Opposed rolls

[Atgxtg]

Indeed. It is all a matter of semantics and interpretation. However, I personally consider anyone who achieves a 1st dan in an oriental martial art to be at least 90% in their skill, and I apply the same standard to an SCA knight or a Master in the European martial arts. Such titles are usually only applied to those who have shown (at the very least) an extremely high level of prowess, and the ability to consistently overcome their peers in competition.

I also use the same standard for educational awards too, i.e. a PhD for example.

Thus for me, these 'titles' are the vital anchor point to what otherwise is a completely abstract value. How else can you qualify what the skill percentage actually means?

Well, there is always the original meaning of the phase. Originally, master was a rank for trademen that showed that they were capable enough to handle the various aspects of a task.

Hence terms like master locksmith. Or Master baker, MAster Archteict.

The main contention was that anyone with less ability was still studying.

That interpretation does seem to fit well with the skills going over 100.

But that is (yet another) a valid interpretation.

My apologies, I appear to have made a mistake. It is part of the default rules on p174, with the addition that you also reduce an opponent's level of success if you succeed in your skill check too.

How does that work when the success levels are equal. One guy wins by an opposed roll and then gets downgraded? Does success vs. success get downgraded to a failure? :confused:

[Pete Nash]

Hmmm. It might just be me, but on careful re-reading of the Opposed Test description on p174 the following text seems slightly flawed and a little confusing...

In situations where two skill rolls are opposed, both characters roll against their respective skills. 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 it downward one degree for every degree of success he or she achieves above failure. In the event that both parties achieve the same degree of success, the higher die roll wins the contest, giving the advantage to character's with higher skill ratings.

Now we can all interpret this correctly so that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure. However, it does not say this specifically.

It also doesn't explain what happens if the winner of matched specials, or criticals are treated as such... or whether the winner should be treated as having only gained a normal success.

Does anybody else seem the same flaw or am I being overly pedantic? :confused:

[NickMiddleton]

How does that work when the success levels are equal. One guy wins by an opposed roll and then gets downgraded? Does success vs. success get downgraded to a failure? :confused:

My undertsanding is that you are conflating two steps:

1a) Best success level wins

1b) Iff success levels tied, highest roll wins

2) Having determined who won by method 1, if the loser has rolled a success they get to down grade the winners degree of success by one step for each step above failure that they achieved.

So downgrading ONLY comes in to play AFTER determining who "won".

The only rough spots for me are that highest roll doesn't feel right (for all I know it's simpler and mathematically the same as calculating the margin) and it's not explicitly stated that 2) cannot reduce a winners success beyond "normal" success, which is what I assume is the case.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.

Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works? :confused:

[NickMiddleton]

Now we can all interpret this correctly so that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure. However, it does not say this specifically.

Agreed, I just reread the play test draft (see post above) and it's NOT explicitly stated.

It also doesn't explain what happens if the winner of matched specials, or criticals are treated as such... or whether the winner should be treated as having only gained a normal success.

Same again I'd say: I.e. that downgrading can ameliorate the winners advantage but not remove it: they will always have succeeded (i.e. have at least a normal level of success), but can be downgraded from critical or special.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[NickMiddleton]

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.

Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works? :confused:

No, I don't believe so (see post above).

I think there's a clause missing that regardless of the losers degree of success, the winner's result can't be made worse than a normal success. So, in effect, tied successful results always mean a normal success for the winner.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

No, I don't believe so (see post above).

I think there's a clause missing that regardless of the losers degree of success, the winner's result can't be made worse than a normal success. So, in effect, tied successful results always mean a normal success for the winner.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

That's what I would think, but just wanted to make sure. The concept, seems to match that I saw on a BRP site where a successful parry turns a crtical hit into a special.

THe fix seems to be to specify that if success levels are the same there is no downgrading. Otherwise about 80% of the opposed rolls will be tied failures.

[NickMiddleton]

That's what I would think, but just wanted to make sure. The concept, seems to match that I saw on a BRP site where a successful parry turns a crtical hit into a special.

The fix seems to be to specify that if success levels are the same there is no downgrading. Otherwise about 80% of the opposed rolls will be tied failures.

If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, but if I critical, but still lose to his "better" critical, he still criticals... Don't think that works.

If the most "downgrading" can do is reduce the winners success level to a normal success I think it works well: If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, and likewise if I crit and he crits. I can't make him fail.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[deleriad]

If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, but if I critical, but still lose to his "better" critical, he still criticals... Don't think that works.

If the most "downgrading" can do is reduce the winners success level to a normal success I think it works well: If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, and likewise if I crit and he crits. I can't make him fail.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Having not seen the BRP rulebook I can't comment on this but MRQ made exactly the same mistake when it added downgrading into opposed rolls and forgot to think through all the implications (surely some mistake...) so the BRP book really, really needs the line that the winner can't be downgraded to result that's worse than a normal success.

