So how do YOU handle contest skills?

[Camillus]

Just seems the "price is right method" of rolling under skill but higher than the other roll, or the roll with the greater margin of success (closest roll to skill) muddles things up too.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction that you are making. The roll high without going over (normally called a 'blackjack' method) and the succeed by the greatest amount are mathematically identical, it's just that the blackjack system requires one less step since there is no subtraction required.

If player A has a 70% but rolls a 19. And player B has a 30% but rolls a 20 its easy to say who wins. I guess.

Depends on whether you use the blackjack or greater margin approach. In the blackjack system B wins by rolling higher. In the margin approach A wins because they were 51 skill points below what was needed for a success.

But now if you say player B wins because he was closer to his skill and only 10 points off than having a higher skill hurts you too since average rolls are more prevalent. Hitting a 60% skill very close with out going over (or say with in 20) will be way easier than a rare roll of 90. Making a high skill a liability. since now you got to roll very close to the higher extreme to win.

But what if player A has 20% and player B has 88%. Player B has got to roll 68-88 to beat players A's margin of success. since player A cant get lower than a 20 below his skill no matter what he rolls. Player A will win almost any roll he can make below a 20. Which in its self is the real limiter, how often he can make his roll. The higher the skill the harder it would be to beat the margin of success.

No, the higher the skill the easier it is to beat the margin of success of the lower skill.

Player A will get a Normal Success on a roll of 05-20 which means the most he can succeed by (without scoring a Special or Critical) is 15. Player B on the other hand will score a Normal Success on a roll of 19-88 which means he can succeed by up to 69 points. In a situation where player A rolls 05 he has to hope that B rolls higher than 73 or B will have succeeded by more than 15 points and will have achieved a greater margin of success than A.

So that is why I say If the lower roll wins, the higher skill will win more often. Since the lower skilled player will out right fail more often. But leaves room for the player with a very low skill to pull off a lucky roll to.

This is true whatever system you use.

If the method you want to use is the player wins who makes his roll but rolls higher than his opponent and margin of success doesn't matter It seems that the higher skilled player now has a double advantage. If player A has 20% and player B has 88% as stated above than player B will win as long as he rolls any thing better than 20% no matter what player A rolls. Since B has almost not chance. only change he has is if player B fails. Might as well just let player B do all the rolling any thing from 20-88 he wins.

No, because if A rolls 01-04 he has either a Critical or Special success which beats B's Normal success for anything above 18.

So I'm not really convinced either way. I think lowest roll wins give the under dog some chance. Sure he is most likely toast. But if he makes it Under 20% its up to the higher skilled player to beat him. So 1/5 of the time the under dog has a change. I maybe wrong on this. But I ran old RQ for quiet some time and it worked fine back then. Its how ill do it now.

As Thalaba pointed out the problem with giving the victory to the absolute lowest roll without accounting for margin of success is that it punishes the person with the higher skill whenever the person with the lower skill succeeds.

If player B, with a skill of 88%, rolls 19 (1 point from scoring a Special) they have succeeded by a margin of 69 points. Most people would say that that indicates they have done particularly well. If player A, with his skill of 20%, then rolls 18, he has succeeded by 2 and is 14 points away from scoring a Special. Most people would say that he just scraped a success and yet under an absolute roll low system he has just won the contest. I find that a little illogical.

As Thalaba pointed out it virutally requires the higher skilled person to score a Special in order to defeat the lower skilled person who succeeds, when most of us would argue that it should be the other way round.

[HANZO]

Ok maybe I didn't explain any of that very well. (what I get from almost 28hrs with out sleep) What I kinda was trying to say was lower roll on a higher skill is a greater degree of success.

For example a roll of 50 on a 80% skill is a larger degree of success(30 under). than a roll of 20 on a 40% skill.(20 under).

The 80% skill can roll any thing from 1-60 to beat the 40% skill on its 20 roll.

The 40% skill would need to roll from 1-10 to beat an 80% skill who rolled a 50.

Who has the easier roll to make? how does that not give the higher skill an advantage?

Lets try it again with same roll on different skill levels.

For example a roll of 30 on a 80% skill is a larger degree of success(50 under). than a roll of 30 on a 60% skill.(30 under).

The 80% skill can roll any thing from 1-30 to beat the 60% skill on its 30 roll.

The 40% skill would need to roll a 1-10 to beat an 80% skill who rolled a 30.

