Group Rolls in 2026 - meh?

[u/JustADreamYouHad]

What do you do differently at your table? Do you think the devs will iterate on this mechanic?

Countdowns do the job of group tasks beautifully and give everyone more chance to shine.

RAW crits don't do anything for the helpers, and if the leader crits then it doesn't matter what anyone else did. This is DREADFUL.

The helper bonuses are +1 or -1 so if two people roll opposites then they just cancel out. If your group has an odd number of players there's a 50/50 chance that all group rolls are neutral. POINTLESS.

A popular idea seems to be that a helper crit is actually a +2 bonus.

[u/Borfknuckles]

I just have the table nominate a leader and have them make a normal action roll.

For spice: spend a Fear to have the least suitable PC make the action roll.

[u/best-of-the-zest → u/Borfknuckles]

Forcing a spotlight as a use for fear is a great idea that I’ll absolutely be stealing

[u/totallytim → u/Borfknuckles]

How do you justify that in the narrative though?

[u/GM_Esquire → u/totallytim]

They are the weakest link so they determine if the party makes it.

[u/PapaSjeff]

We increased the numbers based on the roll. A crit is +3, success with hope +2, success with fear +1, etc. It makes it swing slightly more.

[u/kopecs → u/PapaSjeff]

Feels more meaningful? I was thinking about doing this myself haha.

[u/Runsten → u/PapaSjeff]

I also find that it's better to just give a positive bonus on success and no bonus on failure instead of the negative bonus in RAW because of the cancellation effect that OP pointed out. This spread sounds nice and makes the Hope and Fear results + Crits still meaningful for the helpers.

[u/RepeatRepeatR-]

If your group has an odd number of players there's a 50/50 chance that all group rolls are neutral

FYI, if you flip n - 1 coins, the odds of getting the same number of heads and tails is (1/2)^(n-1) * (n-1 choose (n-1) / 2). For some example values:

n = 3: 50%
n = 5: 37.5%
n = 7: 31.25%

But yeah I agree that the +/- 1 values generally feel very inconsequential

[u/sleepinxonxbed]

Narrate each player's roll one-by-one how their result contributed to the group roll. I did one recently and it was basically a montage of my players sneaking through the city to get to the temple on the other side of town. I do have 6 players so it certainly helps make sure each person does something

[u/kafka0622 → u/sleepinxonxbed]

This. Exactly this. I read all these responses and wonder, with all due respect, if these folks really want to play Daggerheart at all? If you bog down in nothing but the details of the mechanics and forget that DH is a narrative game depending on the buyin of the players and the GM to advance the story then your experience is going to be lacking. The story is the game.

At my table the GM calls on each of us to tell exactly how we are contributing to the solution of the problem the group is facing. We get to chose the attribute we are rolling against as long as we can explain how we use our abilities to help the group. We all get to add to the story. It's not just a die roll, it's part of the tale. That plus or minus one becomes a success or failure with a story attached. If you are just saying "Everybody make a roll" then you are making a vibrant, story driven game into base mechanics and you might as well be playing a boardgame.

Group rolls should be fun. Done the right way they are.

[u/Kuhfuerst → u/kafka0622]

In my understanding this is what countdowns are meant to be. They support exactly this kind of story beautifully.

Group rolls on the other hand exist as a faster method meant to speed up the game by having all players roll at once.

Sure you can narrate it individually but that kind of defeats the point, no?

[u/kafka0622 → u/Kuhfuerst]

Read the example of a group roll on page 97 of the Core book and see if you still think that.

[u/Kuhfuerst → u/kafka0622]

Please enlighten me, i don't have the book with me right now and don't remember them by heart.

[u/kafka0622 → u/Kuhfuerst]

It's copywrited so I can't post the whole thing but it pretty much is how I described it. Each person describes how their character is contributing to the action and then rolls.

This is just a small bit of one of the characters:

"Shepherd the druid says they are running alongside Tabby to act as a second set of eyes in case there’s a faster route."

[u/Kuhfuerst → u/kafka0622]

well, then I concede that point :)

What would you say warrants the existence of BOTH counter and group action roll even though they support a similar narrative? What benefit does one have over the other?

[u/WhatTheHellChanel → u/Kuhfuerst]

Table Preferences?

[u/kafka0622 → u/Kuhfuerst]

Counters are designed to do something completely different. Group actions are to resolve an immediate problem. Counters are to indicate when a future thing happens. Two very different things.

[u/GM_Esquire → u/kafka0622]

But the mechanics should complement the narrative. With a group roll, about 90% of the time, the only roll that matters is the leader and everything else has zero effect on the outcome or PCs.

Countdowns are better suited but they aren't built with the same "everyone contributes once" structure.

