Fun fact: I recorded this video almost a YEAR ago, and it kept getting bumped in the schedule due to reasons. True story.

Gonna watch this later but wanted to leave this comment here now: One simple thing I do in my games is whenever a player gives another player advantage through any means the supporting player rolls the second advantage die. Sometimes this is slightly slower, usually its slightly faster, but the players always enjoy feeling like they truly impacted the roll, not just saying "i use help" when they see someone roll a check and tune right back out. Its especially awesome when their dice is what gives another player a nat 20. It also somewhat helps narratively describe how helpful the help really was. I've also noticed if you make a little bit of a show of it, you retain player engagement a little better

For most group checks, I use party average and have them RP like your High and Low method except the whole party gets to participate. For most strength based checks, I use combined rolls instead of combined ability scores because rolling dice is fun. The number of people who can participate is usually dictated by the space available. The whole party can help lift a sarcophagus lid, but only 2 can combine their rolls to lift a gate in a narrow passageway. For rolls where it makes sense for 1 failure to fail the whole party like stealth roll, I use the champion method, except the champion must be the player with the lowest bonuses for that roll.

I use the "high-low" approach for stealth and exploration situations, because that's more of a group activity. As in everyone is fanned out searching, or eyes peeled and on guard. I use the "champion" approach for research and negotiation. As if that person is the project leader. I like the idea of the ability score total for puzzles. I'd probably add the need for a lookout. Lookouts would be responsible for keeping enemies from creeping up on the party while they're solving the puzzle. That way, you have one group check aimed at the puzzle and another group check from the lookouts.

The last option, having 1 person role and others potentially offer support, sounds nice to me, since it would provide opportunities to give every player their individual moment in the spotlight without excluding everybody else. I think I'll give it a try 🙂

I like the way Fantasy Craft handles group checks. It's similar to your "nominate a champion" option, but instead of always being a champion it's *either* a champion *or* a weakest link, depending on the nature of the task the group's attempting. The GM looks at the situation and decides whether it's a case of "one person's success will pull everyone through" (eg, trying to spot hidden enemies) or a case of "one person's failure can ruin it for everyone" (eg, trying to sneak past enemies). In the former case, whoever has the highest bonus to the check rolls, and in the latter case whoever has the lowest bonus rolls. (In years of GMing, I've actually never yet encountered a group roll that didn't easily fall into one or the other category; or rather, any rolls that wouldn't are generally superfluous checks where the dice probably shouldn't be used at all.) This does make those "weakest link" rolls tougher, but that leads to emergent gameplay to try to accomodate that. For example, if you need to sneak past some guards, rather than the whole group going together and hoping the knight in clanking armor doesn't give them away, the sneaky rogue might break off from the group and slip ahead to lure the guards away or otherwise set the rest of the party up for success.

I recently wrote a module where the party had to use a combined strength check to turn a large winch in one room and flip a lever to lock it in place in a separate room. I figured out the average DC I wanted them to hit (15) and then multiplied it by the number of PCs I knew would be available to help turn the winch. So my formula looked like this: DC= 15 x (number of PCs - 1 to flip the lever). Since there are five party members, the four turning the winch needed a combined total of 60 on their Strength checks to succeed.

The way I do it is I use the average. So I sum all the rolls, divide among the number of PCs, and that is the number I use to see if they succeed or fail. That way the 30 from the rogue is not just "1 success", it really does help counterbalance a low result from another partymember

I think I remember when I played 2nd edition they had situations where you needed a combined group strength to succeed in doing a task

For my current PF 1e campaign, for any skill check that can be a collaborative check (perception, knowledge, or disable device) what I've been doing is asking everyone to roll (if they are capable of the check and working together), and the highest roll is the one that "counts", but anyone else who rolls 10 or higher also gets to add a +2 to the highest score; so that it feels like everyone who is able to help is helping in a meaningful way, and players don't feel like they've wasted their skills by having more than one character covering the same or similar roles. Also, if more than one player would have gotten it by themselves without any help then I make sure to give them shared credit. Granted, this also gives them the potential to easily bypass some checks that are intended to be very difficult, and I haven't quite decided how or if I should restrict it when they get to a higher level, but it's been getting a pretty positive reaction so far and also gives them a reason to stay together as a group without splitting up.

I like the high low option. My group tends to spam rolls on group checks so of course someone always succeeds. I think I’ll still give a success for a group perception check to the player that succeeds, but stealth, and deception are places I think this option would work well.

I like it when you Jimsplain things to me. As for your question, most groups I was part of went with RAW, often adding something along the lines of what you called the High-and-Low approach. One DM I played with liked to whip out a calculator and compute the arithmetic mean of everyone's individual checks to compare against the DC because he didn't like how "half the party succeeds" was skewed in favor of parties with an odd number of members while making individual performance less important. A bit kooky, but understandable imo. Anyway, much more noteworthy for the topic of refocusing group checks on narration is the DM who turned all group checks into what amounts to an escalating spiral of High-and-Low, which probably only worked well because the game had a comedic tone. It went something like this: After the group formulated and agreed upon how they wanted to do whatever the group check was about, the DM announced the DC for the check, and everyone involved in the group check made the roll as normal. Then, the players took turns to narrate their individual contributions, starting with the player with the highest result among those who didn't beat the DC, followed by the player with the lowest result among those who did beat it. (The DM moderated this, he determined whomever was up next.) In essence, it was a series of "this is how I slipped up" followed by "this is how I prevented that from leading to failure", escalating in severity. If there were no more successes to follow up on a failure but still more failures, players still got to narrate their slip-ups, which gave us a degree of control over how exactly we messed up. If there were successes left to resolve but no failures to make up for, the DM improvised obstacles or complications that the remaining players were to overcome in their narrations so that they'd still get their moment to shine. Either way, the final narration by a player determined the result of the group check as a whole (i.e. last player failed -> it's a failure, last player succeeded -> it's a success) and was followed by a wrap-up by the DM. Ultimately, the mechanics behind it were half-RAW in that a group check required half the group rounded _up_ to succeed, but felt very different. It took a lot longer to resolve, but was really fun because everyone used it to play into the tone of the game that didn't take itself too seriously.