Who has the easier roll to make? how does that not give the higher skill an advantage?

subtract roll from skill for range if its not as easy to tell at a glance.

And totally gives the higher skill the advantage.

Higher the skill the easier to roll under it.

Its a wider range.

so its easy at a glance to see who wins.

Biggest range wins.

Higher skill Equals greater range possible if you roll low.

Plus the lower skilled person has a higher chance to just out right fail while the higher skilled person just has to make it with in range to beat that. Some times the lower skill will win. If you don't like that Idea than just rule higher skill always wins. Or if one person is skilled more than 30% greater than his opponent than he out right wins. That way a poorly skilled person has no chance at all. As seems to be the goal other wise.

I just don't like the "price is right" approach. rolling under your skill but higher than your opponents with out going over your skill. Goes against the special success and critical success rule the way its spelled out in the book on page 13 & 173. which is pretty easy to use as is. It just seems wonky and unnecessary to switch it all around. in a lower is better system.

I was not against counting degrees. Just counting them over your opponent when your opponents roll may be impossible to roll with out going over your skill. since a skill 40% person could never out roll an 80% person who rolls a 50. ever.

I believe a lower skilled person should always have a chance. not matter how small. Which I believe is a possible result of the "price is right" approach.

.............................................................................................................................

A method from another % system I'v played before used an active VS Passive approach Much like the resistance table used in BRP. Could be house ruled in pretty easy.

The basic Idea though is that only the active(usually a player) rolls against the skill of the passive (usually the NPC). The chart boiled down to using 50% as a base. Every point below 50% the passive player has is added to the active players chance of success. while every point above 50% the passive player has is subtracted to the active players chance of success.

Player A is sneaking up on NPC B.

Player A has a stealth of 65%

NPC B has a perception of 45%, since perception in 5 below 50%, Player A now rolls VS 70%. Adding that 5 to his skill.

If NPC B had a 70% perception. 20 higher than 50%. Player A now gets to add that 20 to his skill, rolling VS 85%.

Only the active player rolls.

Just a thought.

Edited April 13, 2009 by HANZO

[cjbowser]

For example a roll of 50 on a 80% skill is a larger degree of success(30 under). than a roll of 20 on a 40% skill.(20 under).

The 80% skill can roll any thing from 1-60 to beat the 40% skill on its 20 roll.

The 40% skill would need to roll from 1-10 to beat an 80% skill who rolled a 50.

Who has the easier roll to make? how does that not give the higher skill an advantage?

Why not just use the degrees of success rules in the core book? That's essentially what you're knocking around here.

It allows for lower skill levels to beat higher skill levels on occasion, particularly if the lower skill level rolls a crit or special and the higher skill level only rolls a normal success, even if the difference between the die roll and the skill level is greater for the higher skill character than it is for the lower skill level character.

Plus then you can use the handy chart in the back of the book to completely eliminate the need for messy subtraction.

[Camillus]

I just don't like the "price is right" approach. rolling under your skill but higher than your opponents with out going over your skill. Goes against the special success and critical success rule the way its spelled out in the book on page 13 & 173. which is pretty easy to use as is. It just seems wonky and unnecessary to switch it all around. in a lower is better system.

The highest roll wins when both rolls result in the same degree of success is the method given on page 173 for resolving opposed skill rolls.

In situations where two skill rolls are opposed, both characters roll against their respective skills. The character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the contest...In the event that both parties achieve the same degree of success, the higher die roll wins the contest, giving the advantage to characters with higher skill ratings.

I was not against counting degrees. Just counting them over your opponent when your opponents roll may be impossible to roll with out going over your skill. since a skill 40% person could never out roll an 80% person who rolls a 50. ever.

I believe a lower skilled person should always have a chance. not matter how small. Which I believe is a possible result of the "price is right" approach.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the person with the lower skill should never have a chance. They do have a chance: they can roll a Special or a Critical and so beat the more highly skilled character's Normal success that way. They will always have a chance, even if it is only 01.

[Al.]

Fundamentally I suppose that it doesn't matter which method one uses as long as one is consistent

The 'Price is Right/Blackjack/Roll High but under' method works really well in PenDragon but PenDragon

- uses a D20

- is set up for opposed tests as part of the core mechanic

- 'only' has Success and Critical (no Specials)

When I have seen (and used) 'Price is Right/Blackjack/Roll High but under' with a d100 it has not been as satisfactory

I seem to find myself preferring 'legacy' d100 solutions more as I get older and lazier.

