Opposed Rolls Codification

[rust]

Harshax, I tested your Opposed Rolls system this evening, it worked perfectly

well and the players liked it - Thank you again.

[Harshax]

Harshax, I tested your Opposed Rolls system this evening, it worked perfectly

well and the players liked it - Thank you again.

That's awesome!

I've uploaded the final edit (I hope).

BRP Central - Downloads - Opposed Skill Rolls

I think it would be an interesting idea to collect individual house rules used by the members of this forum. Frogspawner has already suggested his combat system. Should we start another thread?

[Mechashef]

I'm looking at GDW RQ3. It specifically states that a Dodge must meet the same Degree of Success as the attack to be effective, and Parry always blocks it's HP worth of damage (taking 1 Pt if the damage exceeds its HP).

Where are your rules coming from?

That is probably the most common houserule in RQ3.

Dodge as written was terrible. Having it reduce the level of success is a much better option and has been used in every RQ3 game I've seen.

[frogspawner]

I think it would be an interesting idea to collect individual house rules used by the members of this forum. Frogspawner has already suggested his combat system. Should we start another thread?

I was just suggesting that to give a balanced view of how to run skill-roll contests (the most obvious example being combat), at least one example of an Independent Roll mechanism (i.e. not using opposed rolls) should be included as an option. (Not necessarily my system, though obviously I think it's the best, but perhaps straight RQ3 or the commonly house-ruled RQ3).

After all, Opposed Rolls are a relatively new innovation, and not universally accepted.

Otherwise, it could be seen as an attempt to write the traditional independent-roll mechanism out of BRP history...

[RosenMcStern]

I thought this thread was started to clarify the points about the Opposed Roll mechanics in BRP as written, not to allow someone to issue another complaint against the combat resolution mechanism.

Anyway, it should be noted that it is possible to play BRP without using opposed rolls. Pre-Pendragon BRP games had no opposed rolls and they worked.

Frogspawner, just one question: why on earth should it be easier to dodge Swift Sam the fast-stabbing halfling (avg. damage 4-5) rather than Clumsy Bo the Slow-bashing Great Troll (avg. damage 15-16)?

[frogspawner]

I thought this thread was started to clarify the points about the Opposed Roll mechanics in BRP as written, not to allow someone to issue another complaint against the combat resolution mechanism.

I object to your use of the word "the". Opposed Rolls are just "a" combat resolution mechanism.

Anyway, it should be noted that it is possible to play BRP without using opposed rolls. Pre-Pendragon BRP games had no opposed rolls and they worked.

Yes exactly. That was the reason for my suggestion to include Independent Rolls as an option. And I thought Harshax agreed at one stage.

Frogspawner, just one question: why on earth should it be easier to dodge Swift Sam the fast-stabbing halfling (avg. damage 4-5) rather than Clumsy Bo the Slow-bashing Great Troll (avg. damage 15-16)?

Dunno. I'm no expert in RW combat. But a Dodge rule of "Reduce Damage by 10" is slightly easier to administer than "Half Damage" (another option I've seen) and seems better to me than "Reduce Degree of Success" (which would turn all normal hits into misses, and prevent any critical). If you really need a RW justification, one could probably be worked-up as something to do with the respective limits of Sam & Bo's reach...

[Harshax]

I thought this thread was started to clarify the points about the Opposed Roll mechanics in BRP as written, not to allow someone to issue another complaint against the combat resolution mechanism.

While it might be easy for me to say that's all this thread is about, it is clear that I've added quite a bit of optional detail to the document uploaded to the Downloads section.

I'm not particularly keen on the Independent Roll myself. In fact, I disagree with many who state that Opposed Skill rolls prevent the possibility of Critical Successes at all, as is clearly illustrated by the chart in the first post of this thread.

However, this doesn't mean that Independent Skill Rolls should not be included in the document. However, I'll argue they are already present, just in another language. Consider this: In Frogspawner's system, a successful Dodge has some impact on the effect of a critical Attack. The chart reflects this already, by reducing a Critical to a Special Success.

The question remains, is it better to have a single chart that resolves two independent actions as opposed to each other, or two charts that require refereeing two opposing effects against exclusive goals? In the end, I think it is one of semantics.

Furthermore, one can dispense entirely with the chart, and use the results outlined under each skill description. Again, this isn't the same as Frogspawner's suggestion, but it is similar, and more streamlined. YMMV

[Thalaba]

Since the original document that Harshax created was meant to present the BRP rules as-intended in a clear and succinct manner, I would counsel against adding a variety of houserules to the document. As Islan said, he finds all these variations on the rules confusing. Adding more options will not help in this regard.

