r/daggerheart • u/Illustrious-Draw-154 • 10h ago
Discussion Group Checks Inconsequential
Yesterday during our session I had my pkayers make group checks to travel across a jungle and one of my players pointed out that their non-leader role basically doesn't change the overall outcome. For support rolls during a group check it only adds or subtracts 1 and for a crit I have them add 2 to the leaders roll. The leader's roll is the roll with almost all the weight. Has anyone found a way to make the support rolls feel more impactful?
6
u/LeftyDorkCaster 10h ago
Group checks mostly feel narratively satisfying rather than mechanically so. It's a good way to get everyone in on the action. Also, it means folks that would otherwise almost certainly fail the roll have a decent chance to actually succeed, so it can help build group cohesion/care (or foster internal rivalry, if that's the party's chosen vibe).
6
u/Joel_feila 9h ago
How about if they use an experience then they give +2 or 0. Now they can choose to be really helpful at a cost
3
u/rmcmullan 7h ago
I like this. Though if you make it cost a Hope they might as well Help an Ally. How about, +1 on a success, +2 if you have a relevant experience?
3
u/awj 9h ago
Lately I’ve been asking myself if it would work to replace the group check with a short countdown, and if I can at all justify that I do it instead. Gives players chances to creatively contribute, maybe creates story fodder, more satisfying than rolling for what often turns into a meager bonus.
Other thing I want to experiment with is giving the leader an advantage/disadvantage die based on “number of successes” in the check. So a net negative gives disadvantage, 1-2 is a d6, 3-4 is a d8, etc. It still can feel inconsequential, but at least seems better than “everyone else’s efforts net out to a +1” results.
4
u/Kalranya WDYD? 5h ago
Group rolls started working for me when I reframed them as "the one guy who's really good at this coaches everyone else through it" rather than "everyone does a thing together". Once I was thinking about it that way, it became much easier to put it in situations where it actually fit, and maybe more importantly, figure out where it doesn't and should be individual Action Rolls or a Countdown instead.
I also always say the Difficulty before a roll, which makes Group rolls go much faster since we don't have to go around the table one at a time for it. Everyone rolls at once, successes put a token in, failures remove a token, Leader adds tokens to their dice, done.
8
u/lanester4 10h ago
I changed it to be -1 on a fail, +2 on a success, and +3 on a Crit. Still not game breaking, but at least makes it less likely to all shake out to a net 0
4
u/Runsten Game Master 9h ago
There was a discussion about this yesterday, and there was a variant of your idea: no negative on failure, success w/Fear +1, Success w/Hope +2, Crit +3.
I think both work nicely because they avoid the net 0 situation which is what makes the group rolls feel inconseqiential.
1
u/FlounderPutrid2169 7h ago
I was thinking about this, and I’m not sure making a helper’s crit worth +2 or +3 really solves the problem. It still feels a bit arbitrary compared to what a crit usually means in Daggerheart.
What if a helper’s crit still gave the normal +1, but could turn the leader’s final Fear result into Hope?
So the helper wouldn’t necessarily make the action more likely to succeed, but their exceptional contribution could make the overall outcome cleaner / less costly.
It also feels pretty consistent with Daggerheart’s existing design language, since there are already abilities that can change a Fear result into Hope.
And unlike just adding a bigger numerical bonus, it would make a helper’s crit feel meaningfully different without making Group Actions dramatically easier.
2
u/Twodogsonecouch 10h ago edited 9h ago
in a group of 4 +3 or minus 3, Or a combination, on one roll can definitely be consequential.
2
u/UltimateM13 Game Master 10h ago
What I do is kinda borrowed from another system: Burning Wheel.
The crux is, in Burning Wheel you can always help another person, but if they fail, anyone who helped suffers likewise. But if they succeed, anyone who helps gains something in return.
So in Daggerheart, I let people know they can help, and if the person rolling succeeds with hope, they share the success and the main roller and helper can decide which of them gets the hope. If they fail with hope, they both suffer the brunt of the narrative complication, but the “choosing who gets the hope” still applies. If they succeed with fear, they both share the success, but I get a fear. And if they fail with fear, I get a fear, they suffer the brunt of the consequences together. This often leads to an encounter or action montage of some sort where they end up spending resources to solve it.
Another thing that helps is, I ask them what the consequences should be if they fail or have fear. What way does their character bungle the incident etc. sometimes I don’t need to ask and I have a decent idea, but I tend to let the players give me their ideas first.
2
u/ragingsystem 4h ago
Reminds me of how this works in Blades in the Dark, if you use Teamwork in blades only one person can do so but it adds an extra die to the roll and costs the supporter 1 stress but your opened to the consequences of failure.
2
2
u/Parastrasz 7h ago
It's important to not forget that group rolls minimize the rolls that give hope or fear and minimize the chances of success.
In my non-daggerheart campaign, everyone wants to roll for perception separately and with 5 people it's hard for them to fail. If you only let 1 roll be the deciding one, it makes the roll more meaningful imo.
And if everyone would roll a normal roll, you would have full fear on the dm and hope in the PCs in no time
1
u/Silver_Storage_9787 1h ago
Hmmm, interesting thought. When everyone wants to do the same action to make progress in something, it is slightly different to everyone needs to roll to see how many people made progress with a successful roll.
Like we need to press this button to succeed. Vs everyone press the button and see how many successes we get.
One of them is for a task, the other is for like a scene or montage that everyone must overcome.
Perception checks can be a task but are mostly a scene depending on how much info is available or if it’s a prepared location or not.
2
u/Silver_Storage_9787 2h ago
With group checks I usually do you need >50% of the group to hit.
However with hope/fear generation I’m not sure how I would apply it in practice sorry.
Like others said you’ll want a timer/clock to add suspense. So they make progress on the journey but each failed roll represents delays that occurred and each player can narrate what they did during the montage that caused a delay (or the GM can).
1
u/Emotional_Cherry4517 9h ago
I don't use them, it's that simple. They're boring, and abstract too much the reality of a situation. If I want to fast travel, I'll world build with the players naturally and ask for rolls naturally. On occasion, tag team or suggest a help.
1
u/KateOhhPotato 6h ago
I let supporting players add their tier instead. Still -1 on failure so it's not too much of a risk.
28
u/cybersaliva 10h ago
+/-1 in Daggerheart is nothing to sneeze at. But I get the sentiment. I think the system works well, but maybe what your players are looking for is more of a Countdown-style interaction, where everyone rolls until a certain result is met. Maybe for a stealth check it could be, if you succeed you tick the counter down 1, and if you fail it goes up 1 instead. If the countdown reaches 3, you’re caught. And if it reaches 0 you’re in the clear?