a complaint

[SDLeary]

We're talking about Opposed Rolls here. Degree of Success is only important for narrative queue, as in 'How do I describe this characters success?'

Degrees of success were brought up before I brought them into the conversation. It is one of the things that seems to be confusing the OP, and I can understand why.

The whole shifting thing is merely to tool to help GM's understand what happened. You roll a Critical, I roll a Special, the GM says 'The debate reaches titanic peeks as each orator attempts to sway the public to their side. After a drawn out battle of wits, a pause by the senator gives the incumbent an opportunity for gain. While generally considered a successful debate for the current seat holder, it is clear the battle for office is not over.'

Or, if you're not up for the narrative: Critical - Special = Success for Opponent A.

I understand the approach, hell I playtested it way back in RQ. But the way its written, it introduces a complexity to a simple system that makes people look at the text and go "huh?". You have degrees of success, you have parries and dodges, its when all the shifting begins that people become confused.

For combat, BRP has chosen to codify the degrees of success, where such detail is much more exciting, and for some, necessary.

There is nothing wrong with codifying them. They were already codified in Stombringer. But as BRP is a toolkit, perhaps another form without the degrees of success shifts for combat should have been presented as an option (or the shifting itself as a option).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it doesn't play well. I've played it and love it. But it does take that before one can really wrap their head about it, which doesn't bode well if a new player is simply reading the text of the book before they purchase.

SDLeary

[Harshax]

Degrees of success were brought up before I brought them into the conversation. It is one of the things that seems to be confusing the OP, and I can understand why.

I can't argue there. In fact, I pretty much agree. Would it help the OP if we started a new thread that codified opposed results in chart format, like it is done for Combat? I think I can put this together fairly quickly.

[sdavies2720]

...For this very reason I'm starting to think that I should just start by running some earlier version of BRP (such as my copy of Elric!) and learn from there. Once I get more experienced, maybe I'll end up finding the BRP book much more helpful as a general reference tool.

If one of the source- or campaign- books coming out looks interesting to you, you might go that route instead. My sense is most of the writers are specifying which options should be used for the campaign.

Of, if they're not, maybe this is a wake-up call that they SHOULD! That would give you a set of rules from the toolkit that will work for that campaign.

Steve

[rust]

Would it help the OP if we started a new thread that codified opposed results in chart format, like it is done for Combat? I think I can put this together fairly quickly.

I would be interested in this, too.

My current campaign will soon begin to include a lot of diplomacy, politics and

trade negotiations, and there is a very good chance that your ideas will prove

more useful than my own system.

[Harshax]

Ok. I'll try to draft something in the next hour or so, and post in a new thread. We can then discuss the best language, and then turn it into a PDF or something.

[Jason D]

The reason I am writing this now is because in a thread I read elsewhere, many people spoke of the BRP book as a natural evolution of the system, with new rules that make it work.

I'm sorry to hear you're disappointed with the core book.

However, I should straighten one thing out. At no point was it ever advertised as an evolution of the system. From the product's description on the Chaosium website and on p11 of the core rulebook:

By design, this work is not a reinvention of Basic Roleplaying nor a significant evolution of the system.

An evolution of the system... now that would be a different beast entirely.

As for the problems with skills... between you, me, and the Internet, the detailed skill result descriptions are the thing I like least about the book, and were the primary contributions of my now long-absent co-author. I wrestled long and hard about whether to remove them for all but combat skills, but in the end kept them out of respect.

[Harshax]

I wrestled long and hard about whether to remove them for all but combat skills, but in the end kept them out of respect.

I wouldn't beat myself up over it. In my circle, we had already been using degree of success as a slide rule for narrating the situation. Since we spent so much of our time in RQ3 salivating over when we could recalculate our Special and Critical Success ranges, it only became natural for a player to call out a Special or Critical Success when asked to make a skill check of any kind. It could however, use a little clarification. :ohwell:

[frogspawner]

However, I should straighten one thing out. At no point was it ever advertised as an evolution of the system.

