Opposed rolls

[Gnarsh]

What I would do is ask for a straight roll from the sneaker. If he fails he can be spotted by anyone looking in the right direction. If he succeds it takes a succesful Spot roll to spot him, and if he scores a critical success it takes a critical Spot to discover him.

The problem with this system, as I believe several people have mentioned, is that it places huge weight on whomever the GM has arbitrarily decided is the "defender". Basically, if the defender succeeds, he succeeds, and the attackers roll and skill doesn't much matter. I could have a 200% hide, but if the defender rolls under his 25% skill, he spotted me no matter what.

Now that might be ok, but isn't really a good "opposed roll" system IMO.

If you want skill levels over 100% to make a difference, then borrow from the (optional?) combat rules: Any attack percentage over 100% acts as a penalty to parry, such as if you attack with a skill of 120% then the defender gets a -20% penalty to his parry skill.

Yeah. This is still basically the same as "subtract roll from skill" method. If you have to do subtraction anyway, why not just do it once? Obviously, if you never allow skills over 100 in your game, the simpler "success-level, then high roll within tied success level" method works great. Once you have skills over 100%, you end up having to do some subtraction.

That's why I've always preferred the "subtract roll from skill" method. It tells you how much you made it by, and gives you an immediate measure of success. I actually don't worry about crits and specials much either. Aside from roleplaying, it's not that important (ie: You *really* snuck past that guard!!!). Ultimately, with opposed rolls you want to know if this guy wins or that guy. How well he spotted you, or how well you hid from him isn't that important at the end of the day.

The benefits of this method is that there's no change to the methodology, no matter what the conditions. Skills over 100%? No change. You're just subtracting from a higher number is all. Modifiers to skills present? Same deal. You just have an additional subtraction or addition to the initial skill level.

The big advantage to this method is that as a GM, it allows you to resolve multiple things at one time. Let's imagine that your character is trying to sneak up on an enemy encampment. There is a guard on duty, as well as a group of people sitting around a campfire. However, unknown to you, there is also another NPC trying to sneak up on the same group of bad guys. Additionally, there is a terrain feature that you're using to advantage that blocks the site of the guard, but not the folks at the campfire and only partially blocks the view between you and the other sneaker. Using traditional rules, this situation is *incredibly* complex to resolve. You basically have to roll for each comparison, and the fact that the GM asks you to roll three times will hint to the player that there are three things that might spot him.

With a subtraction system, the modifiers all simply roll into the subtraction. The player simply rolls his hide/sneak/whatever and tells the GM how much he made it by. The GM then applies that as a modifier to each group trying to spot the player, adding additional minuses based on terrain and whatnot. Once you adopt the idea that degree of success can be equated to a skill modifier for an opposed roll, this makes gaming incredibly simple.

It also means you can use the same mechanism for non-opposed skill rolls as well. If a player is trying to pick a lock, he may not know how difficult it is. But if he just rolls and tells the GM how much he made it by, the GM simply determines if that number is greater then the difficulty of the lock and is done. Another advantage is that the player doesn't need to know he's making an opposed roll at all. Let's say a character is walking down a hall. You ask the player to make a spot roll. He does and as normal reports the amount he made it by. At the point, the player has no idea why he's rolling. Is there a trap? Someone sneaking up on him? Maybe just a GM making him nervous? He doesn't know. And as long as the mechanism used for opposed and non-opposed rolls are the same (to the player anyway), he wont ever know.

And that's a good thing...

[Shaira]

Effectively yes, whomever wins the opposed roll gains the advantage... But this is my own personal way of doing things. I like opposed rolls so much, I even wrote my own set of combat house-rules based on them, which can be found at the following link if you're interested. Unfortunately they are designed for use with MRQ rather than BRP, but the core opposed roll mechanic will translate cleanly between both systems.

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf

They resolve the SB5 type combat deadlocks very effectively, and give a significant advantage to the higher skilled combatant, even when skills reach the hundreds.

Thanks for the clarification - I'm going to have a serious think about this and see how it can gel with the main BRP rules. At first glance it sounds very useful indeed.

BTW - the PDF link doesn't seem to work. No worries, I think I've got the gist, but just FYI I'm getting a dodgy file error when I try to open it.

