a complaint

[frogspawner]

There's no shame. It's just the OR complications go deeper than most people realize. So is it worthy of an addition into the "Opposed Skill Roll" codification document, perhaps?

The odds are different, and low roll wins is weighted more towards the lower skill, while high roll wins is weighted more towards the higher skill.

Many thanks to Vagabond & Rurik for drawing this to our attention. It's not all bad news though - it's cheered me up a lot!

[soltakss]

So use the dice that have always hated you for roll high games.

Come on, everyone who believes in lucky dice has a a set of dice that just plain hate them. Admit it.

I know of someone who goes into a games store, takes the D6s, rolls them all, takes the ones that rolled a 6, rolls those, takes the ones that rolls a 6 and repeats until he only has 1 die left, then he buys it and puts it into his "6" bag. Then he does the same for 5,4,3,2,1 and so has a bag of dice that is probably likely to roll the required number.

But, perhaps that's going a bit far.

[soltakss]

But mathematically, I think it is the same as roll high.

Mathematically there is no difference between "Makes it by the Most" and "Rolls Highest". Of course, "Makes it by the Most" is not the same as "Rolls Lowest".

So, using the examples, an 80%er who rolls 30 makes his skill by 50, a 40%er who rolls 5 makes his skill by 35 and wins. The 80%er rolls 20, making it by 60% and the 40%er rolls 10, making it by 30% and loses even though he rolled lower but he made the skill by less.

I did a simulation of two D100 rolls, with Critical/SpecialNormal/Failure/Fumble using various methods of resolution and various starting skill pairs. What surprised me was that "Rolling High" and "Making by the Most" had exactly the same results, no matter what the skill pairs I used. Now, that wasn't using guesswork or fancy statistical methods, I had a program that looped between 1 and 100 and a subloop between 1 and 100, compared the results against target skills and decided who won - totally empirical and the only way, in my opinion, of calculating the results spread of multiple methods.

Because there is no difference between rolling high and making it by the most, I choose to use making it by the most.

[Rurik]

I know of someone who goes into a games store, takes the D6s, rolls them all, takes the ones that rolled a 6, rolls those, takes the ones that rolls a 6 and repeats until he only has 1 die left, then he buys it and puts it into his "6" bag. Then he does the same for 5,4,3,2,1 and so has a bag of dice that is probably likely to roll the required number.

But, perhaps that's going a bit far.

So let me get this straight - he uses up all the 6's on the die in the store, then buys it, then puts it in a special bag with other dice he's done the same with, in hopes of rolling a six with it down the road.

That's just daft - obviously that die is now less likely to roll a six because he used up so many of them before buying the die!

The logic of some people escapes me.

What was this thread about again?

[frogspawner]

What was this thread about again?

I have yet to see a single decent contested-roll system in any officially printed material.

Finding a decent, less-confusing system than the current Opposed Rolls, amongst other things...

[Rurik]

Finding a decent, less-confusing system than the current Opposed Rolls, amongst other things...

Ahh yes, that was it.

Having not actually used the New BRP in anger yet, but having wrestled long and hard with MRQ opposed combat, I am leaning towards the following simplified results which, though they use opposed rolls, will look familiar to longtime users of BRP. This method does not use downgrades:

A critical hit requires a critical dodge/parry to avoid. Else it is a Critical Hit.

A special hit requires a special or better dodge/parry to avoid. Else it is a special hit.

A normal success is beat by a critical, special, or better opposed roll, else it is a normal hit.

Fumbles suck.

[frogspawner]

Or maybe this, which is similar to what I've mentioned before (I use something different for Dodging, but this is "by-the-book" and may be better for most folks):

ATTACK (as per the BRP book, "Resolution", p192)

Critical Hit does Maximum damage, bypass armour.

Special Hit does Special Effect by weapon type (Bleed/Crush/Impale/etc).

Normal Hit does Normal damage.

Fumble: Roll on appropriate Attack Fumble table

Then...