I do think that a separate document that gathers together a number of alternatives for resolving combats would be valuable, though. Such a document would require an editor to make sure that all the options presented were unique from one another, added something to the canon, and broadly applicable to the existing variety of BRP rule subsets - or at least some mention should be made of what kind of game or setting would suit that particular combat resolution method.

Thalaba

[SDLeary]

I'm not particularly keen on the Independent Roll myself. In fact, I disagree with many who state that Opposed Skill rolls prevent the possibility of Critical Successes at all, as is clearly illustrated by the chart in the first post of this thread.

While it does not prevent the possibility of a critical, it does limit it to when the defender misses their parry or dodge roll. As stated, a simple success on the defense side is able to knock down a critical attack success to a special.

The only solution that I see for this within the Opposed Roll mechanism is to raise the threshold for the shift mechanism from a normal success to a special and above.

However, this doesn't mean that Independent Skill Rolls should not be included in the document. However, I'll argue they are already present, just in another language. Consider this: In Frogspawner's system, a successful Dodge has some impact on the effect of a critical Attack. The chart reflects this already, by reducing a Critical to a Special Success.

In his system it only applies to the dodge skill, ie its a feature of the skill, not the roll mechanism. Attack and parry are still independent rolls.

The question remains, is it better to have a single chart that resolves two independent actions as opposed to each other, or two charts that require refereeing two opposing effects against exclusive goals? In the end, I think it is one of semantics.

A single chart and document as it stands right now. This was supposed to be a clarification of the presented method.

Further documents should be created for other resolution mechanisms, perhaps with a short reference to them at the bottom of this one. Other documents should be clearly labeled as Optional.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Silly question to those helping in the codification.

Why must their always be a winner?

Success vs Success for example. Why can't this just be "the hit came in but was blocked" (as in Pendragon); why do we have to resort to a second mechanism, highest roll wins?

If we allow ties, and we raise the threshold for degree shifting, I think we get rid of most of the issues (at least to my mind now, coffee has not taken effect).

SDLeary

[Harshax]

So then would it be more purist to separate into another document all rules marked as optional? That way, the rule clarification could be uploaded to DM References, and all the optional things about Extended Contests, Narrative Guidelines and Tangible rewards could be placed in a separate document uploaded to Optional Rules. I rather liked all that stuff, but can appreciate a file that examines only the 'rule as written'.

If that is the consensus, I'll upload the file, not as a PDF but as a Word Document so individuals can cut out the table and place it in their own layout for use in a GM Screen.

[Thalaba]

So then would it be more purist to separate into another document all rules marked as optional? That way, the rule clarification could be uploaded to DM References, and all the optional things about Extended Contests, Narrative Guidelines and Tangible rewards could be placed in a separate document uploaded to Optional Rules. I rather liked all that stuff, but can appreciate a file that examines only the 'rule as written'.

Snip

No, not at all. The three 'options' you presented are not optional rules but, in fact, three generic ways for the GM to interpret the results of the roll. They need to stay, IMO. The document is fine as it is, though a word version might benefit some.

Thalaba

[SDLeary]

So then would it be more purist to separate into another document all rules marked as optional? That way, the rule clarification could be uploaded to DM References, and all the optional things about Extended Contests, Narrative Guidelines and Tangible rewards could be placed in a separate document uploaded to Optional Rules. I rather liked all that stuff, but can appreciate a file that examines only the 'rule as written'.

If that is the consensus, I'll upload the file, not as a PDF but as a Word Document so individuals can cut out the table and place it in their own layout for use in a GM Screen.

No, I was meaning that other resolution types should have their own documents. The one you just produced on Opposed Rolls is fine. Independent Rolls and respective options should have its own document, etc.

SDLeary

[frogspawner]

The question remains, is it better to have a single chart that resolves two independent actions as opposed to each other, or two charts that require refereeing two opposing effects against exclusive goals? In the end, I think it is one of semantics.

Some prefer one, some the other. Your chart & document are clearly very useful to some - and that's great - but I'd prefer the other. It's not just semantics. Would you happily swap to my preferred mechanism? No? Well then obviously there's a real difference.

As Islan said, he finds all these variations on the rules confusing. Adding more options will not help in this regard.

I suspect Islan might prefer the simplicity of Independent rolls but, since he says he only got into BRP with Elric/SB5, I guess he hasn't had opportunity to see them.

While it does not prevent the possibility of a critical, it does limit it to when the defender misses their parry or dodge roll. As stated, a simple success on the defense side is able to knock down a critical attack success to a special.

