So how do YOU handle contest skills?

[Atgxtg]

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

True. I had thought of 101%, but had considered that it would sort itself out at 106%. I knew the "bump" problem exists in HQ, too. A 21 is functionally the same as a 20 in HQ, but handled considered th effects on specials.

As for the "fix". Jumping from 100 to 120% wouldn't really cause any problems functionally, except when the skill isn't being opposed.

[Al.]

I tried porting the HeroQuest masteries rule across to d100 and gave up because of the loss of special/critical.

However with Pete's actual nmerical analysis I might try

When a skill reaches 121% then it becomes 21m1

Al

[frogspawner]

... 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"?

I like that approach. I'd use re-rolls if the Degree of Success is a draw. (But perhaps just for the higher-skilled character?)

The problem with a single roll v. roll is it's too chancy - higher-skilled characters cannot rely on their superiority as much as they should. This approach helps by spreading the contest over multiple rolls, giving higher skills better opportunity to prove their worth, as combat.

Edited April 18, 2009 by frogspawner

[Atgxtg]

I like that approach.

The problem with a single roll v. roll is it's too chancy - higher-skilled characters cannot rely on their superiority as much as they should. This approach helps by spreading the contest over multiple rolls, giving higher skills better opportunity to prove their worth, as combat.

That is the inherent problem that many older RPGs have. They use multiple rolls to resolve combat, but then use a quicker method of resolving other skill tests. The original idea was that combat was more interesting and more important than, say, a basket weaving contest.

Depending on what you are trying to do, you can used "extended skill tests" and set as target number of "success" as a goal. The first one to reach that goal succeeds. Specials and Crticals could be worth multiple successes.

Note that this could be stretched to cover things like "sneaking past the guards" too. The GM just sets a few waypoints that the sneak uses to try and get by the guards. IF he gets enough successes he gets past the guards. If the guards get to the total required successes before the sneak, they were alert and spotted him. This also allows the GM to determine just where the sneak was when spotted, or explain how guards could get edgy and think that they might have heard or seen something.

[sdavies2720]

...The only 'fix' I can see is to grant an automatic free +21% to the skill once mastery has been achieved.

Or let the player/GM choose which to use. Most times people will want the extra crit chance, but others avoiding the fumble will be more important.

[frogspawner]

That is the inherent problem that many older RPGs have. They use multiple rolls to resolve combat, but then use a quicker method of resolving other skill tests. The original idea was that combat was more interesting and more important than, say, a basket weaving contest.

Depending on what you are trying to do, you can used "extended skill tests" and set as target number of "success" as a goal. The first one to reach that goal succeeds. Specials and Crticals could be worth multiple successes.

Note that this could be stretched to cover things like "sneaking past the guards" too. The GM just sets a few waypoints that the sneak uses to try and get by the guards. IF he gets enough successes he gets past the guards. If the guards get to the total required successes before the sneak, they were alert and spotted him. This also allows the GM to determine just where the sneak was when spotted, or explain how guards could get edgy and think that they might have heard or seen something.

Yeah, that's just the sort of system I'd like to resolve Hide/Sneak type situations, but with as few rolls as possible to eliminate the excessive chanciness.

But I can see why most people would prefer single-roll contests for some things - fun though it might be to have a campaign where Competitive Basket Weaving supplants combat as the major conflict resolution system! (I see it as taking place in an asylum populated by failed & insane CoC characters, btw... maybe a monograph? )

So I wonder if my "Patent Scalable Resistance Table ", as seen over in the Resistance Table thread, might be pressed into service for this too?

Using that, 100v99, 100v95, 95v94 all come out as 50%, 90v80 as 55%, and for more examples 75v25=85%, 75v60=60%, 80v20=90% and 200v50=95%. These seem intuitively 'about right' to me. And there's the added advantge that adopting this (in place of the standard table) doesn't proliferate the number of different mechanics in the system.

