Probably a ridiculous question regarding resistance rolls

[LivingTriskele]

Is it the active or the passive force that makes the roll?

With the example on page 170 regarding poison POT 17 (active) against a CON of 15 (passive) the Resistance Table yields a roll of 60 or less as a successful poisoning.

I’ve always assumed the passive (defending) agent makes the roll, but in this case I’m guessing the GM would make the roll on behalf of the poison.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to treat the defender’s Con of 15 as active and the POT of 17 as passive, and allow the player to roll against a chance of 40 to avoid the baneful effects of the poison? I know the chances are same but it seems more intuitive to me to let the defender roll.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

That's what I've always thought - it's called a resistance roll, after all.

[Mankcam]

Well if the aggressor is the Poison, then that's the Active agent, and thus the GM is making a roll to see if the poison works against the player-character. I don't think anyone could 'actively' resist something like that. If the target character has a higher CON then that reduces the poision's chance of success, rather than an active process.

You would call balancing on a ledge an active process, so that would require a Agility Roll (perhaps with a modifier, depending on the ledge). Resisting poision more of a passive process, so the GM rolls for the chance of the active agent (determined by the RES Table).

Well it works for me, but I suppose I was exposed to the Resistance Table back in 1984 or 1985 - I don't think I even looked at D&D mechanics for a few years later, so I never compared the RQ Resistance Table against D&D Saving Rolls, so to me the table is intuitive.

Now, consider arm wrestling. Active or Passive process? The old RQ books always made it a STR vs STR roll on the RES Table, although I think the more recent BRP BGB books would logically make it opposed Effort Rolls, considering both partcipants are active.

Ahh the enigma

Edited August 3, 2011 by Mankcam

[KingSkin]

I've always assumed the active side makes the roll because, well, it's the 'active' side.

[frogspawner]

Let the player roll, whether they're 'active' or not. E.g. either to resist a spell, or to overcome a bad guy's resistance to their spell. Gives 'em more involvement.

[MrJealousy]

I would consider using it from both directions.

The GM makes the res roll if the effects of the poison wont be immediately noticed, eg. somebody slipped a halucinogen into the players drink.

The Player makes the roll if the effects are obvious, eg. just been bitten by a snake.

In some circumstances it can be important to know which is passive or active, but a lot of the time it doesn't really matter. So long as the right person rolls against the right number to resist.

[sdavies2720]

I would consider using it from both directions.

The GM makes the res roll if the effects of the poison wont be immediately noticed, eg. somebody slipped a halucinogen into the players drink.

The Player makes the roll if the effects are obvious, eg. just been bitten by a snake.

In some circumstances it can be important to know which is passive or active, but a lot of the time it doesn't really matter. So long as the right person rolls against the right number to resist.

That's what I do: Player makes the roll unless it's a hidden effect. If it's Player versus Player, I let the defender (resister) roll.

Steve

[soltakss]

If I am GMing, this is how I do it:

If an NPC makes an attack on a PC, the NPC rolls.

If a PC attacks another PC then the attacking PC rolls.

If a poison attacks a PC, the PC resists the poison.

If a PC lifts something or does something to an inanimate object then the PC rolls.

But, if I want to feel powerful and important then I roll against PCs.

[icebrand]

Its completely irrelevant. Just let the PC's roll so they feel good about it.

[LivingTriskele]

One neophyte GM maneuver I’ve made in the past, was having the PC roll, but against the wrong numeric value. As per the above poison example, I gave him a 60% chance of resisting, when actually he should have had a 40%... neophyte...

[icebrand]

One neophyte GM maneuver I’ve made in the past, was having the PC roll, but against the wrong numeric value. As per the above poison example, I gave him a 60% chance of resisting, when actually he should have had a 40%... neophyte...

Meh, after years of playing i figured it doesn't really matter. Just tell them they have "x" chance to resist, where x is the number you want, and screw it.

[Al.]

Rolling 'for' the poison is perfectly sensible and logical but always letting a player make rolls which affect their character is more fun. (Which makes me wonder why I still roll for foe's attacks, parries and blocks, ease and quickness I suppose)

[LivingTriskele]

In the end, what ever brings the most drama to the game table is probably best. It's just a matter of determining what that is. For example, rolling NPC/foes attacks against PCs adds an element of uncertainty and lack of control to the players, so that makes sense to me. Having a PC roll to resist poison makes sense to me as well. Having a boulder roll to resist a PC trying to push it up a hill, not so much...

[KingSkin]

I don't like my players rolling dice at all. It makes them look shifty and I'm convinced they're up to something. Sometimes they'll idly roll dice 'for the fun of it' when I haven't called for a roll at all. Those guys are the worst of the bunch. I keep a little file on each of them, noting down their shifty rolls and whenever they write on their character sheets. What are they writing?

[LivingTriskele]

LMFAO

[Conrad]

Its completely irrelevant. Just let the PC's roll so they feel good about it.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Conrad

[Atgxtg]

Rolling 'for' the poison is perfectly sensible and logical but always letting a player make rolls which affect their character is more fun. (Which makes me wonder why I still roll for foe's attacks, parries and blocks, ease and quickness I suppose)

Yeah. That was one of thethings I like about the old SAGA system. Everything was turned into a task for the players. I was very nice. Not only did it give a good sense of drama, but the playersactually felt resposible for their own fates. If they failed to parry or dodge, it was becuase they failed. Marvel SAGA was great this way, aseventhe damage taken depended upon how much you failed he defense by.

Unfornately BRP doesn't handle oppose rolls well, outside of the resistance table, so ti would be hard to translate this into BRP.