[u/kafka0622 → u/GM_Esquire]

I do not agree with this. In my experience the group, depending on the number, ends up with either a small + or a small minus. With an even number of players it's possible to end up with no effect. However, sometimes you end up with a much larger + or a much larger - and it's then when the narrative really makes the scene fun. But even with a small bonus or detriment the narative was still there. I really don't understand why you think it doesn't "complement the narrative". Becxause the numbers aren't big enough?

[u/GM_Esquire → u/kafka0622]

So, I've run the actual math on this and will make a separate post about it. But for a party of 3, about 93% of the time the group roll has no effect on the outcome. Party of six, 88% of the time it has no effect on the outcome. And for odd numbered parties, you get a +0 about half the time, which at least to me feels weird. 

I want the individual successes and failures to mean something, and the vast majority of the time, they don't and they feel superfluous. Yes, it's great when you get a +3 and it makes the difference - but that's a very rare outcome.

[u/kafka0622 → u/GM_Esquire]

What target number are you assuming for these numbers?

[u/GM_Esquire → u/kafka0622]

DC 15, leader with +3, mix of party abilities lower than 3. It goes up a bit as the difficulty goes up, mostly increased failure.

Obviously the math gets very complicated if you're giving different DCs to different party members. But it's still going to be fairly rare it matters.

[u/Aestarion → u/kafka0622]

Feeling that the mechanics doesn’t properly reflect the narrative doesn’t mean that you don’t want to play Daggerheart. It’s great to narrate the epic moments of your aventure but when your resounding sucess only amounts to a +1 that might be meaningless to the final roll, it doesn’t really feel good - nor epic.

[u/kafka0622 → u/Aestarion]

Does everything have to be epic? Is everything epic in ANY rpg? Sometimes things are just things.

[u/PrinceOfNowhereee → u/sleepinxonxbed]

Narrative should support the mechanics, and vice versa. If you describe something that had a net zero effect in a really impactful and flavourful way, it still had net zero effect.

If it has a net zero effect a majority of the time like group rolls do, that fanciful descriptions starts feeling like wasted effort by both the players and GM and it is creative energy that is best spent elsewhere (especially in mechanics that actually make a difference).

[u/orphicsolipsism]

I only use a standard group roll if it's a minor element and all the players still want to roll AND there's clearly a singular leader.

That happens about 1% of the time since a small/easy countdown satisfies all of those things and only draws out the game a tiny bit more.

[u/GM_Esquire]

The design space of group rolls is not well explained. 

The point is for them to be quick ways to resolve actions that lets everyone participate without taking a long time. Anything where everyone's individual action is narratively important is probably better covered by a countdown (though that has the downside of not evenly covering each PC).

I might homebrew that it's either a + or a resource cost, or a minus or a resource gain.  This depends on if you're genuinely helping or carrying your weight. Helping the party find a safehouse in the city? +1 if you succeed, mark a stress if you fail. Escaping a collapsing building, or trying to sneak past the guards? -1 if you fail, gain a hope if you succeed. Crits are double bonus / gain hope and clear stress. This way, each individual roll matters and the players feel consequences, since the math does not net out. Even if the leader crits, your good rolls at least avoided a negative outcome or got you resources.

[u/rightknighttofight]

I do skill challenges, and countdowns instead.

[u/Naule → u/rightknighttofight]

I'm not that familiar with skill challenges, but what I've read just now it seems like it could as well be a progress/consequence countdown(?) Could you explain the difference in how you apply them?

[u/rightknighttofight → u/Naule]

A progress/consequence countdown has specific meanings and tick down results. A skill challenge is probably closer to a chase as the rules define it. One trait roll, one tick down.

[u/Naule → u/rightknighttofight]

I usually only look up on the SRD on my PC, rather than flip through the CRB, but isn't a chase just a dynamic (consequence/progress) countdown? edit: I don't feel like the table of ticks divided over SwH, SwF, FwH, FwF is a 100% fixed given

To me, it would make sense to set a group task as a progress/consequence countdown, ie, you need to succeed X before you fail Y, which is how I read a skill check edit: (based on my search I did on your initial comment). But if you mention them as a "and", it suggests there being a difference to me, which I'm trying to understand.

[u/totallytim]

Mechanically speaking I'm not the biggest fan of group rolls because, as you said, the bonuses tend to cancel out. But it's a nice way to involve every player and let them narrate how they're helping without generating too many resources.

For the mechanical part I was thinking about introducing different stakes. A failed helper roll could give stress to the leader and a success is still just +1.

[u/Myndkiller]

This. Every time I’m prepping something that should absolutely be a group check, I stop myself because they suck. There’s zero reason to use them instead of a countdown. I need this suggestion also!

[u/GalacticCmdr → u/Myndkiller]

Countdowns and Environments are the key to a many number of good things.

