E.G getting objects out of a building)
    Team good as total less overlap (E.G answering lots of questions)
    Team good as best member (E.G answering 1 question)
    Team good as middlish/average member
    Team good as worst member
    Team good as anti-total with overlap (E.G sequential stealth)
    Team good as an anti-total

    When actually taking into account interaction you get more complex effects. You could possibly treat it as a linear combination. Or have a system of modifications.
    In addition some activities you have to commit too, others you can add more resources to the problem as you see the result
    Spoiler
    Show

    E.g there are three of you in the room and a stuck door, but ideally you want as many people as possible to have weapons drawn.
    The first tries and it doesn't move (it shouldn't then be easier on a second attempt, so you can't reroll) but you should be able to add an extra person and see if that's enough.
    Last edited by jayem; 2018-04-22 at 11:37 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    To 5a Violista: As much as that is a rich and detailed system... where do those derived stats come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Stealth: additional people provide a penalty to the worst roll. Go ahead, try and sneak an army anywhere.
    They managed to sneak five armies onto the beaches of Normandy did they not? Stealth is a bit more than darting across an alleyway without a guard noticing you. Or you could say I see stealth as quite a bit more than "move silently". Not that I would consider Operation Overlord a stealth check (followed by some combat) but general principles of misdirection and finding places where people aren't watching as closely can be applied on behalf of those who don't know how to work them. ... I'm not really sure why I am going on about this but people seem to have a narrow view of the subject. Also one that often makes it less fun to play.

    Quote Originally Posted by jayem View Post
    Yes you won't find a single 'co-oporation' system that deals with mass events [without taking into account what the activity was].
    Yeah I'm not really trying to, the particular one I am looking for are when we have characters working "shoulder-to-shoulder" with contributions of the same type on a single task. Many others have already been covered. Of course even that, as has been pointed out, has sub cases. So of those I am more interested in the synergistic uses. There are a couple of reasons for this, but the biggest is probably the simple fact the anti-synergistic cases will be avoided - and hence any rules I right for them unused - when ever possible. Unless the system forces them to work together why would people would together in a place that it makes it harder? So yeah, maybe I will create rules for when you have to drag along a dead weight, but that isn't a priority. Plus with luck it will just be the opposite of the synergistic case.

    So I hope that explains what I am looking for.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    They managed to sneak five armies onto the beaches of Normandy did they not? Stealth is a bit more than darting across an alleyway without a guard noticing you. Or you could say I see stealth as quite a bit more than "move silently". Not that I would consider Operation Overlord a stealth check (followed by some combat) but general principles of misdirection and finding places where people aren't watching as closely can be applied on behalf of those who don't know how to work them. ... I'm not really sure why I am going on about this but people seem to have a narrow view of the subject. Also one that often makes it less fun to play.
    Player skills vs character skills, maybe?

    I don't generally want a "come up with a good plan for me" skill on my character sheet. I expect my rolls to be at the level that I can't - or wouldn't enjoy - interact(ing) with the fiction.

    If I'm bluffing my way onto the beaches of Normandy, I want that to be one bluff roll... or a fun minigame.

    If I'm sneaking into a crime boss's office, I want that to be one Larceny roll... or a fun minigame.

    Now, that fun minigame might well involve (edit: me explaining my plan, followed by) a number of opposed stealth vs perception rolls, and, personally, I'm fine with the notion that, when I plan foolishly enough that I encounter 20 guards, it's a foregone conclusion that it's not if, but when, someone notices me. In my mind, that's bloody brilliant!
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-04-22 at 01:37 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    5a Violista's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Next to the Mandolinist

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    To 5a Violista: As much as that is a rich and detailed system... where do those derived stats come from?
    Because you are creating your own system, presumably the stats would be derived from other stats that exist in your system, appropriately balanced for your system.

    As an example using D&D, they could be derived from the following:
    Since I defined Teamwork as the ability to use their skills to the benefit of others, the Teamwork roll could be 1d20+a synergy bonus for every 5 ranks in the relevant skill+any bonus from teamwork-related feats+wisdom bonus/penalty for each player-a penalty related to the task or number of participants

    Since I defined Agreeableness as the "desire to work in concert with the other", the Agreeableness roll could be 1d20+charisma bonus/penalty for each player+a bonus/penalty dependent on the Hostile/Unfriendly/Indifferent/Friendly/Helpful scale+any relevant magic effects+some sort of synergy bonus with Diplomacy/Sense Motive/Intimidation

    So, in that system, it would work basically like every other roll or check that depends on a skill and other modifiers. In your system, you'd base it on what makes sense in your system.