So where the heck did the new Opposed-Roll-driven combat come from? That's an evolutionary spurt if ever there was one! Come clean, Mr D...

[SDLeary]

So where the heck did the new Opposed-Roll-driven combat come from? That's an evolutionary spurt if ever there was one! Come clean, Mr D...

Its not new. Take a look at Stormbringer 5e. The system is the same (mostly) the language is different.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

As for the problems with skills... between you, me, and the Internet, the detailed skill result descriptions are the thing I like least about the book, and were the primary contributions of my now long-absent co-author. I wrestled long and hard about whether to remove them for all but combat skills, but in the end kept them out of respect.

Honestly, I don't think thats much of an issue. Those are good examples of possible results at those skill levels. I think an awful lot of the confusion (for combat at least) comes from the Attack and Defense Matrix. If you look at this, and compare it with that in Stormbringer 5e you will see the differences. The 5e chart being a lot shorter and easier to follow, and the language is different enough to be able to comprehend better.

SDLeary

Edit: In fact, looking at it again, its the frikken shading that makes that table easier to read. Everything nice and blocked instead of one long strip.

Edited May 23, 2009 by SDLeary
More Observation

[Harshax]

Islan,

I hope this post helps clarify Opposed Skill Rolls.

Sincerely,

The Harshax

[frogspawner]

Its not new. Take a look at Stormbringer 5e.

OK, thanks. I don't know SB, but I take your word for it. Mr D's off the hook, then, since SB was the stated primary base for the new BRP. But I would have thought that the fine old tradition of non-opposed-roll combat should have earned it place as an option, at very least...

(...and it's an option I'm taking, whether it's printed or not!)

[NickMiddleton]

So where the heck did the new Opposed-Roll-driven combat come from? That's an evolutionary spurt if ever there was one! Come clean, Mr D...

Published, it's in Elric! / Stormbrnegr 5e. As an informal house rule, it's been around since the mid-eighties as a fix for the "Dodge" problem in RQIII...

Nick

[frogspawner]

Published, it's in Elric! / Stormbrnegr 5e. As an informal house rule, it's been around since the mid-eighties as a fix for the "Dodge" problem in RQIII...

Thanks, I'm informed about it's SB history now.

We've had the conversation about the "Dodge Problem" before - here. If that's the only reason for introducing the controversial Opposed Rolls into combat, it's very much 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut', IMO. (See that link for my preferred solution, and a perhaps even better one).

[SDLeary]

Thanks, I'm informed about it's SB history now.

We've had the conversation about the "Dodge Problem" before - here. If that's the only reason for introducing the controversial Opposed Rolls into combat, it's very much 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut', IMO. (See that link for my preferred solution, and a perhaps even better one).

That was the conclusion before, at least when it was applied to all combat rather than specific "dodge" issues. Ultimately we dropped it in the playtest. I'm not sure how it crept into Stormbringer as the core combat mechanic.

SDLeary

[soltakss]

Reading the above posts, it seems to me that the Opposed Roll rule is an example of the confusing nature of BRP rather than the main problem.

As BRP is a collection of rules options as well as a coherent rules system, I'd relegate Opposed Rules to a Rule Option that can be used or ignored at will.

Having a set of rules that can be used or discarded is not to everyone's taste and is condusing to a lot of people who have never used BRP before.

What I would tend to do is to decide which rules I meed to use in any campaign and then forget about the rest. That cuts down on the number of rules to be learned and also makes the game a bit simpler.

As to whether it is worth buying BRP rather than using an old BRP-family game, the current BRP rules are, in my opinion, better than any other rules system in the BRP family, with the exception of RQ3 (the pinnacle) and is as good as RQM (Mongoose RQ) which also has its flaws, but different flaws to BRP.

I'd certainly recommend buying BRP as a generic rules system that can be used in virtually any genre. When more supplememts come out supporting BRP, it will show its capability and versatility as a rules system.

