Gollum

Which explains why I post... And don't hesitate to do mathematics! Yes, I fully do agree. The higher skill still has a higher chance to win. And this is a matter of taste. But to choose wisely, knowing the mathematical repercussions helps. – Do you want that the higher skill has even higher chance to win (to reduce random)? The higher score on the dice win the opposition. – Do you want that the lower skill has a bit higher chance to win (to give more suspense to the situation)? The lower score on the dice win the opposition. – Do you want the odds to remain unchanged? Nobody win when the same level of success is scored.

I do agree. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of mathematics. But, precisely, I am mathematically correct. I do agree with you on the fact that an example is not a proof, though. And since my scientific studies are far away now (about 25 years ago), I'm not anymore able to write down the equations... But we can solve this question with another method. So, just let's scan all the possible results! 20% vs. 80%... If 20% (I name the characters and players by their percentage; it will be more easy) failed his roll, no matter the method (the lowest score win or the highest win). In all cases, the chance that 80% win the opposition will be exactly the same. The difference will appear if 20% scores a success. When the lowest score rolled on the dice wins the opposition, the chance that 80% wins or ties are the following ones... 20% rolled a... / Chance of 80% to win or tie 1 / 1% (to tie) 2 / 2% 3 / 3% 4 / 4% 5 / 5% 6 / 6% 7 / 7% 8 / 8% 9 / 9% 10 / 10% 11 / 11% 12 / 12% 13 / 13% 14 / 14% 15 / 15% 16 / 16% 17 / 17% 18 / 18% 19 / 19% 20 / 20% Average / 10.5% When the highest score rolled on the dice wins the opposition, the chance that 80% wins or ties are the following ones... 20% rolled a... / Chance of 80% to win or tie 1 / 80% 2 / 79% 3 / 78% 4 / 77% 5 / 76% 6 / 75% 7 / 74% 8 / 73% 9 / 72% 10 / 71% 11 / 70% 12 / 69% 13 / 68% 14 / 67% 15 / 66% 16 / 65% 17 / 64% 18 / 63% 19 / 62% 20 / 61% Average / 70.5% So, there really is a difference. No. I'm not thinking at all that it is Horribly unfair. As you said it, there is a lot of chance that 20% fails his roll. So, the difference is not huge. But taking the lowest score rolled on the dice as the winner still gives an edge to the lower skill that it wouldn't have otherwise. No... Don't exaggerate what I'm saying. Of course there won't be a true difference between 79% and 80%. 79% are almost the same scores! But if the highest score is 80%, the lowest may range from 1% to 79%. And in all of these cases, there will be a difference similar to the one I described above. Which will end, in the average, with a statistical difference. This is mathematically indisputable. I don't ignore that. And I even precised in my post that you were right when there are several rolls. But I'm speaking about when there is only one roll. And, when dealing with opposition, one roll may decide whether the characters will survive a danger. A Hiding-80% character is trying to hide himself in the forest... A terrible but Spot-20% monster is looking for him... The dice are rolled... Just once. That's right. My calculations above don't take the chance of special and critical success. But I'm almost sure that it won't change the results a lot. At any rate, it won't reverse the fact that taking the lowest score as the winner gives an edge (a little but real edge) to the lowest score. If I rule that when the two characters get the same result, they roll again, this edge disappear. And if I rule that the highest score wins, the edge goes to the higher skill. This is all what I'm saying. And this is mathematically indisputable. Why not? It will clearly show what I'm saying. Just compare the highest score win, the lowest socre win and nobody win (they roll again). Of course. I don't dispute that. And it is a good manner, in my humble opinion, to make things a bit less aleatory.

Yes. I find this fine. The pinning situation may occur when the relative success is nul. Success vs. success, special success vs. special success. It makes sense!

So, this principle of independent rolling is not anymore etablished for me... indeed, the rules, when best understood (by myself) sound much better that they first appeared... And "calculating" the relative level of success with success reduction or improvement doesn't prevent from reading the rolls as they are first! Even if the relative success of a critical success vs a special success, for instance, will be exactly the same that the one of a success vs. a failure, the description and what happens exactly won't necessarily be the same. - Critical success vs. a special success: the sneaker succeeded to hide incredibly well but, because the spotter was very aware, he almost found him... "I was sure this guy was in the surrounding!" - Success vs. failure: the sneaker hide quite well and the spotter found nothing "No, guys. He is not here. Let's looks somewhere else."