Critical beats Special beats Success beats Failure beats Fumble

and

Perception beats Stealth on a tie [as an aside I read this as a Failed Listen also beats a Failed Sneak since Failure is the same level of (un)success]

are both tried and tested and unambiguous approaches

The remaining question being what to do in other situations?

Deciding which categories of skills trump which other ones is more effort than I want to do pre-game

Subtracting roll from skill is more faff than I want (yes for the numerate it is tres simple but not all of my players are numerate or sober)

Highest under adds some strange artifacts

Lowest outright roll likewise

'PC wins' has legs but not all of the games which I run are pulpy

Active beats passive is neat and had I seen/heard this solution first I would probably have given it a shot

For ME highest skill wins on remaining ties is the conceptual simplest solution. Of course not everyone seeks out (false) simplicity as such an important goal.

Al

[HANZO]

Agreed. I was just rambling on about what is easiest to wrap my head around in play. Different people = different tastes. Im all about optional rules and tweaking a system to get the feel I need out of it. Some times from setting to setting ill do it different just to get a "Feel" that I want.

[deleriad]

For ME highest skill wins on remaining ties is the conceptual simplest solution. Of course not everyone seeks out (false) simplicity as such an important goal.

Al

The problem is this. Say you have two people: Andrew is 51% at singing and Bob is 50% at singing. They enter a singing contest. You would expect them to have a roughly equal chance of winning as the difference in skill between them is minimal.

In fact, using the highest skill wins system

Andrew wins 48.7% of the time, Bob wins 28.7% of the time and there is no result the rest of time.

Basically the highest skill wins system massively overstates the importance of skill. The better you are, the odder it seems. For example 100% vs 95% results in a win for the 100%er 80% of the time.

[Al.]

You say problem I say aspect

I did warn first time out that it does affect things (combat especially) significantly

Al

[sdavies2720]

Do we need to have a consistent approach every time this (opposed rolls that are both equal successes) comes up?

I usually interpret the results based on what is most dramatic. If a Sneaker is successful in Sneak, and the Guard is successful in Spot (or Scan), I:

* If time is of the essence and this will increase tension, I 'push' the result for a round. The Sneaker has to wait while the Guard is staring right at him. Roll the next round. Someone eventually fails, or time is running out so they try something else.

* If it's unimportant to the plot, I arm wave it (usually in favor of the players)

* If it's important that we resolve it in one roll, I either adjudicate that the high skill wins or the one who was most under his skill wins. Maybe I'll change that to the canon (higher roll wins).

Steve

[Atgxtg]

Do we need to have a consistent approach every time this (opposed rolls that are both equal successes) comes up?

Yeah, I think we do. Otherwise it isn't fair in player-vs-player situations. The carry over seems the best solution. It fits most circumstances and it adds tension/drama.

For Player vs. NPCs I think it is probably better not to use opposed rolls but simply have the player roll, and apply a modifier based on the skill of the opposing NPC, say 1/4th the NPC's skill? So sneaking past a guard with 20% in his perception (Spot/Listen) skills wold be at a -5% penalty. Sneaking past an alert guard with 80% in his perception skills would be at -20%.

It's probably biased towards the PCs, but I've never had an NPC complain about it.

[HANZO]

Yeah, I think we do. Otherwise it isn't fair in player-vs-player situations. The carry over seems the best solution. It fits most circumstances and it adds tension/drama.

For Player vs. NPCs I think it is probably better not to use opposed rolls but simply have the player roll, and apply a modifier based on the skill of the opposing NPC, say 1/4th the NPC's skill? So sneaking past a guard with 20% in his perception (Spot/Listen) skills wold be at a -5% penalty. Sneaking past an alert guard with 80% in his perception skills would be at -20%.

It's probably biased towards the PCs, but I've never had an NPC complain about it.

I dont think Player VS Player has come up in one of my games since our ill fated run at Rifts back a long long time ago. Is player VS Player a real concern in most players games?

[sdavies2720]

I dont think Player VS Player has come up in one of my games since our ill fated run at Rifts back a long long time ago. Is player VS Player a real concern in most players games?

Not for me--I never take it into account when thinking about rules. In fact, whenever there is a PvP situation, usually everything stops and there is a minute when the GM says, "here's how this is going to work."