    So, basically, the derived stats come from other relevant stats in your system.
    Last edited by 5a Violista; 2018-04-22 at 06:46 PM.
    Favorite sports:
    Fencing
    Football (Soccer)
    Figure Skating
    (and basically everything else that starts with 'f')
    ALSO! Come roleplay FFRPG in the Nexus!
    Nexus Characters.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    I know that they were individual characters, not group skill checks, but I love Bob & Helen Parr's takes on Stealth.

    Bob continuously keeps making other skill checks so as not to have to make a Stealth check. Helen keeps making (and, often, falling) stealth checks. They are both constantly dealing with consequences of failing or being unable to make the roll.

    That's what I'd like a stealth minigame to look like. Otherwise, just let me make a single roll, so we can get to the good stuff.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    To 5a Violista: I think I could make a that work. Teamwork could be a straight modifier and agreeableness as a kind of complication. Its not laid out like D&D at all so I would have to modify it a lot. The main thing I am worried about is complexity.

    To Quertus: See that is the thing, although Bob (in particular) was not sneaky as we usually think about it. But he got to the "inner sanctum" of the evil base without the alarm getting raised. So he was ultimately successful in his stealth. If that is how someone playing a brawler character wants to flavour their stealth check, I wouldn't disagree. Now I want to do a deep dive on stealth skills, this is getting off topic for this thread though.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    To Quertus: See that is the thing, although Bob (in particular) was not sneaky as we usually think about it. But he got to the "inner sanctum" of the evil base without the alarm getting raised. So he was ultimately successful in his stealth. If that is how someone playing a brawler character wants to flavour their stealth check, I wouldn't disagree. Now I want to do a deep dive on stealth skills, this is getting off topic for this thread though.
    I mean, it's your thread, right, so you can say that it's off topic, but... I think I'm going somewhere on topic with this. I think.

    So, let me describe some gameplay. Imagine if Bob's player simply rolled stealth, on some ICE-style stealth table. Only, the stealth table just has point values for success, and complications. Bob's player then narrates what actually happens, "buying" complications of damaged property, guards who can be noticed as no longer on shift, guards who can be questioned later, etc. Or, Heck, maybe it's just one "success" value, and Bob's player is buying more success with these complications.

    The relevance here is, for your question, each player could make a roll on their own table (on my "strength-based stealth helper" table, I scored three blues and a red, for example), and narrate what success or complications they add.

    Mind you, I think I would personally hate such a system. But it's an idea for you to look at.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-04-23 at 01:44 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    More thoughts on this: you can express that synergy I was discussing this way, too. Some characters may have abilities like:

    * can spend d6 points of Success to convert one Red complication to a Yellow complication, usable twice per roll.

    * can convert any number of Orange complications into d3 Yellow complications each. Must do so to at least one Orange complication if any exist.

    * Thrill Seeker: add a number of points of Success equal to the highest number of Complications rolled by any single player.

    * Risk Averse: attempts an Exit Strategy whenever one or more Red Complications present.

    More food for thought.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    To Quertus: I can totally see a system that has this one massive table (probably taking up a full side of a reference sheet along with some notes on how to use it) where you convert difficulty, your skill and a roll into pass/fail (strong/weak?), complications and benefits (possibly also graded and colour coded). There are then lists of complications and benefits for different skills and situations.

    ... I was thinking about how I wouldn't want to use this for small things, but maybe the results could be currency you use to spend to by successes (or concede a fail) in a scene. I'm getting of topic. Point is I think the system would probably be designed around this big table. Also by itself it does not solve the people working together problem.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Also by itself it does not solve the people working together problem.
    Ok, what are you trying to solve that this doesn't? That will inform how I can best attempt to approach an answer.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    Now I am wondering if it does and I just missed something. I will describe it either way. I'm going to take a different approach than I did previously to try and see if that works.

    How do you decide if a group succeed in a task. Not an individual but the whole group. In addition, the success of the group cannot be described as a combination of the success of individuals in the group*, and the skill of the individuals should still matter** although perhaps less so. Although it is not a requirement I would also like to remove the necessity of a "primary" (someone who makes the check with assistance).

    Combining partial results and (as it occurs to me now) graded aid another bonuses would work, but I haven't quite found a way to do it that clicks with me. Does that help clarify the problem?

