This isn't an issue limited to TOR, and it is particularly common in Chaosium BRP games, which is what my group normally plays, but I want to solve it somehow when we are playing TOR.

I can't stand "me too" skill rolls.

This is when one player says, "I check for tracks", and every other player at the table says "me too". And the whole group proceeds to roll Hunting, hoping for a success to move things along, but also wanting to get the Advancement point. I use Hunting as an example, but it can happen with most skills, such as Lore, Search, Explore, Insight, Craft, etc.

This makes for an awful lot of die rolling, reduces the tension since there are so many chances for success, and also is sort of ridiculous from a story perspective. It is as if every time Aragorn paused to look for tracks, the entire Fellowship also all stopped and looked around like a bunch of monkeys imitating him.

I'd like some ideas on how to solve it. Thoughts I have had are just not allowing it, but what if two characters, or even three, are all good at Hunting? Shouldn't they all get a chance to try and show their skills? I've also thought about making consequences of failure more severe -- meaning if three heroes roll Hunting, and one fails, they disagree on the path and the end result is a failure. Though this won't work for all skills.

Any ideas? Or should I just stop being bothered by the "me too" effect?

I feel your pain! The Company roles (Guide, Scout, Hunter and Look-out man from what I remember) may help here. Only the character fulfilling the relevant role gets to make the roll?

That's a possibility, but may cause resentment from players whose skills are not called on as often.

And it doesn't work if the skill does not fall into one of the 'Travel' roles.

There are suggestions in the rules that advancement point are rewarded for exceptional rolls, not just a success, but a great or extraordinary success.

But no matter what you do, someone will always complain.

If someone suggests a task, let them roll and don't allow others to jump on without good reason. Encourage the players to come up with their ideas.

Perhaps you could allow the others to contribute to the roll when it makes sense. If there are multiple player-heroes with tracking, allow their rolls to modify the roll of the first to request the check. Maybe limit it to those who have skills within 1 of the main roller? I can understand the player-heroes desire to not fall behind in advancement. Another way might be to have the player-heroes organize who will take this roll and who will take the next equivalent roll further into the adventure, taking turns in an orderly fashion.

I'm quite hardline on this... I usually allow it... with the added House Rule that one Failures cancels out one success.

Reason? Anyone starting to; chase the wrong track, mess the track up mixing in their own footsteps etc. will make life much harder for the guy who knows what he's doing. This logic can be applied to almost anything, from Social persuasion checks to Search checks etc.

... you still want a go?

Usually they realise that them stepping into the mix will not really contribute anything and will most likely ruin the test for the guy who is really good at it.

The reason I started to add this was that I found all my players wanted to try all rolls on the simple: "Hey-I-might-score-a-Natural-20" reason and I found that quite a) boring and ruining the moment for the guy how built his character around tracking and hunting stuff... it's his moment in the spot light now, you should all step back and let him do his thing!

/wolf

I would probably handle in a manner similar to how I would in Pathfinder. If someone else wants to help - because it is quite possible multiple skills will be present in a fellowship - I would let them try to Aid Another. As in they need to beat a TN in order to add +2 or something similar to the main roll. Not sure what I would make that TN for the person trying to aid, but that is probably where I would start.

Sound reasonable, as the difference in difficulty categories is 2.

You could perhaps drop the difficulty of those aiding the roller by 1 (or maybe 2) for every rank of skill, with the stipulation that the best skill must make the check.

I usually adopt this same solution, and it really works!

I am totally stealing this. Awesome for a whole bunch of games.

Good call, raising this one, Narl.

I introduced the term "me too rolls" in our group last year. I think I made it up myself -- in discussing BRP, as it happens -- and it certainly struck a spark with the half of us who rotate the honours as GMs.
Our house rule was that rolls after the first one were made at -20%, so anyone who greedily went for the roll just for the sake of their own tick might jeopardize the success of the group when the penalty was subtracted from the guy who had the best chance of succeeding... So the peer pressure within the group knocked "me too rolls" back a bit. But it was a shame when the player who had the idea had to let someone else get the glory and the gain roll.

But the penalty approach is problematic, especially for things that you DO want the Company to find, because they're important to the plot.
So I prefer the oft-overlooked rule in (MERP/?)RM whereby saying that you're looking for a thing gets you a +20% on Perception Rolls for it. In TOR that could correspond to a good-play reward of dropping the difficulty level. (Or "me too" rolls might be a difficulty higher.)

The degree of success on the dice is actually the very last thing mentioned -- as a possible source of guidance on whether to award an Adv Pt -- in that section in LMB pp.30-31.
But I do agree that Adv Pts should be the reward mechanism used to encourage right-minded play. It's the way BRP's reward system is based on taking rolls that tended to break the playstyle for that game.
TOR isn't only in danger of suffering the same problem, it even allows Adv Pts for failing, so all the second-class skillsters might be tempted to roll like crazy. But failing when you're rubbish isn't "dramatic or unexpected", so make it clear that it's not going to net anyone any Adv Pts.

But the way the Adv Pt diamonds get filled is also on our side. Once someone's got their easier first one or two diamonds filled, they can expect not to receive any benefit from that Skill Group for the rest of the Adventure, so they may be more inclined to relax and let the game flow naturally.
And since Adv Pts are subjectively awarded by the LM, and don't have to be spent on the skill, or even the Skill Group, for which they were awarded allows for more flexibility. Maybe the player who had the idea can sometimes be given an easy-diamond Adv Pt for an valuable suggestion, even if it's one of his Companions who makes the roll...?

Cheers,
--Os.

Thanks for all the great ideas! I'll be using some of these next game so I'll let you know how it goes.

The "Too Many Cooks" Principle!

Not disagreeing with you overall, but in this particular case, consider not making them roll at all.

I don't have that problem, my group rarely play anything which has 'ticks', if I have any problem at all with "me too" rollers it is because the heroes don't always know that their fellow has failed the roll. but since the players do they pipe up.

I usually just tell them that their player doesn't know that they have failed so have no reason to try. If they give me a particularly inventive excuse I might allow them to do so.

E

I do know that... Yay for Gumshoe and Trail of Cthulhu for showing leadership on that front.
And to his credit, Francesco offers exactly this advice to Loremasters in the published books. Neatly, he also makes it an opportunity to let someone feel good about themselves for having the right trait for that moment -- and to give the rest of the Company cause to appreciate them too.

I'm probably a bit (i) old school and (ii) still sticking to simulationist and gamist principles instead of going fully narrative. But I stubbornly want to emphasise skills wherever they're applicable, to be sure that credit goes to the characters who've signalled their interest in that area by investing in them.
Handwaving for the sake of the plot is the sign of a good director, but cynical players might not bother investing on things that they know will be handwaved in the end anyway...

Cheers,
--Os.

Don't let them know you are handwaving...they don't need to