We've found that stopping and confirming the rules and situation resolves most of the PvP situations right away when the players have to agree on a single interpretation of the situation. And if we don't confirm the rules, the PvP situation almost always ends in, "That's not fair."

So, for us, those situations get treated specially.

Steve

[Atgxtg]

I dont think Player VS Player has come up in one of my games since our ill fated run at Rifts back a long long time ago. Is player VS Player a real concern in most players games?

In my campaign, PvP is usually a sign that things are going offtrack. The exception might be when two or more players enter some sort of gambling competition.

To be honest, I try to avoid opposed skill rolls in BRP, as it is one of the systems weakness. So many other RPGs handle it beautifully. The D100 method used to resolve most things in BRP isn't well suited for such contests.

;

[Harshax]

I think for opposed rolls (PvP or PvGM), I'll use a roll under skill, but higher than your opponent [for ties], otherwise I'll compare success level. I'm also going to borrow the Masteries concept from Hero Wars/Quest, where each 100% equals 1 Mastery. The character with the highest Mastery can raise their own success one step, or lower their opponent(s) one step for each mastery they have in excess of their opponent(s).

[Atgxtg]

I think for opposed rolls (PvP or PvGM), I'll use a roll under skill, but higher than your opponent [for ties], otherwise I'll compare success level. I'm also going to borrow the Masteries concept from Hero Wars/Quest, where each 100% equals 1 Mastery. The character with the highest Mastery can raise their own success one step, or lower their opponent(s) one step for each mastery they have in excess of their opponent(s).

Just wondering, you do mean higher roll in the same success level, right? So an "01" will still beat a "20" in most circumstances, right?

[Harshax]

Just wondering, you do mean higher roll in the same success level, right? So an "01" will still beat a "20" in most circumstances, right?

That's exactly what I meant.

[deleriad]

I think for opposed rolls (PvP or PvGM), I'll use a roll under skill, but higher than your opponent [for ties], otherwise I'll compare success level. I'm also going to borrow the Masteries concept from Hero Wars/Quest, where each 100% equals 1 Mastery. The character with the highest Mastery can raise their own success one step, or lower their opponent(s) one step for each mastery they have in excess of their opponent(s).

Of course the effect of that is that a character at 100% against one at 99% wins probably 90% of the time while 95% vs 94% is close to 50/50. It makes the 100% break point massively huge in BRP in a way that feels quite out of proportion. E.g. You have someone 90% vs 80% but the 80%er gets a +20% bonus for something.

I did try this ages ago and stopped pretty quickly because it was just too extreme.

[Pete Nash]

Of course the effect of that is that a character at 100% against one at 99% wins probably 90% of the time while 95% vs 94% is close to 50/50. It makes the 100% break point massively huge in BRP in a way that feels quite out of proportion. E.g. You have someone 90% vs 80% but the 80%er gets a +20% bonus for something.

I did try this ages ago and stopped pretty quickly because it was just too extreme.

I think he probably missed out the point that the guy with 100%+ mastery should remove the hundreds digit and roll against the remainder, before applying the bump (or bumps).

Unfortunately, it still introduces a slight mathematical flaw in that it reduces your critical/special range. You could keep the original % range of those, but the technique is not smoothly elegant when using BRP.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Pete Nash

[Harshax]

Of course the effect of that is that a character at 100% against one at 99% wins probably 90% of the time while 95% vs 94% is close to 50/50. It makes the 100% break point massively huge in BRP in a way that feels quite out of proportion. E.g. You have someone 90% vs 80% but the 80%er gets a +20% bonus for something.

I did try this ages ago and stopped pretty quickly because it was just too extreme.

I think you're doing something wrong. 100 vs. 99 has the exact same chances for critical, special, success, and fumble.

If not, I'd like to see your math, because what your saying doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Harshax]

I think he probably missed out the point that the guy with 100%+ mastery should remove the hundreds digit and roll against the remainder, before applying the bump (or bumps).

Ah, ok.

Unfortunately, it still introduces a slight mathematical flaw in that it reduces your critical/special range. You could keep the original % range of those, but the technique is not smoothly elegant when using BRP.

I hope the keyword is slight. I can live with slight. 8)

[deleriad]

Ah, ok.