Personally I use a "partial success" mechanic; i.e. if I lose the opposed roll but still make my skill test successfully then I get a result that's about 1/2 as good as a normal success. I doubt it would work in BRP because that still has critical/special/normal and I wouldn't want to add yet more into it.

I must admit that ever since I started using opposed rolls in CoC and RQ back in the 90s I've been sold on the mechanic. It's not a perfect fit but, somewhat like democracy, it tends to be the least worst answer.

[Atgxtg]

Having not seen the BRP rulebook I can't comment on this but MRQ made exactly the same mistake when it added downgrading into opposed rolls and forgot to think through all the implications (surely some mistake...) so the BRP book really, really needs the line that the winner can't be downgraded to result that's worse than a normal success.

THE MRQ situation is exactly what I'm worried about.

The desired effect seems to be that you subtract, but on a tied success level, the winner of the opposed roll gets a normal success. But I just want to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

[Nightshade]

THE MRQ situation is exactly what I'm worried about.

The desired effect seems to be that you subtract, but on a tied success level, the winner of the opposed roll gets a normal success. But I just want to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

Its not tidy. Having a success neutralize a success works well for some opposed cases, such as the infamous Dodge versus Attack; if it didn't work that way there, Dodge would be kind of pointless. It doesn't work too well on a parry unless you remove the idea of parry blocking and taking damage (at which point it and dodge are pretty indistinguishable).

[Atgxtg]

Its not tidy. Having a success neutralize a success works well for some opposed cases, such as the infamous Dodge versus Attack; if it didn't work that way there, Dodge would be kind of pointless. It doesn't work too well on a parry unless you remove the idea of parry blocking and taking damage (at which point it and dodge are pretty indistinguishable).

Yeah. The neutralization thing woks in games with finer degress of success., or where the margin of success makes a difference. But since BRP has 80% of successes being "Average" there isn't much distinction.

Maybe the idea of a partial success might work. A partial sucess in gamlbing reduces how much the other gun wins, or reduces the amount that you loose personally.

That is the missing component from the Pendragon system, and parry sort of works that way already.

IMO the D100 system handles opposed rolls so poorly anyway that O think it would be best to either dumped opposed rolls completely or switch over to the Pendragon method completely. Or the rolemaster D100+skill high wins method.

[Nightshade]

IMO the D100 system handles opposed rolls so poorly anyway that O think it would be best to either dumped opposed rolls completely or switch over to the Pendragon method completely. Or the rolemaster D100+skill high wins method.

If you do the former, you have to do _something_ with the Dodge and Hide cases.

[Atgxtg]

If you do the former, you have to do _something_ with the Dodge and Hide cases.

Yes, but not much. One reason why this is a problem is that RQ didn't use opposed skill rolls. Dodge was restrcted in RQ3, making it undesirable, and Hide did have a special case.

One of the old advantages of a successful Hide roll was that it required the Spot roll to be noticed. Otherwise the defense would see you automatically. That helped to balance things out.

[p_clapham]

I'd prefer a system that roles high. I've been playing Call of Cthulhu and Elric long enough to be used to role low.

[frogspawner]

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero. Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

<Time passes. It transpires frogspawner was not wrong...>

Noooooo! Why does this have to be the one time I was right? Why Why? WHY? ;-(

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.

Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works? :confused:

Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation.

By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

[Atgxtg]

Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation.

By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

No. No version of BRP had this. MRQ, hoewever, has this exact rule, right now to the same exact problem. But since Jason said that he has not looked at MRQ and would'nt read it if he was given it, I think it is just two people coming up with the same thing at the same time. Probably becuase they are working with similar systems.

That said. The rule as written, is a deal breaker for me, assuming that I thought anyone was expected to run it that way, and that the masses were going to do so.

As it is , my spuculation is that it can't downgrade something to lower than a success.

Now I'd love to use a partial success rule for reduced effect. Something like the looser only losing half the money if he makes a partial success, but that would be my house rule.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.

Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

If I'm understanding this interpretation, you're saying that Second Guy rolling 54 gets downgraded because first guy also rolled a success?

If so, then that's not right - certainly in MRQ. Second Guy wins the contest because he has the better roll (under, yet higher than Frst Guy). In opposed combat, First Guy would be downgraded to a failure, not Second Guy.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I like the gambling example though. It can be rationalised thus. Both guys, playing cards, have hands that could be winners. But Second Guy has a pair of aces whilst First Guy has an ace and a king. Both succeeded in playing good hands (for eg, neither folds in the first round), but Second Guy has trumped the First Guy with his better hand - so First Guy has, effectively, failed.

[Atgxtg]

If I'm understanding this interpretation, you're saying that Second Guy rolling 54 gets downgraded because first guy also rolled a success?

