If players want to game the system by each making individual tests, then yes, each roll of the dice advances the turn clock by 1. It makes sense within the fiction, too. Everything gets done a little faster if everyone who can lends a helping hand. I find the little point in helping comment kind of odd. Either you’re throwing a lot of Ob 1-2 tests at your group or your twists don’t really have any teeth, because soloing Ob 3 tests right out of the gate is pretty much guaranteed to result in failure, especially if you’re trying to rack up some checks. The point of helping is that you increase your odds of success.
As others have said, no one is going to be Batman in this game. They just don’t have access to enough of the skill list for that to really happen. What usually happens is that characters take turns volunteering for tests and the others pitch in to help, since failing 100% of the rolls is pretty taxing.
What I meant by helping wasn’t sometimes the best idea was when players don’t have checks. For success the best plan is the highest skill person make the actual roll and the others with that or helping skills provide support. But without checks available to the support players then all that happens is the highest skill player mounts up advances and possibly checks while the helpers (with no checks) get zero. It means a lower skilled person, if you think about, wouldn’t be able to get many checks or chances of advancing because it makes more sense to have the higher skilled person roll and the lower skill support. Unless you are wanting to fail of course.
EDIT: And I was wondering how groups handle this. Vanguard’s idea of having turns at rolling seems a fair approach to me.
I would hazard that those turns need to arise organically, but it almost always happens this way except in the case where skills get duplicated. It’s in those cases where players need amicably decide who should make the roll, but I’ve never had a problem with that at my table.
So you have a party of characters that all have different specialties, what’s wrong with that? That’s what a team is. If everyone advanced all their skills all the time you’d have a party of Rambos instead of a diverse team of specialists. That would kill the essence of dungeon delving. Besides which, the helpers don’t need to advance their skills because as long as they have a 1 or higher they can help, being more skilled doesn’t help more.
Sure a problem arises if one of your specialists is missing, but that merely presents a new and interesting challenge and the opportunity for rapid advancement. The only time this would be a problem is if you have a party consisting of one Halfling burglar and 3 slightly suckier Halfling burglars, so that everyone basically has the same specialty. Then again, that’s probably one of the reasons they don’t allow different party members to choose the same skill to underline as their specialty, right?
Finally, just because the helpers have no advancement or opportunity to earn their own checks doesn’t mean they shouldn’t help. The checks thing doesn’t even really matter because checks are shared in camp, having a big pile all to yourself doesn’t help you because you can’t use a second check until all your allies use one. Also helpers not only make the test easier, but they have the opportunity to roleplay how they are helping. Really they have to roleplay how they are helping, you shouldn’t just be handing dice over and saying “I help with Dungeoneering”. The more detailed and smart their descriptions of help, the more likely the whole thing will turn into a Good Idea and cost no turns.
edit: the helpers do risk the consequences of a failed result though, so the real question for helpers is whether they think the task in question is a fools errand that can only get them hurt.
Also, in the case of skill duplication, if someone already rolled and earned some checks, they are in a prime position to be helper next time around since they have a check to spend on the test.
At the risk of being pedantic: A failed roll that results in a condition will affect the character that made the test and the helpers. A failed roll that results in a twist can affect anyone and everyone the GM chooses, including those who chose not to help or were unable to help. Sitting out a test does not necessarily mean that you remain safe.
Also, in general, checks are precious things. In my experience, they only occasionally get spent to gain experience from helping, maybe once every few sessions. As noted in the 'graph above, everyone potentially pays the price to earn checks. There is a social constraint to spending them on experience. Groups often see it as wasteful and selfish.
These kinds of situations are why Captains are for. Torchbearer is primarily a team effort (you actually have to spend a check to fight with your companions). The situation in your example has its pros and cons, the main contra being spending turns (actually I think that the main contra is the possibility of failing three tests), but sure, you are advancing your character’s abilities/skills.
Thanks for the feedback. The situation I think I have the most difficulty getting my head around is the one described by Vanguard. In our party we have 3 of 4 people with Criminal. The smart thing to do is have the high level Criminal make the roll with the other two helping, and my Paladin looking the other way in disgust. But that means if you do the statistically smart thing the only way the other the players get advances in Criminal is by spending checks obtained from other skills. Is that right?
You could argue that’s by design. It benefits everyone to take the hits to get someone out of Beginner’s Luck so they can help in a skill — one more die from Help!
It also benefits everyone to have their own niche. You want a Will monster, a Health, Fighter monster, Criminal monster, and so on, and everyone able to pitch in and help them … but not much more. There are too many skills to cover to have two characters try and jockey to be the specialist.
Yeah, band of pickpockets isn’t really TB style. It’s about the teamwork and specialized roles, not a strong unifying character theme. The thing that keeps all these weirdos together is teh lootz. (Darn murder hobos)
True one could indeed argue that TB supports a synergistic and not redundant play style. It does result however in ‘trap skills’ during character creation, by this I mean, overlapping skills should only really be level 1 (alternatively a helping skill is also fine at whatever level) between characters. Any more than this is, on the whole, it is a waste of a skill ‘pick’ during character creation.
Until you get separated or someone is knocked unconscious. Or until Batman is eaten by an Ogre. Then you’ll be happy you took some time training Robin on how to swing from a grappling hook.
I would recommend re-reading the Never Volunteer rule on page 63. It basically says that if a player describes that their character is doing something, then that player is the one who makes the test. There should be none of this D&D’esque, “Player 1: I charge the orc! Player 2: Wait, I’m a better fighter. Player 2: Oh, right, I guess I don’t charge the orc” nonsense.
So, technically, yes, you could have a group of players who all sit quietly and don’t volunteer their characters to perform any action until they have all checked each others’ character sheets to see who the best primary actor would be for that test, and who could help, but in actual play I’ve never seen that. I mean, I’ve seen players strategize sometimes, but not every time. So, technically, everyone should have a chance at the spotlight, even if that light is shining brightly upon their best attempt which still leads to failure.
Thanks for the link. This still is causing me sleepless night however. If there are say 3 players, basically the one who opens their mouth first gets to dictate all the action unless the others are willing to Split the Party and add more turns to the Grind counter taking RAW. I think in TB careful GMing is required to make sure that ‘volunteering’ is shared amongst the players rather than the always defaulting to the quickest/loudest player(s).
As I see it, the players use to self-police when volunteering. I might be too rough as a GM (or at least my players think so :evil: ), but in my group players are really really worried about not failing any tests, so is not weird for them to strategize before taking up the dice.
If three players want to take three different actions to overcome one problem, three turns are expended by their efforts.
Players can plan on how to tackle an obstacle by using table chatter. Then a player can volunteer or the leader can speak up and let the GM know the plan.
Yeah, there are no traps here. No one is required to make a test until the Ob is announced (and then the player who volunteers is the leader). After that, they can still strategize and work out who is helping, using wises, whether or not to spend fate/persona, etc.
I think on reading said rules, our party is missing a ‘leader’ and a ‘mapper’. Because of this the GM has a hard time deciding when dice should be rolled and who exactly should be rolling them.
Still we are buy learners in the world of TB, so onwards and upwards to fame, glory… drat wrong game, to not being so covered in dung!