[Atgxtg]

Reading the above posts, it seems to me that the Opposed Roll rule is an example of the confusing nature of BRP rather than the main problem.

I think you just concisely and succinctly proved ilans argument.

BRP is more of a toolkit combining elements for many RPGs rathen that a universal RPG. It probably needs things like a generic Fantasy book, a generic Sci Fi book and so on that can help GMs tailor it to a specfic setting or genre. Gurps, Hero and and other genrric systems do something along those lines.

For us BRP junkies, it's not a big deal, since we've been running the system for decades, but it is probably a bit confusing and overwhelming for a GM new to the system.

[vagabond]

No, I do not think it is "not to my taste," I do believe it is downright horrible.

Take this inevitable example:

Two characters are engaged in an opposed skill roll; one with a 60, the other with a 40. The first one rolls a 10, which gives him a Special success, while the other rolls a 30. Because the second one made a success but less of a degree, they can shift the other one down one degree, which results in them both having a normal success. However, the dice still say "10" for the 60-guy, and "30" for the 40-guy, which means the 40-guy wins.

Using this method, if ever a Special success is met by a normal success, the normal success will most often win because the normal success is most often going to be a higher rolled result. Same can be said about Critical vs. a Special; the only way to clearly win over someone is to roll a Crit and them a normal success.

This method is horrible.

See, I am completely baffled by how you misinterpreted what is a very

straightforward rule. Again, for clairification - emphasis added for discussion:

The character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the contest.

However, if the loser's skill roll was successful, he or she can modify the

winner's degree of success, shifting if downward one degree for every

degree of success he or she achieves above failure. In the event that both parties

achieve the same degree if success, the higher die roll wins the contest...

So, the "winner" is the character that achieves the highest degree of success.

Period. End of story. Stop. Now, after the "winner" is determined, the "loser"

can modify the "winner's" success after the winner has already been determined..

In other words, you do not have the "loser" modify the "winner's" roll for the purpose

of determining the "winner" again. The "winner" has already been declared. The

"loser" can modify the "winner's" degree of success, i.e. the effect. Which also

means that, when the "winner" is declared by result of having a higher degree of

success, the tie resolution is also no longer in the picture.

I am totally confused as to how this gets misinterpreted. It seems pretty

clear as day and black and white. The flow chart is a simple chain, there is

no decision box that returns to a previous point:

1) Highest degree of success wins

2) If losing roll is failure, stop; if losing roll is success, lower winning degree

of success, stop.

Oh, and for the record, I dislike the "blackjack" styled resolution of ties. I go with

higher skill wins. Using the "blackjack" method goes against the standard "lower

is better" concept, and also moves into the "closer to failure is better" mentality

which I do not care for. Similarly, I do not like the "lowest roll wins in the event

of a tie" mechanic either, since it favors the lesser skilled side - the higher skilled's

range of success above the lower side's skill is effectively ignored - i.e. if A has

an 80% skill and B has a 40% skill, and A rolls anything between 41 and 80, while

B rolls a 39, B wins. A loses the effect of having a higher skill and greater success

range in a tie.

I also have a more math heavy method I sometime use. The protagonist's roll sets

the target for the antagonist, thus favoring the higher skill and eliminating any

chance of a tie. I think I explained it in an old thread, but I can restate it if anyone

is interested.

-V

Edited May 27, 2009 by vagabond
Adding in dislike of tie breaking mechanic

[NickMiddleton]

...I am totally confused as to how this gets misinterpreted. It seems pretty clear as day and black and white. The flow chart is a simple chain, there is no decision box that returns to a previous point:

1) Highest degree of success wins

2) If losing roll is failure, stop; if losing roll is success, lower winning degree

of success, stop.

Whilst I agree to an extent, I think it's pretty clear that the published text stating the rule isn't as clear as it could be and speaking purely personally, I feel that as a play tester I let Jason down by NOT catching that - if nothing else, given it's one of the changes / refinements I was most pleased about I'm annoyed I didn't pay closer attention to that section in BRP zero.