[RogerCooper]

My preferred method for handling skill contests is to have intermediate results. If a both search & sneak succeed, the watcher has heard or seen something, but it is not exactly sure what and where. If both fail, something humorous seems in order.

The difference between the roll and the skill% can be used to break ties and adjucate detailed results.

[Kloster]

We use the margin of success.

The better quality wins (of course), but in case quality is equal, the roll by the larger margin wins. In case margin are equal, it is a draw (and in case draw are not possible, defender wins).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[islan]

Okay, I think I have made a decision for myself! Please let me know if you see any problems (mathematical or other) with it.

In a successful contest roll, a margin of success is calculated as the difference between the die's tens place and the skill's tens place.

For example, a roll of 39 on a 40% skill would have a MoS of 1. A roll of 25 on a 67% skill would have an MoS of 4.

Sure it's fudging the math a bit, but it keeps the speed up. MoS's are then compared, and the higher one wins. Of course, Special and Critical successes still beat any Normal success.

If the MoS's are equal, another roll is made, possibly with one side receiving a bonus, depending on the circumstances (the "What was that?" factor).

I also think this system could be easily turned into multiple rolls for added depth. The problem I see with always using this method is, if continuing with the Stealth vs. Listen example, once a Listen success clearly beats a Stealth check, the jig is up and something else must be down (Run? Kill the guard before he alerts others?).

So. Your opinion?

Edited May 11, 2009 by islan

[Rurik]

That looks like an attempt to simplify the math behind the "whoever makes their roll by the most method".

The potential problem I see is that it tends to favor skills that are exactly multiples of 10.

In your example a character with a skill of 40 rolls a 39 and gets a MoS of 1. Say his opponent has a skill of 39 bit rolls a 30. Even though he made his roll by nine points his MoS is 0.

No matter what your skill, if your skill has a 0 in the ones place your chance of a MoS 0 is only 1% (roll skill exactly). If you have a 9 in the ones place your chance of an MoS 0 is 9%.

I'd say that method places too much importance on the 1's place in the skill in question.

[islan]

Yes I accept that, but I think it's better than the slow-down from also calculating the one's place, as well as the seeming randomness that can come from it (you beat me by only 5 and you win?). I bet it would really happen rarely enough that it wouldn't be worth the extra effort.

[Harwel]

Sorry if someone has posted anything like this already, but I didn't read the whole thread.

I find a secondary mechanism of "highest roller wins" to be counter-intuitive and inconsistent with other existing mechanics where you pretty much always want to roll as low as possible on a d100.

There's already an opposition table in the game, but only for stats. Why couldn't you extrapolate the principle of the opposition table to opposed skills as well? For the opposition table, for every attribute point you have higher than the opponent, you gain an extra 5% chance of success over a base 50%. EG Strength contest, 16 strength vs 13 strength, 65% chance of success. Now, extrapolate this thinking to %-based skills. Base 50% chance for the "active" person to succeed if skills are equal. For every point of skill higher than the opponent, get an extra 1% chance to succeed. For every point of deficit, 1% less chance to succeed. A 60% Move Silently against a 45% Listen would have a 65% chance of success. Spot 40% vs Hide 55% = 35% chance of success.

This would be more consistent with existing game mechanics, allows for Critical / Special / Fumble, modifiers for difficult circumstances, etc. And of course this would only be for opposed rolls out of combat.

Of course, back in the RQ2 days I always just went with degree of success and "tie goes to the defender or perception" and it worked fine. If it was necessary to go beyond that (very rare), my tie-breaker was "who succeeded by more", or just good old "what would be more fun or interesting".

Just not a fan of the "blackjack" die-rolling. Rolling low should always be preferable in a roll-under system IMO.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Harwel
I hate looking at my typos

[frogspawner]

Yes, I posted a pretty similar suggestion a while back...

So I wonder if my "Patent Scalable Resistance Table ", as seen over in the Resistance Table thread, might be pressed into service for this too?