I hope the keyword is slight. I can live with slight. 8)

Ah, I thought Harshax had missed that point. But, as you say, if you do remove the 100s digit then the character with mastery has a significantly reduced critical and special chance which is also counter intuitive. E.g. at 100 vs 95 then the character with mastery has a 1% chance of a critical and a 4% chance of a special as opposed to the 95%er who has a 5% and 19% chance respectively.

I kept coming across this back in my RQ3 days when I tried various opposed roll systems (starting off with stolen from Pendragon) and the PCs tended to be around 90-100% in their best skills. The problem tended to be huge breakpoints or periods (like the mastery version) where skills went backwards for a while.

I can pretty much guarantee you that the first time a player with 110% makes an opposed roll and has to take 100 off their roll they'll balk.

[Pete Nash]

I kept coming across this back in my RQ3 days when I tried various opposed roll systems (starting off with stolen from Pendragon) and the PCs tended to be around 90-100% in their best skills. The problem tended to be huge breakpoints or periods (like the mastery version) where skills went backwards for a while.

Yep, it only really works when using a d20 skill system, where the critical range remains as a constant 5%. Even then it remains a tiny bit flawed, since when you just exceed mastery, there's a short period where you cannot roll a normal success - only a critical. But that flaw is minor.

[Atgxtg]

Uh folks, using "bumbs" and subtracting 100% does reduce the cortical chance and implale chances very slightly (by as much as a whole 1%), but makes up for it by eliminating the chance for a fumble, and adding the possiblity for a "double" critical.

Let's say you got a guy with 120% skill. So you subtract 100% from his skill and give him a "bump". So now his skill chances are:

01= Critical, bumped to a "Double" Critical

02-o4= Special Success, bumped to a critical.

05-20= Success, bumped to a special success

06-95- Failure, bumped to a success

96-00= Fumble, bumped to a failure.

Now if you are using the "better success level wins" approach, the guy with the 120% skill "lost" 1% on his critical and special success chances, but can't fumble, and can even win outright if he rolls a 01.

The bad bit about bumps is that in cases where there is a great difference of skill (over 200%) it makes the outcome a foregone conclusion, .since the higher skilled character will automatically critical, and so can't loose. Still that's probably about right.

If you do use bumpbs I suggest letting character spend a Hero Point to buy a bump like they do in HeroQuest. That helps PCs offset the advantages of the bump a little and gives PCs a defense against the "double critical" result.

BTW, 100% vs.99% is a flat 50-50%, as in normal BRP. Both skills have the same critical/special/failure/fumble chances. If you are using automatic failures at 96%+ then 98% is the same, too. You can't kick in a "bump" at 100% becuase that would leave the character rolling against a 00% skill.

[Pete Nash]

Uh folks, using "bumbs" and subtracting 100% does reduce the cortical chance and implale chances very slightly (by as much as a whole 1%), but makes up for it by eliminating the chance for a fumble, and adding the possiblity for a "double" critical.

Actually, I think you'll find the loss of 'core' critical and impale chances is far greater when you first cross the 100% boundary.

Using your same example, but at 101% the skill chances are...

01= Critical, bumped to a "Double" Critical

02-05= (Base Chance) Success, bumped to a Special

06-95- Failure, bumped to a Success

96-00= Fumble, bumped to a Failure.

Note that until the character reaches 106% there is no chance of rolling a Special (and being bumped up to a normal Critical).

Comparing this with the PC at 100% we get:

01-05 = Critical

06-20 = Special

21-95 = Success

96-99 = Failure

00= Fumble

So at 101% (with bumps) the PC has lost...

5% from his chance of a Critical

15% from his chance of a Special

But gained...

1% of getting a Double Critical

15% to his chance of Success

1% to his chance of Failure

and has no chance of Fumbling.

From where I'm sitting that's a significant setback.

Of course, once the PC raises his skill to 120% he now crosses the break point where his chance of a Special has recovered. At 121% his chance of a Critical also recovers. Raising his skill percentage beyond this point rapidly makes him a force to be reckoned with!

Considering the length of time it takes a character to improve skills over 100%, the mastery-bump method is a rather harsh, and very long lasting penalisation! The only 'fix' I can see is to grant an automatic free +21% to the skill once mastery has been achieved.

[rpgstarwizard]

Usually I use the closest to their skill score wins. Also depending on the situation I may contest the play a little more. If a player nearly misses a roll, I will allow a second roll.with a midiefr, like 10%. The game logic is "did I really hear something"?