3) About the reduction of success... After reading the rules again, I suddenly realized that it does not really reduce the success of the winner. It is just designed to allow to calculate easily the relative success, which is very different. Saying that a special success vs. a success is like a normal success doesn't mean that the first character didn't score a special success; it just means that because of the success of the second one, the first character wins as if he rolled a success vs a failure (and not as if he rolled a special success vs a failure). When dealing with a sneaker vs a spotter, it is not really important. Except for the description of what happens... But when dealing with a car chase, for instance, it becomes important! The speed with which one car get closer or farer from the other is not the same.

2) Does ruling that the lowest roll wins give an edge to the lowest skill? I do not agree. Of course, if there are several rolls in a raw, this edge will disappear. But if there is only one roll, things will be very different. Suppose that the player with the skill of 20% rolls a 10. If you consider that the lowest roll wins, the guy with a skill of 80% has only 9% chance of winning the opposition (any roll from 1 to 9). If you consider that the higher roll wins, he has 70% chance to win (any roll from 11 to 80).

I read again the rules and this thread, very carefully, and thought a lot about it... Here are some comments I would add... 1) About ruling that the lowest result on the dice is the winner. I fully do agree with the fact that the better doesn't always win. But this still remains the case with the usual opposition rules. The character with the lowest skill can make a critical success or a special success... And even with an ordinary success, he can still roll higher than the better. Now, the chance are lower. And this is realistic too.

Right. But how do you exactly determine that a character is pinned? Does every equal level of success or failure means that the sneaker is pinned?

A very good choice. Steve Jackson Games made exactly the same one since GURPS Traveller is published out and well supported by its authors as well as its fans. Will you use it with its own rules or convert it to the BRPS system?

Yes. Here is a perfect example where comparing results is much easier than reducing them by the success of others... Now, imagine than 6 player-characters are trying to hide while 10 non-player-characters are trying to find them... Rolling once for each character and comparing the results becomes obviously the easiest way determine who finds who exactly. The combat chart is fine when there is only one character vs only one other (which is always the case with attacks and defenses - because each attack is handled separately). But other kinds of oppositions may involve several people at the same time. And in the example above, making a roll to see if each non-player-character spot each one of the player-characters would require 60 rolls!

Yes, that is why I never use this rule of reducing or improving the levels of success... Except during combats, of course, where you have to roll damage and, so, to know what you will exactly roll: critical damage, special success damage or normal damage. The combat chart handle that very well. But outside of combats, it is useless. A simple comparison perfectly makes the job. The character did hide very well and the spotter may have found him if he didn't. But because he did hide very well, the spotter didn't find him. The GM can describe it slowly, with a lot of suspense, especially if he rolled the dice secretly for the spotter... It all depends on the situation. In some situation, indeed, there is no urge to find the winner. In this case, you can just rule that when both characters get the same level of success or failure, their relative position remains unchanged and, then, roll again. But sometimes, the opposition takes place in the middle of a combat, with a lot of other rolls to do... The character is trying to move silently to the back of his foe, for example... Then, if you have to roll dice several time just for the oppostion, it becomes boring. That is why comparing the level of success (without reducing or improving them) is, in my humble opinion, the better way handle things. Each success or failure is interpreted for what it is but you still have a winer.

Fine. I was sure that someone would give you the solution you needed. The Basic system often has several solutions to solve a problem. So, not finding the one which fits to your manner of running game is not usual.

Stealth vs Listen or Hide vs Spot are two good examples of that. The first character tries not being noticed while the second one tries to notice him. Not really. It doesn't prevent you to begin with an interpretation of the rolls as if it was ordinary actions. But it also gives you a solution to know who win when both rolls are sucessfull or failed.

There are still situations in which actions are not independant. Someone who is trying to do something while another one is trying to prevent him from doing it. Then, the success of one means the failure of the other. What I really like with the Basic System is the fact that each die roll can be interpreted for what it is before determining who won: critical success, special success, ordinary success, ordinary failure or fumble... It really allows a huge number of different interpretations of how the winner won.