    * This rules out checking if everybody/anybody passed by themselves.
    ** Which is why flat aid another bonuses do not work.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    MN-US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    What about something like Group DC and Individual DC - If someone passes their individual DC by 1, they add 2 points to the group total, and can earn extra points for every, I dunno, 4 points they clear it by. If the Group DC is beaten, everyone succeeds, if the Group DC isn't passed, those that passed their Individual DC's succeed, and those that didn't suffer the consequences? The party could pass on the merits of someone better 'helping out', but if things don't work out, they can still have their successful rolls feel useful.

    If Alice, Bob, and Charlie are working on disabling a series of traps together, the Group DC may be something like, 5. A regular success from each person would clear this challenge. The individual DC is 13. Alice gets a 14 on her check, adding +2 and clearing her from potential harm. Bob, the trapsmith, gets a 23, clearing the DC by 10, for a +4 total to the group DC, and Charlie gets a 9. He is going to suffer some if the group check fails.

    The Group's Check is 6, vs the DC of 5, so Bob and Alice covered for Charlie's misstep, and the trap was disabled. Had Bob only gotten a 15 on their check, the group would have scored a 4. Alice and Bob may have been able to get out of the way of the triggered trap, but Charlie would have taken it full force.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: It's a Group Effort: Resolving Mass Rolls

    For an invention/answer. I think a system where you have incremental hint steps and need to achieve say 5/10 of them and then achieve each of these depending on the best of the group would have quite a nice emergent high level synergy.

    So say we've got a moderately smart guy who has a 40% chance of getting each hint, and a dump stat guy who gets 20%.

    By himself the smart guy will get on average 4 hints, and has a 37% of getting the whole solution by himself.
    By himself the dumpstat will get on average 2 hints and has a 3% chance of getting the whole solution by themselves.
    The combination on average have a 52% chance of getting 52% each hint, and a 67% chance of getting the magic 5

    It would be at the cost of a LOT of rolls though, but if that was the targeted emotion that would probably be fair enough. With this system as well you'd literally see the "Jar-Jar you're a genius" moment, or I can nearly see the solution but...

    Spoiler: Reducing to a single roll
    Show

    You could of course reduce the group roll to a single roll, fairly trivially if you know the probability of passing the threshold, less easily if it's more complicated.

    For a threshold T in N die, and with each player having a different P chance
    You could straight out use the appropriate binomial distribution
    2) In excel, use BINOMDIST(A1,B1,product(C1:C10),1), with T,N in A1,B1, and 1-P in C1 for player 1, etc...

    Alternatively you want to do the adjustment on stage...(2 calculations and a lookup in a single table)
    You can work out the mean and standard deviation of the total number of successes. For the 40% guy, it is 40% and 15%. which means the magic 4.5/10 threshold (I.e. 4.5 rounds up to 5) is bang on 0.33 S.D away.
    If you had a table for the confidence intervals against S.D you could then find what you need to roll under on a D100.
    If you can pretend it's normal (which is a bit ropey, but it was a crude model anyway), the chances of being more than 0.33 S.D above the mean are 37%
    [which in the end came out pretty close after many false starts, and getting things backwards]
    For the 20% guy it's 20% and 13% so 45% is 2 S.D. above the mean, the chances of getting beyond that are about 2.3%
    [which is a bit off, but wouldn't be picked up on in less than 1000 rolls]
    And for the team the mean is 52% the S.D is 16% so the threshold is actually half an S.D below the mean, and we get about 69% chance of passing.
    I.E.
    1) Multiply all the (1-P) together, then take that away from 1 to get the 'hint' success chance (Q).
    [If you don't mind losing one degree of nuance, this could be done once ahead of session, with T,N changing to make tasks easier or harder]
    2) Find T-Q and then divide by sqrt(Q*(1-Q)/N)
    [multiplying by (T-Q) by 2*sqrt(N) will be exactly right if Q=0.5 and 66% right if Q=0.1]
    3) Look that value up in column A of a table, then look up in column B (where B1 "=NORMDIST(A1,0,1,1)")
    [cleverer people could pre-fix that table to take into account the previous error]

    Spoiler: Other adjustments
    Show

    If you had negative hints you had to roll to avoid, or some other means of losing points if any roll were under a threshold, this could represent the load giving a false lead that then needs repairing. With a nice setup, it could be an interesting gamble as to whether it is worth including everyone.
    You could then just need a positive score of say +3, which could be interesting if there were a cost for each attempt.

    A physical project would be slightly different, say the synergy of an assembly line.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •