frogspawner

Thanks, gents. That's considerable help, as I'm planning to use something like it in an upcoming campaign, and figured there was no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Unless the wheel has rough corners on it, like I think this one does. E.g. Expend 3 PP to avoid all damage from an attack, automatically? Can NPCs use that too? Does it have to be personal power, or can it come from storage devices, bound spirits, or what-have-you? And why is it cheaper than the other uses? (Which, incidentally, I don't like nearly so much!)

But I plan to use the Tanj points again, since my view on characters are: they're heroes!

However, are they the only heroes around? Yesterday, some NPCs used (my equivalent of) Fate Points to escape damage in combat - "But we're the heroes!" the players howled. Was that 'Justice'?

BTW, how do your 'heroes' earn their Tanj?

If you can't say who your source is, then why post about it at all until, and if, you can?

One reason: this dissatisfaction could feed back to Chaosium and actually make a response more likely, improving our chances of getting a high quality supplement for BRP. That's worth a bit of frustrated curiosity, I'd say...

But Rurik is 'Good Old Roleplaying', so he's right on-topic IMO...

And, of course, he was famous for being killed by a trollkin.

Pardon my ignorance - Rurik the Restless has been laid to rest? Who says? And when and where did it happen?

PS... what other system were you thinking of? <dense right now>

I think it was called "D and <something>". Can't quite remember the other letter...

And yes - nice formula (good pedigree). Something about the "Dice + Adds" method appeals, too: clean and neat (my T&T background showing?). I just wondered if having big flat bonuses like "+50" (or even +20, or whatever...) would offend too many people around here. It seems not...

RQ:AiG had an interesting take in that weapons all did a rolled die of damage, with no adds if I recall correctly. So, weapons did 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, etc. Damage bonus went up by 1's, but wasn't rolled, so it went +1, +2, +3, etc. I kind of like that idea.

Hmm, that seems sort of familiar from some other system... despite that, I like it too. But would there be a problem far up the STR/SIZ scale, with +50 bonuses (or whatever)?

The good ole flame war seems as dead and gone as the old fashioned dungeon crawl and the Windows PC.

Sarcastic? Well of course - we had one recently in a thread started by... oh, I forget.

'Balance' is not only unrealistic but also just plain wrong - because it undermines the reason for character progress (as per Atgxtg's point about training, from the Skills Base thread, which strikes me as applicable to any way characters improve...):

In mnay ways training in an RPG is just cheating yourself. Here is my theory:

1) The opposition's abilties are usually set to make the a challenge to the PCs. Inferior, yes, but still a challennge so they can provide an needed element of risk. Therefore if the PCs become twice as powerful the opposition must as well to maintain the element of risk.

2) The higher you skill the more hits you get and the greater the chance of a critical.

1+2= The more powerful the PCs become the more often the foes will hit and the more often the foes will critical. It true for the PCs too, but since the villains are the ones playing the game, who cares?

So by becoming more powerful the PCs cut into their margin for error and increase their chances of getting killed through a lucky hit.

It is a really easy game to grasp because everyone inherently understands percentages. What Sneak 45% means is obvious to a non gamer.

Exactly. I don't know any other game that shows abilities so intuitively.

As for potential difficulties, I gather the new BRP book may be a bit thick and hence possibly off-putting. But that's because it's got all sorts of different options in it. My point is, if you find some parts too hard for you or your players - don't use them. I think that's how it's designed. Even do that with 'core' mechanics at first, if you like - add extra bits later, if and when you're ready.

While I've always used tied rolls always go to the higher skill, I don't like using tied levels of success always go to the higher skill. In that case a 91% skill is going to beat a 90% skill almost every single time.

I see what you mean - it could be too predictable. But Specials/Failures will happen 18+10=28% of the time (on each side, which should multiply, right?). And what with modifiers (eg moving halves hide?), and other factors possibly unknown beforehand, there should be enough unpredictability to keep things interesting.

I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably...

(Anyone care to do the maths?)

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing. ... How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

It's a cinch - there's nothing easier or more intuitive for first-timers.

But this thread is a pretty poor place to see how easy BRP really is! It's full of hard-core old-timers fighting their corners with abstruse arguments and complex mathematics*. I should start a new thread and ask again, mate!

(* Previously defined as subtraction - or even worse! )

Not sure what you mean buy adding something that wasn't there before. RQ3 Player's Book, pg 34, heading "Skill vs. Skill". That is the opposed roll rules for RQ3. The exact same machanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default meathod is much better.

You're right, of course. (Your post sent me running to my RQ3). I guess the way it said skills "can" be used that way let me ignore it - I never really liked that mechanism either! And so, when people said the only options in the new BRP were variations of Opposed Rolls (this included), I was led to believe it was new. Thanks for putting me straight. Mr D, please excuse me!

(Even so, I now prefer the 'higher-skill-wins-tied-success-levels' method! )

In the play test draft Combat remained a special case, as it always has been in Chaosium BRP rules, and Attack / Parry and Dodge resolution were described in the Combat Chapter, not the Skills chapter.

Phew. Ta!

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably* well.

Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it...

Actually, I think that resolves the whole "Opposed Roll" issue for me. If I want to prolong the suspense with a more extended contest, I can always define interim stages and call for re-rolls to get further. Otherwise, ties mean whoever should win, does win (though, rightly, that's not certain at the outset). Great!