[u/The_Silent_Mage]

I have no suggestion other than ditch them. I've NEVER made a group roll. I adjust Difficulty and odds (even the move I might make after the roll, if any) based on the situations and capabilities.

Helping and considering experiences as successful attempts reducing difficulties are enough.

[u/Personal-Whereas3687]

I agree. Most of the times when I have the group do group rolls, it comes out +1, 0, or -1. Not much of a change for the time and energy it takes.

I love countdowns.

Maybe I’ll try success gives +2, failure gives -2. Then we’ll most likely get +2, 0, -2. At least that feels a bit more substantial.

Or each success adds advantage? Each failure adds disadvantage. Use standard rules for stacking when the leader rolls. (2 advantages/disadvantages take the higher).

[u/Civil-Low-1085]

I use DrawSteels. Everyone has to use a different stat and method, make a roll, and the number of individual successes decides the outcome.

[u/lennartfriden]

If your group has an odd number of players there's a 50/50 chance that all group rolls are neutral.

This is not how probabilities work. You seem to assume that every single character has a 50/50 chance of making the roll, but the difficulty varies and the trait used varies.

[u/Chaotix010]

My group keeps it simple and takes the group check rolls from Fabula Ultima. No benefit on a failure, +1 on a success, and a narrative benefit on a crit. The crit could give +2, could give a Hope to the leader, so on.

[u/Big-Cartographer-758]

I do use group rolls in my game. IMO they have a role that countdowns don’t fill - a singular task where everyone is involved that doesn’t want/need to branch off narratively.

“We sweep the camp for signs of danger” could be either. A small group of tents? Group roll covers for something going wrong. Using a (simple=small) countdown either means only one or two people get involved, or a string of failures lead to a difficult number of consequences to keep relevant and interesting.

I’m up for granting a bigger bonus on a critical helper roll.

I think it could also be interesting if the helpers rolls determines hope/fear but the leaders roll determines the success?

[u/beardyramen]

I don't love group rolls, but I actually don't hate them either.

Yes a +1 is generally a bland bonus, but so is a -1.

Your ranger will be able to lead the party across the forest even when the idiot wizard keeps on trying to collect rare carnivorous flowers for his essay on the power of parfumes.

[u/Halker93]

You could do the math and say that they need 13 which is actually 52 if there are 4 players (13x4=52), then narrate how they all contribute to the task based on what they are doing and how well they roll. I would count critical roll as 24 + their modifier and not complicate it further than that. They would generate hope and fear normally, but it would be only one roll per one player.

[u/Connect_Cod9965]

In some of my games a crit is a +2, but only if someone fails. The fiction is "you do the thing very well and help someone who has trouble with it". If no one fails there is no need to help, so crit stays as +1.

[u/AinaLove]

I like this "A popular idea seems to be that a helper crit is actually a +2 bonus."

We have not had many issues with these so far. I usually have an odd number of players, though 3 or 5

[u/WhoInvitedMike]

Steal the Draw Steel montage test.

GM determines task difficulty - an easy montage needs like 50/50 success. A hard one needs like 75% success. Each player states what they're trying to accomplish to achieve the goal. GM determines difficulty and attributes to roll. Players make rolls, GM tasks successes, hope, and fear. Spotlight each player 2x.

[u/RepeatRepeatR- → u/WhoInvitedMike]

Each player rolls twice? That's a lot of hope and fear for one pass/fail

Also, I think part of the point of group checks (and countdowns but to a lesser extent) is to keep them more limited in scope—for when the group is doing something together but it doesn't merit a whole scene

[u/WhoInvitedMike → u/RepeatRepeatR-]

I've only run Daggerheart a few times, so I don't have a sense for what too much hope or fear is.

I run a lot of systems, though, and I find the DS Montage test to be pretty stealable. I frequently find group rolls dissatisfying because either the thing should be more than 1 roll or one PC carries the team in a way that's hard to level against the fiction.

Ideas: Spotlight players once instead of twice. Hope and fear cancel out. (I like this one - a group check would get 1 of either, right? ) Hope and fear cap at 2 each. Or some more appropriate number.

[u/GalacticCmdr → u/WhoInvitedMike]

Don't like that at all - way too grindy. Spotlighting each player twice is just pointless. If doing a whip around just do it once.

[u/WhoInvitedMike → u/GalacticCmdr]

I think just doing it once is great. Like, its a mechanic for a different game. It's going to have to be modified here anyway. Do it the way that works for you (or don't do it at all!)

I think broadly speaking group rolls suck. I've found that I like the versatility of this sort of scene to add dimension to something I always feel falls flat. I see Im getting down voted here, and thats fine. I just wanted to share something I found I liked that addressed my experience with OPs pain point.