Sorry to have repeated what you wrote. I'd better have read this thread with much more attention before posting. Yes. You can always rule that when the two characters get the same level of success or failure, none of them win... Especially when they both failed. An example: stealth. The one who is trying to move silently made noise... The guard heard it but doesn't success to know where it comes from. "Is there someone here? I know there is someone... I heard you... Come on and show yourself, or you will have problem..."

As said above there are several ways to handle opposed skill rolls. The simpliest way, in my humble opinion, is this one: The best success always win: a critical success win a special success; a special success win a normal success; a normal success win a failure; and a failure win a critical failure. When both characters obtain the same level of success, then compmare the numbers rolled on the dice: the higher one win (that way, someone with a skill of 75% will have much more chance to win than someone with a skill of 25%). So, in your example, if the hiding character just rolled a normal success while the spotter rolled a special success, the spotter would find the hiding character. This is what is explained in the BRP quickstart - if I remember well, because I have not my books at hand. It is the easiest way to do things, especially for beginners. Now, there are others. Thus, once you will be used with this rule, you will be able to choose a rule that best fit to what you are really looking for. Note that this simple rule already allows a huge diversity of interpretation. A normal success vs a special success may for instance be interpreted differently from a critical failure vs an ordinary failure. In the first case, the hinding character hides himself well, but the spotter is very aware, has luck or both, and still find it: a tiny detail alerts him. In the second case, the spotter just found the hiding character by chance despite of the fact that everyone else around would have seen him.

Having said that, there are a lot of other ways to print a pdf, like in a "photocopying shop" for instance (I don't know if "photocopying shop" it is the good English term). Indeed, they usually have tools to do a much better job than a simple home printing (high quality laser printer, high quality paper, etc.) and several different kinds of interesting bindings, as soon as you are ready to pay for a nearly professional work. The difference between them and a professional printer is mainly the fact that the printer will be able to make a huge amount of copies and to reduce the cost depending on this number.

Yes, of course, because they can't know why you want to copy it: for personal use, for selling or for anything else even more illegal (like counterfeiting). So, they don't want to be accomplice of something illegal.

It also depends on what is precisely written on the book. Some authors give license to copy for personal use, for instance, while some others don't. To be more precise, here is what is written on the Basic Role Playing system, the big golden book, second edition: "The reproduction from material from within this book for the purpose of personal or corporate profit [...] is prohibited." So, as long as it is for personal use and not for profit, it sounds to be allowed... Printing one book from a pdf with such a copyright will certainly be considered as legal as long as the owner of the printed book is also the owner of the pdf... Now, printing a dozen of books from the same pdf will certainly not be considered as personal use, of course... GURPS Lite, to take another example, gives even more license to the users : "GURPS Lite is copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 by Steve Jackson Games Incorporated. It is intended for free distribution. You are encouraged to copy and share these 32 pages freely." So, it really depends on the copyright. Thus, even if we usually skip it when we read a new book, watch it carefully when you want to know the author's point of view about their rights.

It is the case for all settings, actually. Even with a bad set of rules, a good GM can make you live an amazing adventure with a truly interesting plot, very good descriptions of what your character feels, and a lot of NPCs who sound alive. A bad GM, to the contrary, will make the adventure boring, even with a very good set of rules... An this is especially true with Tolkien's world... There is no more richness in Tolkien's plot than in a classical D&D adventure... Except everything around. Tolkiens characters and world are so well described that we believe in them. They do live in our mind as well as if they really existed. It could be great, indeed... Especially because Tolkiens stories have their roots deeply planted in Celtic and Nordic myths... I've got exactly the same problem... Too many things to do and not enough time to spend on role playing games... That is why I decided to become lazy... Lazy about what is not really necessary to run a very good adventure... But I also decided to focus all my efforts on what is really necessary: a good plot and living NPCs. Yes. But conversion can take a lot of time too... And exactly as translation, they are never completely satisfying... I played Cthulhu adventures with GURPS rules for several years. And one of my first questions was: how to do it? How to give the same atmosphere with rules which have much more technical detail... Fortunately, I decided to use GURPS rules exactly as they are written, even for fright checks (which are handled in a very different way from sanity loss) and magic. And it worked very well. The atmosphere around the table was as gloomy and terrific than with Call of Cthulhu rules. So, my hint: BRP rules are very good. Don't worry too much about rule detail... Just choose the options that sound fine in the big golden book and focus all your efforts on adventure preparation... You will save a lot of time and get a much better result... But it is just my point of view, of course...