I'm no fan of "blackjack rolling" either, or any Opposed Rolling in fact. This has been discussed over in Islan's "a complaint" thread for the last few days. There it has been established that ORs favour high-skill or low-skill differently, depending whether you say "higher roller wins" or "lower roller wins", respectively. That's yet another reason for finding (or, in fact, returning to!) a better way of doing things, IMHO.

So, to save you re-reading the whole thread, here's a selection of solutions worthy of consideration:

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

My houserule of the stealth vs. perception issue:

Stealth roll:

fumble: something really bad (and funny ) happens.

failure: no effect - normal perception roll will detect the character.

success: all perception rolls to detect character is difficult (at half percent).

special: all perception rolls to detect character is very difficult (perception rolls shifted one level down - e.g. need a special or better perception roll to detect character).

critical: all perception rolls to detect character is impossible (automatic failure).

First roll stealth, then perception.

(Stealth rolls may be easy (at double percent) if no one is paying attention.)

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"?

My preferred method for handling skill contests is to have intermediate results. If a both search & sneak succeed, the watcher has heard or seen something, but it is not exactly sure what and where. If both fail, something humorous seems in order.

The difference between the roll and the skill% can be used to break ties and adjucate detailed results.

And...

Of course, back in the RQ2 days I always just went with degree of success and "tie goes to the defender or perception" and it worked fine. If it was necessary to go beyond that (very rare), my tie-breaker was "who succeeded by more", or just good old "what would be more fun or interesting".

PS: I'd prefer something like that, a return to the traditional mechanism used in RQ2 as you say (and also RQ3, CoC and SB (pre v5?) in the Glory Days of BRP) but with contests extended somehow to avoid the excessive "chanciness" of single-rolls.

Edited May 29, 2009 by frogspawner
PS

[Turloigh]

There's already an opposition table in the game, but only for stats. Why couldn't you extrapolate the principle of the opposition table to opposed skills as well? (snip) Now, extrapolate this thinking to %-based skills. Base 50% chance for the "active" person to succeed if skills are equal. For every point of skill higher than the opponent, get an extra 1% chance to succeed. For every point of deficit, 1% less chance to succeed. A 60% Move Silently against a 45% Listen would have a 65% chance of success. Spot 40% vs Hide 55% = 35% chance of success.

That's what I'll be doing, IF I ever need it. All this talk about "opposed rolls" confuses the hell out of me.

[frogspawner]

That's what I'll be doing, IF I ever need it.

OK, but would you be happy with Spot 40% v Hide 90% = 0% (i.e. no chance!), though?

All this talk about "opposed rolls" confuses the hell out of me.

Exactly why I suggest not using them - or, at least, having an alternative for those of us that feel the same.

[Turloigh]

OK, but would you be happy with Spot 40% v Hide 90% = 0% (i.e. no chance!), though?

Sure, because I know where to set the NPCs skill percentages... and, I say again, IF that (hypothetical) situation ever arises.

I'm actually just as happy to only have the PC roll and ignore the NPC's skill.

Exactly why I suggest not using them - or, at least, having an alternative for those of us that feel the same.

And, you know what? You're completely right. :thumb:

[Harwel]

OK, but would you be happy with Spot 40% v Hide 90% = 0% (i.e. no chance!), though?.

There should always be a 5% chance of success or failure, unless the task is utterly trivial or completely impossible, as applies to a skill vs skill "resistance table" roll. This shouldn't arise too often if you're scaling your scenarios to your PCs though.

[Turloigh]

There should always be a 5% chance of success or failure, unless the task is utterly trivial or completely impossible, as applies to a skill vs skill "resistance table" roll. This shouldn't arise too often if you're scaling your scenarios to your PCs though.

Oh, yes, that too!

[vagabond]

You could easily do opposed rolls using the table:

50 + (A - B)/2 rounded up would work for the most part, as long as

skills do not exceed 100. You could always say that there is always

a 1% or 5% chance of success.

-V