PARRY (ok, this bit I made up, but it should also be familiar to longtime BRPers)

Critical Parry blocks damage completely (attacking weapon may be damaged*)

Special Parry blocks damage up to full parrying weapon HPs (excess damage affects parrying weapon and target**)

Normal Parry blocks damage equal to half parrying weapon HPs ( " )

Fumble: Roll on appropriate Parry Fumble table (damage affects target)

(* & ** rules for these TBD!)

...Or...

DODGE (as per the BRP book, "Dodge", p55)

Critical Dodge reduces normal/special/critical hit to a miss

Special Dodge reduces normal/special hit to a miss, critical to normal hit

Normal Dodge reduces normal hit to a miss, special to normal, critical to special

Fumble: Roll on Natural Weapon Attack & Parry Fumble table

...And any remaining damage is applied to the defender, reduced for armour if not a critical hit.

[Atgxtg]

Finding a decent, less-confusing system than the current Opposed Rolls, amongst other things...

I'd say either don't used opposed rolls in the game (it wasn't designed for them), or just go with best success level wins and reroll ties. Even the worst case scenario (05% vs 05%) can be resoleved in 4 or 5 rolls.

[RMS]

I'd say either don't used opposed rolls in the game (it wasn't designed for them), or just go with best success level wins and reroll ties. Even the worst case scenario (05% vs 05%) can be resoleved in 4 or 5 rolls.

That's what I've always done in BRP games: highest success level wins. In the case of a tie, we narrate the exchange as such and reroll if it makes the most sense. In many cases, a tie makes perfect sense and so we just leave it.

It's easy and the rerolls fit perfectly in the system IMO. After all, there are 4 or 5 rolls for every single attack in combat, so why does anything else need to be solved in a single die roll?

In fact, until a couple of these conversations here, I hadn't realize that this never codified in the old days and that it's not officially written this way at this point. It was just too intuitive for me to ever bother trying to read the official rules, I guess.

Ironically, I use the old RQ3 non-opposed combat system for attacks/parries still.

[Atgxtg]

It's easy and the rerolls fit perfectly in the system IMO. After all, there are 4 or 5 rolls for every single attack in combat, so why does anything else need to be solved in a single die roll?

Yeah. This was something that was raised a looong time ago in the RQ2/3 era. Basically, in the old days, combat was the primary focus of RPGs and got a lot of detail. Everything else was considered less important, and got a simplier approach (single skill roll).

This was also partly because people used to think that combat was interesting, while, say, Craft (Caprentry) wasn't.

But if the other skills are considered important/interesting (using carpentry to make a raft to get off an deserted island, or to win some contest) then something more than the single roll could be justified.

[soltakss]

Finding a decent, less-confusing system than the current Opposed Rolls, amongst other things...

It was probably more about how confusing the BRP rulebook was, but people seemed to have skipped over that to concentrate on a single rule example.

[Atgxtg]

It was probably more about how confusing the BRP rulebook was, but people seemed to have skipped over that to concentrate on a single rule example.

True, and one that has it own thread to boot.

In a nutshell, I'd say that the original post does have some merit. BRP isn't quite as nice, neat and easy as most of us would like to believe. Since it mixes elements of virtually every Chaosium RPG that came before it, and is covering a lot of ground, it isn't quite as easy to pick up as it predecessors.

Not that it is any tougher to pick or or less consistent most the other generic RPG systems.

[dragonewt]

BRP isn't quite as nice, neat and easy as most of us would like to believe. Since it mixes elements of virtually every Chaosium RPG that came before it, and is covering a lot of ground, it isn't quite as easy to pick up as it predecessors.

This is one issue that the BRP Quick-Start (48 page PDF) can help to resolve.

A person can pick up the simple sub-set of core rules, develop a whole and complete view of the core concepts and start playing in a small amount of time, without distraction.

The main book is there with ideas when a person feels the need to expand their implemented rule-set and ideas.

I really enjoy the new BRP book, although I found it difficult to absorb. However, after a person understands the core game, it is great to have all those ideas and variations in the rules available. Which to me indicates that the main rulebook ironically has a steep learning curve for what are essentially a simple set of rules, and hence feels to be aimed at the experienced BRP player.

The Quick-Start rules helps to resolve this.

Edited May 31, 2009 by dragonewt