I really think that the "Tolkien's touch" will be more a narrative question than a rule question... When I watch Lord of The Ring, from Peter Jackson, especially the second episode, I found that D&D did it quite right with its level system (that I still find boring): Gandalf really changed level after the Balrog encounter... So, if a game like D&D can make the job, BRP surely can do it much better! The options you are talking about (allegiance, abilities/feats...) sound fine but, it my humble opinion, it won't change things a lot. Likewise for the magic rules... Your stories and your descriptions will change things! Look at Tolkien scenarios. They are extremely simple (in a role playing game point of view). A hero (Bilbo) takes part to a treasure quest and the main foe is a dragon. Another hero (Frodo) must bring back a magical ring to the mountain where it was created in order to destroy it... Hard to find more classical adventures... What makes these two stories amazing are the manner with which Tolkien told them. So, no matter which precise rule you use for magic in you Middle Earth world, and which gaming optional BRP rule you use, all what will change the atmosphere of your games will be how you describe things. Take all your time to describe spell effects or combats, as Tolken would have done it, and your campaign will look like a Tolkien story.

I don't remember exactly where, but there is a rule which says that when you see a lot of monsters of the same kind, you just loose the maximum roll of the sanity loss die and not a new roll for each creature. Seeing dozens of zombies (1/1D8) will make the character loose 8 sanity points at maximum and not 1D8 for each zombie, for instance. So, seing a lot of dead bodies won't make you loose too much sanity points. Furthermore, for dead bodies, the rules say that you loose sanity points when the bodies were unexpected. Which is not what happens in this example. For the violent death of your friends, the maximum is 6 points. Now, summoning a monster, knowing for sure that it will kill a lot of people (and certainly some innocents) and also knowing for sure that you will be responsible of all these horrible and insane murders is surely worse than that... For a Byakhee, it could make something like 1D3 (the invocation spell) + 1D6 (the Byakhee appearing) + 1D6 (realizing what you have done), which makes 9 sanity points on average. Yes. A lot of Call of Cthulhu adventures are designed to be slaughters. I don't found that funny for the players. That is why, in my humble opinion, they have to be adapted, which is always what I do.

From a law enforcement point of view, of course, it is safer... But from a Sanity point of view, it is surely not... Of course. Which is why I never do that with my player, no matter the campaign genre... Players must have the possibility to find hints about the monster before encountering it. Otherwise, it is not anymore a game; it becomes a slaughter. And players don't stay very long with slaugthering GM.

Quite strange, in my humble opinion... Calling something in Call of Cthulhu is one thing... Controlling it is another, much more hazardous... And doing it, especially letting this thing killing people without loosing enough sanity to become a cultist is even stranger... My player won't ever try that! Or they will remeber it for a long while... Now, to come back to the main topic of this thread, Dragons, in a lot of stories, are exactly like what you described here... They killed dozens of knight before and when you attack them, you absolutely don't know how exactly powerful they are (except that it is terrible) and what are their specific strengths or weaknesses... Players shouldn't know their stats more than Call of Cthulhu players should know those of Cthulhu entities. Unfortunately, in most fantasy role playing games, experimented players know by heart the stats of dozens of creatures... Even when their character didn't meet them yet. The problem is exactly the same... And that's why a good GM can change monster's stats! Especially their weakness. Sorry guy, but this vampire doesn't sound too fear garlic...

I don't know with which kind of Game Master you played Call of Cthulhu but I'm beginning to understand why you don't like it! In the adventures I run, there is always an important investigation part in which the player characters learn enough to know what kind of danger they will meet and what to do (and fleeing far away as quick as possible can sometimes be the only good option - especially in front of Cthulhu itself). And yes, there are to many nasties to defeat and some of them are impossible to kill... But surviving (as in a lot of other horror genres) and defeating a creature or several cultists from time to time is the main goal of the campaign. You know, there are a lot of horror stories where the heroes never win. Almost all, actually. The monsters always come back. Even when the players believe that they won... This is a main feature of the genre.