For the Help Action, I do require that that person be able to describe how they are helping so that it makes narrative sense. It doesn't have to therefore be the exact same skill or action the main character is using. For example, a Dwarf with Stonecunning can point out weak rock formations to Help another character that climbing a natural rock wall. As an engagement thing, I always let the helping player roll the additional d20. This can make for some fun Han Solo and Luke banter as the characters point out how many times they've saved each other.

My Help Rules: Must be proficient. Must roll that skill against a dc of 10. On a pass, give the helped player advantage. Use best result between the 3 rolls (essentially triple advantage but with one of the dice from the helping player). It's been very well received!

I've used all of these, and a few variations of them. One thing i insist on as a DM, is that players can announce what they want their characters to do, but only the DM can ask for a roll. This prevents things like after-the-fact Guidance or Inspiration. I really like using prerequisites for a roll. For instance, something that would only have been discovered by reading about it in a book, I'd only let characters with proficiency in a relevant skill roll. No, you didn't just remember it from idle chatter during the siege. Another one is letting the group know ahead of time that only a certain number can participate, and the check can't be repeated. This urges them to figure out who's best at the check, and how the rest can best support them.

Some great ideas. I’ve been troubled by group chats for awhile some great ideas in the comments as well. Thanks everyone

Wow, just popped into my mind. We got one of those fighters that does not seem to understand how difficult it is to be stealthy in full plate, or chain for that matter. Now my character needs an artificer. Powered two wheeler with big soft tires... lol.

The high & low is brilliant!

Interesting ideas

Nice little video! I checked my old copy of The Sunless Citadel and getting the lid off that sarcophagus is a straight strength check. I did see the combined total ability for lifting a portcullis in a recent OSE adventure. D20 roll under ability checks are also a B/X (OSE) and AD&D mechanic from before skills were introduced.

Great tips thanks! 3:35 - you might enjoy Into the Odd (or most OSR games!) if you're interested in roll under systems! I first learned about it from CoC too and found it so much more intuitive! Rolling within your skill range (instead of a random DC) is so much more rewarding for me! It feels like I'm testing my character not some number the GM came up with.

This was a really fun idea. Thanks for sharing!

Sunless Citadel is from v3/3.5 Combining ability points didn't seem familiar to me, so I pulled out the module (yes, I actually own this one!) and gave it a check. In the original, each of the latches and the lid required a Strength check of DC 21 to open. It had NOTHING about combining ability scores. So this combined-stat system was created JUST for the republication, I guess? Nice find though; definitely something that could be implemented more often in the right situation.

Pretty sure B3 - Palace of the Silver Princess - had a combined ability total to lift a portcullis to get into the castle. For group information gathering/perception checks, if it's information they need or narratively I want them to have, everyone is rolling ... to see who notices it first. Because everyone wants to be 'first'/'best' among equals. (This trick courtesy of Shadowrun, where it was always hilarious when the low-int troll rolled better than the mages :D )

5:26 After this day, I very much agree!

I often use the Weakest link method which is kinda like the first one in the video. if it's performing an action they all have to do. like sneaking past something, I have the PC with the lowest Stealth roll for the party, if they pass the party is fine. if they fail. I then have the player with the highest score attempt to negate the failure then roll against a slightly higher DC. if they pass the party are fine with a slight consequence (maybe the guards hear something and investigate where the party were not where they were going) if they fail then the party is out of luck.

Honestly, I doubt it's a direct mechanic as it is a simplification of a mechanic. Your carry weight/lifting weight was directly determined by your strength score, and listed in pounds. The old version may have simply listed the weight of the lid, or it may have determined what scores would be needed to reach that lift weight, since the scaling was generally linear as in 5/10/15 pounds per strength point. This suggests that the lid was likely 450 pounds using the 15 lb/strength score value. Which kinda makes sense. A group of people working together can lift more weight than one alone.

I let players help each other even if they're not proficient but they have to tell me how they're helping so it's not just "I'm here and I'm helping". No matter what, the consequences of the roll will affect anyone involved so the helper knows they're also at risk.

I require proficiency and am trialing guidance as a reaction but only working once per short rest on each target

🥳❤️👍🏿

I always require my pc to roleplay or explain how exactly they are helping the player who's throwing the dice and if they have no skills related to that, they need to find a convincing way to help with the skills they do have, else I don't allow the help action

I use a VTT and have the players make group checks blind, that only the DM can see. So the players don't know if they succeed or not until I narrate what happens next.

Group checks are just a mechanic.