If so, then that's not right - certainly in MRQ. Second Guy wins the contest because he has the better roll (under, yet higher than Frst Guy). In opposed combat, First Guy would be downgraded to a failure, not Second Guy.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Yeah. That's how it seems to work. With BRP I think the intention is for the winning success to remain a success, but the way it is written, since both rolls are successful the loser gets to downgrade the winners roll. The idea was that a special parry would downgrade a critical attack to a special or normal success, but as it stands it looks likeif both succeed it will turn into a both fail.

As for MRQ, the method used there just made weapon APs obsolete, since a successful parry by the opposed method reduces the attack roll to a failure and thus does no damage.

According to the player's update, page 4 it states:

The attack and defence rolls are then made

simultaneously by the combatants and the results

compared according to the opposed test mechanics: as

usual a Critical Success always beats a normal success,

but if the success levels are equal, the higher Success roll

wins and the lower roll is demoted by one level. I.e. if

both combatants roll a normal success, then the higher

roll remains a success, but the lower roll is downgraded

to a failure, or if both roll a critical success the lower

roll is downgraded to a normal success. This may seem

unfair when both combatants have succeeded, but it is a logical outcome. In such situations the winning opponent

has exhibited either greater luck or greater competence,

and turned the situation to his advantage.

So a success vs. a success is treated as a success vs. a failure on the table. That makes parries all or nothing affairs and weapon APs somewhat academic. I know your name's on the update, but was that your intention.

Yeah, of even that the first player did have the better hand, but the second player bluffed him.

But if playing to cover a peroid of time rather than indivual hands, I'd probably use the result to determine how much each character won or lost. The "winner" would be the big winner of the night, the "partial successes" would win, but not as much, and do the reverse with the losers.

But I'm partial to partial successes.

[frogspawner]

No. No version of BRP had this. MRQ, hoewever, has this exact rule, right now to the same exact problem. But since Jason said that he has not looked at MRQ and would'nt read it if he was given it, I think it is just two people coming up with the same thing at the same time. Probably becuase they are working with similar systems.

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty!

Anyway, I wonder if Mr D would care to reconcile the introduction of Opposed Rolls as the only option with what he said about BRPs parentage (in the context of shields, but as a general principle IMO):

And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc.

PS: ...and I'm opposed to Opposed Rolls!

[Atgxtg]

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty!

Not really, since the concept of opposed rolls predates MRQ by a couple of decades. The version used in mRQ is highly reminiscent of Pendragon. And the overrall method reminds me of Rolemaster.

There are actually a few other ways to handle this, too. But part of the difficulty lies in the fact that percentile dice are the worst dice to use for opposed resolution.

[Lord Twig]

I don't remember what thread, but I asked Jason about opposed rolls since I was confused and he cleared it up. The rules as currently written compare the degree of success to see who wins. Critical beats a Special etc. Then the loser downgrades the winners success depending on his own success.

It then goes on to say that if they both get the same degree of success then the higher roll wins. It was my error that I then applied the previous rule that the the loser would downgrade the winner's success resulting in a Fail/Fail result each time. When I read it now it is perfectly clear that that is not what was intended.

Jason explained it to me then said that he would add some wording to make it clearer.

Again, even without the additional wording, if you read it correctly it is pretty clear what is intended.

I really don't understand why just having rules for opposed skill rolls would be a deal breaker. Nothing says that you have to use them. There is also an entire page of optional ways to do opposed skill rolls if you don't like the default. It really doesn't matter how you do them or if you use them at all. It won't make any difference in any published material, a skill will have a number next to it regardless of which system is used.

[badcat]

I'm out. Obviously this new book has nothing to offer except headaches. So long.

[CruelDespot]

Obviously this new book has nothing to offer except headaches

Bah. I don't see why. The rules as described above work great. It may look complicated on the first reading, but in practice it is very simple, and it has a certain mathematical elegance. The reason that the higher role wins on a tie is because it favors the side with a higher chance of success.

Example: Bob is hiding and we are checking to see if Joe spots him. Bob has a hide skill of 75% and rolls a 63. Joe has a spot hidden of 50% and rolls a 12. Bob wins and isn't spotted. Note that if Joe had rolled a 63, it would have exceeded his skill, but it is a success for Bob. The side with a greater skill score has a proportionally better chance of rolling higher if they both succeed.

Easy!

[Atgxtg]

I really don't understand why just having rules for opposed skill rolls would be a deal breaker. Nothing says that you have to use them. There is also an entire page of optional ways to do opposed skill rolls if you don't like the default. It really doesn't matter how you do them or if you use them at all. It won't make any difference in any published material, a skill will have a number next to it regardless of which system is used.

If most of the rolls were going to be fail/fail it would have been. THat would get old quick.