And, what's more, this fix means I'd only have to cross-out and replace two letters, rather than a whole line, from my new BRP Book when I get it. Thanks again!

(* Only "reasonably"? Could you kindly say what niggles you found, to get me up-to-speed with it?)

I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll.

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

I'm not going to use the opposed rolls, and I'm not going to use the major wound table as it stands. I'm still excited about the book though. When I get mine, I'll organize the wiki in the same manner as the book, and we can all add our houserules.

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"...

Here is what it says:

i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows:

If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success.

If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success.

ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins.

Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them?

It's good stuff, guys!

Naturally!

But the only way to include the previously published BRP options would to have an entry saying something like "Opposed Skills: gloss over it." or a blank space... Or a few ad hoc specific (and different in each case) examples fro the most common pairs of skills...

Well, that's not really true, is it? ORs could have been introduced as an option (like plenty of other rules have), or even as the default with the old ways optional (but I suspect that's not what's happening...).

I don't remember what thread, but I asked Jason about opposed rolls since I was confused and he cleared it up.

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

No. No version of BRP had this. MRQ, hoewever, has this exact rule, right now to the same exact problem. But since Jason said that he has not looked at MRQ and would'nt read it if he was given it, I think it is just two people coming up with the same thing at the same time. Probably becuase they are working with similar systems.

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty!

Anyway, I wonder if Mr D would care to reconcile the introduction of Opposed Rolls as the only option with what he said about BRPs parentage (in the context of shields, but as a general principle IMO):

And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc.

PS: ...and I'm opposed to Opposed Rolls!

There does seem to be a tendency in certain parts of the BRP fan base to go on and on about rules minutia rather than get on with writing good scenarios or fun fluff for game backgrounds.

Guilty.

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero. Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

<Time passes. It transpires frogspawner was not wrong...>

Noooooo! Why does this have to be the one time I was right? Why Why? WHY? ;-(

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.

Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works? :confused:

Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation.

By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

I prefer the way MRQ handles it actually. Base chance of a skill = Stat+Stat.

Yes, that sounds pretty good. Personally, I'd tweak it to depend on just one stat, with -5/-10 modifiers for more difficult/obscure skills. Is there any option in the upcoming BRP which resembles that?

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP.

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero.

Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

There's a lot of criticism that to me seems to boil down to the fact that people's preferred method of opposed skill resolution hasn't been adopted as the default rule...

I'm not bothered what gets adopted as default BRP (being confident it'll be fairly sensible) - I'll be buying BRP stuff anyway. All I want is to find the way that's best...

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented!

It is all about feel. You like the Opposed Roll - fine, but some of us don't. And no way is it the best for 30 years! I feel there are quite a few issues about ORs that are not yet resolved: rolling low or high-within-low; extra maths; trivializing potentially exciting contests (e.g. sneaking, bargaining...). For me, the challenge of finding the Perfect Mechanism is still ongoing. Care to join me, or wish me luck?

In this situation you need to decide which is the active (IE: attacking skill) and the which is the defending skill, then err on the side of the defending skill when equal success levels are attained.

The problem is its not clear which is which, and frankly, there's no absolute need to make the decision here. Doing so inevitably ends up favoring either people who use stealth or punishing them.

RQ3 (or was it 2?) said perception always beat stealth, I think (can't find the reference). However, I agree it's not always so clear-cut. I'd suggest deciding in favour of the status quo in any given situation, i.e. whoever stands to lose something (their pocket contents, their job as guard, their liberty, their life...) should have the advantage.

Are you really suggesting that given a two rolls against two percentile targets you find it that hard to give an order of magnitude approximation?

Yep. Harder than not doing so anyway. And it's unnecessary. Why must there always be a winner, immediately? Ties happen.

It's not _hard_ but it does slows down things a bit.

And as have been replied, while this is mathematically a good rule, it goes against the "roll low" tradition. It might be the best solution, but it doesn't really "feel" right.

Same here. It's all about the feel. I think it's the way it'd spoil the immediacy of a 'Dramatic Moment' (slightly).

90% vs 30% gives 83%/17%. I.e. the 90% will win an opposed roll 83% of the time.

But a 90% attack will get past a 30% parry about (90x70=) 63% of the time. So the same numbers will give very different probabilities if you use opposed rolls. How can that be right?

...

2) The "partial success" option mentioned earlier. THe trick would be to let the "attacker" succed, but cut the effect on success down, the way a parry stops some of the damage (if you use parry APs).

For instance, if sneaking past a guard, the "Attacker" is the sneaking character and the "defender" is the guard. If the boths succeed, then the attacker only get's partw way before having to stop and duck behind cover (perhaps the guard thought he heard something?) for the rest of the round. Ot you could say that the attacker didn't any distance at all, but didn't get spotted so he can keep trying.

...

Most opposed contests could be handled the same way. Tie results could be treated as a deadlock, as with any for instance, gambling. Same with a climbing contest.

That's great - 'spot on'! All that's needed is a good interpretation of the tied situation, like this! Call it a draw?

Not into the BRP culture wars.

Pardon my ignorance, what do you mean by the "culture wars"?