Idea of negative penalties on failed assists makes sense. Would you allow those trained to make the attempt penalty free? How about separate checks? do you raise the DC if the first guy trys and fails? ie. Bob’s character doesn’t have thievey but decides to pick the lock instead of the rogue, mucks his roll making it harder when the rogue gets there?

Our DM has done a good job of calling out when you need to be trained to assist or to even make a roll but we still get 4 people assisting one person on some checks even if they only have a +1 in their skill to attempt to help.

Also we are trying to avoid making everything in the game a skill challange. Although they are fun in their flavor text, often times they are geared to one or two players and the rest have to sit and listen through an hour of trying different things.

A more serious suggestion is just having the player who is involved with the activity make the roll.

In 4E we have ‘passive’ checks. So how do we differentiate these from active checks? This seems particularly pertinent to passive skills like insight.

If players want an ACTIVE insight check what do they have to do (to differentiate it from a passive check)?

Maybe they need to question and cross-examine the NPC? Or at least ask pertinent questions.

At the very least it would seem to require more than “listening attentively”.

In the same way, I don’t mind multiple checks for things like insight because if everyone’s in the same room, each character could potentially pick up something from an NPC. However, you shouldn’t assist with checks for knowledge or insight. You either make the check or you don’t. Someone assisting wouldn’t make much of a difference. I always saw assisting as a tool to be used for physical tasks like strength or climb checks or for a heal check because you could help with the bandages or nursing the injured person.

As for the numbers vs. one roll issue, you should look at it as each character getting the same chance to succeed on a check. If the NPC rolls badly, they just didn’t bluff well enough this time. In the same way, when we all succeed as a party, my DM will tell everyone what we learned and then we either “relay it to the party” or if you’re playing a jerk character, you keep it to yourself. It increases the chance of role-playing, especially since the players know the info, but their characters don’t.

I also adjust things on a per situation basis – 4 players assisting on a Diplomacy roll is definitely out (unless some kind of round table cabinet level meeting or some such), but 4 players assisting trying lever up a portcullis or shove open a door is fine.

Insight is a problematic skill at times, especially with players wanting to assist on “liar checks” or wanting more than one PC to make a “liar check”. Going in initiative order keeps this in check – the player who has initiative can make the “liar check”, no one else can. That or allow only one player to make a roll, unless the situation warrants otherwise.

Chatty: There’s still that case like in my initial example: the players actively want to know if someone is lying. I could just say “He’s lying, what do you want to do about that?” but I don’t want to demotivate them using skills or thinking about it.

E, Deadorcs, Jesse: It’s usually not a problem justifying their assists, it still causes the numbers vs. one roll issue.

Monte & Shilling: I like both of your suggestions, though in some ways, they work out to be the same thing. The initial roll is at one difficulty, successive rolls are higher. That’s probably what I’ll do… I especially like it for search checks, since you know that a PC has already covered that side of the room.

“What exactly are you trying to do..”

and then when it comes time to roll dice:

“Wait wait wait..Only you can roll-(points out the idea guy) and you can have up to two people try and assist, but they have to be able to say what they are doing to assist. Ok, go ahead.”
.-= pseckler´s last blog ..Random Thought: =-.

This is similar to a skill challenge, but then I run skill challenges in a much more fluid way than they are written (essentially, a series of skill checks becomes a skill challenge -after the fact-).

I would also recommend some player narration. I never let a player “roll for intimidate” or whatever. They need to describe their actions. In fact my preference is to have the player describe the PC’s actions, and then -I- decide which skill applies to that action. Just because the player wants to roll intimidate, doesn’t mean they can if their actions are actually a bluff or diplomacy.

Insight is trickier because it is more passive. I think your “only those involved in the conversation” suggestion might be a good one.