What I meant about this was that when the defender makes a successful parry/dodge then under the OR mechanism they cannot be criticaled (or even hit by just normal-success attack roll). This seems too safe & boring, especially when with high Parry/Dodge skills it becomes the norm.

In his system it only applies to the dodge skill, ie its a feature of the skill, not the roll mechanism. Attack and parry are still independent rolls.

Yes, it has important differences - simplicity and independence. Roll-Independence gives a better feeling of immediacy - you know what you've done as soon as you roll (and don't have to wait for the other guy to come back from the loo to make his rolls), and that puts you more in tune with your character. (Incidentally, it's also much better for Play-By-Post).

Further documents should be created for other resolution mechanisms, perhaps with a short reference to them at the bottom of this one.

Sounds good to me.

Why must their always be a winner?

Exactly - there's no reason at all. Draws happen.

Edited May 24, 2009 by frogspawner

[Pete Nash]

Why must their always be a winner?

Success vs Success for example. Why can't this just be "the hit came in but was blocked" (as in Pendragon); why do we have to resort to a second mechanism, highest roll wins?

Because in your particular example the defender has obviously 'won'...

Did the attacker hit the target Y/N? Did the defender block Y/N?

In an opposed skill challenge it becomes a question of Irresistible Force vs. Immovable Object, both can't succeed. So to get a draw, you have to apply a bias to either the protagonist or the opponent. Its the universal problem with contests like hit/parry, sneak/spot, etc.

BRP overcomes the problem with many 'opposed challenges' by shunting resolution off to the Resistance Table - where you only get a single winner. There's no draw possible for Poison vs. CON, or magic vs. POW for example.

Of course, if both participants are using their skills in a parallel contest, rather than an opposed one - such as two characters outperforming each other in a singing contest to an audience - then logic permits draws to be possible.

[frogspawner]

Because in your particular example the defender has obviously 'won'...

I'm sorry but that's overly simplistic. In the combat example I gave earlier in this thread, Billy the defender parried but still got injured (and notched his heirloom sword!) badly enough to make him surrender.

[SDLeary]

Because in your particular example the defender has obviously 'won'...

Did the attacker hit the target Y/N? Did the defender block Y/N?

Yes, true.

Perhaps is such situations we might have the parrying weapon damaged? Or perhaps adjusting things a bit so that the "winner" of the contest gets to damage, regardless of whos turn it is, ala Pendragon (where opposed rolls seem to work best).

In an opposed skill challenge it becomes a question of Irresistible Force vs. Immovable Object, both can't succeed. So to get a draw, you have to apply a bias to either the protagonist or the opponent. Its the universal problem with contests like hit/parry, sneak/spot, etc.

I guess this is why I've always favored the independent nature of the RQ rolls then. Both succeed (contest tie) but you still have a chance to damage or not. In the end, its probably a similar chance to damage.

SDLeary

[Pete Nash]

I'm sorry but that's overly simplistic. In the combat example I gave earlier in this thread, Billy the defender parried but still got injured (and notched his heirloom sword!) badly enough to make him surrender.

Yes, it is simplistic. But that's the way I view things in life. When I'm sword fighting my internal combat mind thinks "Did I hurt him or not?", it doesn't consider striking his parrying weapon as a success. In your example, I'd take that as a success-and-a-win for me, I damaged Billy and he surrendered!

If Billy considered his parry as "Did I stop the blow" then he failed in my eyes, but if he was thinking "Did I save my life", then perhaps his Parry roll was a success - but that's linguistic semantics. From a purely logical interpretation (and we are talking about game mechanics here), the success of the first independent roll, will always be over-ruled (or perhaps invalidated is a better description) by the success of the countering independent roll.

The trouble with this is how do you define the draw? Is the draw that the attacker always fails to inflict damage? That's an unfair bias favouring the defender. Or is it that the defender blocks most of the damage, but a little bit gets through? If so, how much should get through and it still be a 'draw'? Even if I successfully parry a giant's blow, my arm may still get ripped off! How do comparative weapons, opponent size, terrain, magic, and all the other 101+ factors get handled by the draw condition?

And that's just talking about combat! Look at the problems people have had over stealth contests. Should there also be a 'draw' result for poisons or magic?

Personally I find it all gets rather complex and long winded if such challenges are handled as independent rolls. Opposed roll solutions may not get 'draw' results, but they give clear, unambiguous results - which save GMs many headaches over interpretation, description, and ultimately shorten the duration of dice rolling. All of which suit my style of GMing.