Oh, and for the record, I dislike the "blackjack" styled resolution of ties. I go with higher skill wins. Using the "blackjack" method goes against the standard "lower is better" concept, and also moves into the "closer to failure is better" mentality which I do not care for. Similarly, I do not like the "lowest roll wins in the event of a tie" mechanic either, since it favours the lesser skilled side - the higher skilled's range of success above the lower side's skill is effectively ignored - i.e. if A has an 80% skill and B has a 40% skill, and A rolls anything between 41 and 80, while B rolls a 39, B wins. A loses the effect of having a higher skill and greater success range in a tie.

Agreed, which is why on ties "within degree" I've always used "amount made skill by" - so if A rolls 41 their margin is 39 but B's is merely 1... It's a teeny bit more maths than the 'blackjack' method, but preserves both the "roll low is good" format AND rewards high skill.

*shrug* But to be honest given how often this topic has come up in the last couple of years I'm beginning to suspect that people's positions are pretty much set and further debate is futile - people either like the rule or they don't.

Cheers,

Nick

[Rurik]

I'll point out that mathematically the 'blackjack' method and the 'makes roll by most' method are identical - the odds are the same for any contest.

I used to use 'makes roll by most', as it is consistent with low roll is better, a learned expectation from 20 years of BRP. But in the end it is one calculation that has to be done, never mind how easy, to determine the winner, while the blackjack method is so intuitive no mental pool points are necessary - which is why the blackjack method keeps getting picked as the official resolution method for opposed rolls in BRP-like games.

[Atgxtg]

....which is why the blackjack method keeps getting picked as the official resolution method for opposed rolls in BRP-like games.

Many "BRP-like" games also use a roll high method for resolution anyway. With roll high the method works nicely. WIth a roll low method it is counter to the way the crticals and specials work.

Personally I lean towards "Low roll wins".

[soltakss]

I've spent too many years training my percentile dice to roll low, it will be very difficult to train them to roll high or to roll low, but not too low.

So, rolling low and making the roll by the most works for me, but there again I've never had a problem with subtraction.

Whatever works for other people is fine, as long as it is consistent.

[soltakss]

See, I am completely baffled by how you misinterpreted what is a very

straightforward rule. Again, for clairification - emphasis added for discussion:

It is confusing as written, if only because it doesn't explain the background or intention of the rule. To me, this means that a Critical versus a Special will be less of a success than a Critical versus a Failure. The Special moves the Critical down 2 levels to a normal, the failure doesn't affect the Critical.

Personally, I'd have preferred a Number of Degrees of Success resolution, so a Special is 1 Degree of Success (DoS) higher than a Normal Success, a Critical is 2 DoS higher than a Normal, a Fumble is 4 DoS worse than a Critical. The effect of a victory is better with a higher Degree of Success difference.

[Atgxtg]

I've spent too many years training my percentile dice to roll low, it will be very difficult to train them to roll high or to roll low, but not too low.

Although I know better, I want to believe the "trained dice" philosophy. After years of playing games like RQ and James Bond, I got used to wanting to roll low, and my dice seemed to try and meet my expectations.

Whenever I played systems where the goal was to roll high, I didn't do so good. It reached the point where my characters weren't much of a threat if D&D, but none of the other players wanted to cross swords with me in Flashing Blades (a roll low system).

Maybe we are subconsciously slecting slightly deformed dice, or using telekinesis?

[Rurik]

Many "BRP-like" games also use a roll high method for resolution anyway. With roll high the method works nicely. WIth a roll low method it is counter to the way the crticals and specials work.

Personally I lean towards "Low roll wins".

Going with the lowest roll wins straight up has a very big effect on the odds though. The two methods being discussed (blackjack and the made roll by the most method) have exact same odds for a given set of skill ratings being compared. Low roll wins greatly increases the odds of the lower skill winning and really minimizes the advantage of having a higher skill.