But that's just my preference.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Pete Nash

[frogspawner]

And Independent Rolls are my preference, suiting my style. I take issue with the charges of longwindedness, ambiguity, subjectivity etc, but we don't actually need to resolve which method is 'better' here. I'm just saying Independent Rolls should be acknowledged as an alternative mechanism to Opposed Rolls, that's all.

The trouble with this is how do you define the draw?

It's subjective. But there's no need to define "winner" or "loser" or "draw(ers?)" in the game mechanics. They just define what happens. And I think having each skill roll's results defined separately by degree-of-success does that most neatly.

Combat is the easy one. As you say, there's real trouble over stealth tests: "You see it"/"You don't see it" seems too simplistic to me, too. I'd really love to have a Spot v Hide contest mechanism that's (even half!) as richly-detailed as combat...

[Pete Nash]

Combat is the easy one. As you say, there's real trouble over stealth tests: "You see it"/"You don't see it" seems too simplistic to me, too. I'd really love to have a Spot v Hide contest mechanism that's (even half!) as richly-detailed as combat...

Unfortunately its not just those two classic examples. There are countless others; 'I attempt to pickpocket him' Pickpocket vs. Spot or Conceal, 'I try to use the fake documents' Appraise vs. Forgery, 'I want him to sell me the horse' Persuade vs. Persuade... In fact any time a character attempts to force, convince, cheat, trick, etc another character or object which is actively resisting. Hence my use of the terms long-windedness, ambiguity and subjectivity. Sorry for any offence caused!

These kind of challenges occur frequently in my games, and trying to resolve them using independent rolls (with their associated draws) would drive me crazy; since each one would require a new interpretation/description depending on circumstance and over time I'd be prone to inconsistent resolution.

For example, does Billy by default get conned into buying the snakeoil when both he and the salesman succeed in their Persuade rolls? After all hucksters are good at selling their wares. But later on does Billy by default resist conversion to the cult of 'Set' when again, both he and the priest make their rolls, or should he fall under the priest's sermon because of the seductive, semi naked dancing girls carrying the priest around? Then after being arrested Billy appears at court. The prosecutor successfully presents the heinous crimes committed and rightly requests the death sentence, whereas Billy also successfully argues the toss over being under the spell of some narcotic snakeoil he'd unwittingly consumed. Who wins the guilty/not guilty verdict there?

Except by re-rolling multiple times until one or other gets a higher level of success (which to me is the waste of time and can cause a player to run out of new arguments to support his next skill attempt - I like such things to be role-played), it is difficult to ascertain a draw in these kind of situations. They are thorny to resolve, and can alienate players who may not agree with what appears to be an arbitrary decision, when the challenge "I try to..." by its very nature demands an eventual worked/failed result.

Thus I prefer the simpler (and possibly quicker) opposed roll resolution. The players are more willing to abide by the result of the roll if the outcome is clear cut, and it can lead to some quite fascinating twists in plot line! :thumb:

But ultimately yes, its all a question of GM style and what you're comfortable with.

[rust]

Thus I prefer the simpler (and possibly quicker) opposed roll resolution. The players are more willing to abide by the result of the roll if the outcome is clear cut, and it can lead to some quite fascinating twists in plot line! :thumb:

In my case it is negotiations (diplomacy, politics, trade ...). While I feel able

to improvise acceptable modifiers according to the situation and the ideas of

the players, an opposed skill roll system provides a comparatively simple and

fast system to determine the outcome of any negotiations, and it is transpa-

rent and thereby prevents the players from complaining about arbitrary deci-

sions.

[frogspawner]

But you accept Independent Rolls, although you prefer another method, is a valid option. That's all I was asking for.

Though for my part, I'd say significant negotiations (like whether Billy gets the death sentence or not) deserve a more extended contest - in attack/parry style, drawn out like combat.

It's not an impossible dream to have the roll-results defined for each skill. The new BRP has a decent stab at that. More guidance as to how they'd interact with opposed skills could be included, and it's a bit inconsistent in places, but it's a start.

In your examples, I'd just point out that Forgery & Appraise wouldn't normally be rolled at the same time, so that's actually an example of Independent Rolls interacting. Bargain (and Ride?) is the skill to use for buying horses (though it's probably Fast Talk for selling snake-oil...). Making Billy (presumably a PC) convert to Set just because the priest Persuades him the religion is valid (and Billy, unsurprisingly, fails to Persuade him it's not!) is not something I'd inflict on a player-character, even if he did blow his Chaste roll!

In the case of Stealth contests, I see the 'perfect solution' as the successful sneaker 'successfully' realizing the (equally successful) spotter will see him unless he stops for a while, but he can try again in a minute or so. Something like that anyway - I'm still working on it...