Cheers,

Sarah

[soltakss]

Clicking the link works for me - it's:

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf

The full text of the link being

mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf

[Shaira]

Got it this time - maybe my French PC was freaking out or something!

Thanks,

Sarah

[Pete Nash]

Hi Sarah

If French is your native language, then a wonderful guy called "Arasmo" (on the Mongoose & Scriptorium forums, I don't know if he's present here) has just completed a full translation of the rules, and added some artwork too!

Le Scriptorium - REGLES OPTIONNELLES POUR RUNEQUEST

It looks and reads much better than my original... if you can read French of course!

[Shaira]

Hi Sarah

If French is your native language, then a wonderful guy called "Arasmo" (on the Mongoose & Scriptorium forums, I don't know if he's present here) has just completed a full translation of the rules, and added some artwork too!

Le Scriptorium - REGLES OPTIONNELLES POUR RUNEQUEST

It looks and reads much better than my original... if you can read French of course!

Hi Pete,

Thanks very much! Actually, English is my native language, though I do speak French, so I'll take a look anyway!

French BRP has always been interesting for some of the different accents it highlights in the game. Hawkmoon in particular is very big over here, with a large number of excellent supplements, and there have been some interesting articles in Tatou magazine on Glorantha - in particular a very good map and description of Boldhome - and some stuff on the web on Esrolia and the Building Wall which I use regularly - although I must admit in the very rural area of Normandy where I live it's hard to find a decent games' store!

Cheers,

Sarah

[Sven Norén]

... Basically, if the defender succeeds, he succeeds, and the attackers roll and skill doesn't much matter. I could have a 200% hide, but if the defender rolls under his 25% skill, he spotted me no matter what.

...

This is still basically the same as "subtract roll from skill" method. If you have to do subtraction anyway, why not just do it once?

I do it only once; When the contest starts. If you have a 200% Hide skill anyone looking for you would do so at a penalty of -100% from their skill, so that poor sod with 25% Spot would have to roll 5 or less to see you ('cos 5 or lower is always a sucess).

The big advantage to this method is that as a GM, it allows you to resolve multiple things at one time. ... You basically have to roll for each comparison, and the fact that the GM asks you to roll three times will hint to the player that there are three things that might spot him.

With the "no opposed rolls" method the sneaker would roll once, to see if he manages to sneak at all. The GM then roll for the NPC:s (with appropriate modifiers) to see if they notice him. And maybe a couple of extra rolls, just to keep players on their toes.

[badcat]

but, but...that's too easy! It doesn't demonstrate how smart I am and how much better I feel when I win an OPPOSED ROLL, the greatest game innovation since, since games were invented!:lol:

...and you don't need to learn the rules to play; just do it wrong once or twice and then start looking for FIXES, 'cause you don't want to do attack/parries ALL DAY!!!:lol:

[Lord Twig]

I do it only once; When the contest starts. If you have a 200% Hide skill anyone looking for you would do so at a penalty of -100% from their skill, so that poor sod with 25% Spot would have to roll 5 or less to see you ('cos 5 or lower is always a sucess).

What if both sneaker and spotter have 200%? Who subtracts what? If the sneaker rolls first then subtracts 100% from the spotter, the spotter will still have a 100% chance to spot him (or 95% chance). But if the spotter rolls first the sneaker will have the 100% chance to sneak past.

What happens if they both have 100%? The sneaker may always make his sneak, but the spotter is always going to spot him regardless of whether he makes it or not. Or if the sneaker has to fail a roll for the spotter to spot him the spotter will almost never get a chance, even if he has 1000%.

[RMS]

Another way I've handled the classic sneak vs. scan roll is as follows:

Sneaker rolls against skill. A success means that the sneaker succeeds so long as nobody is actively looking for them. Somebody standing there passively gets no roll to detect the sneaker. (Note: a stationed alert guard would be considered actively looking in this case, whereas a half asleep guard wouldn't be.) Someone actively watching, gets a normal scan roll and if they succeed, they spot the sneaker. So, in this case, the sneaker's level of success sets up the playing field that scanner has to act against. I still use levels of success here. A special sneak requires a special scan to notice, and the same for criticals.

I just use my best judgment on who rolls first here. For sneak vs. scan, I'd always make the sneaker roll first. On other skills, I'd have to decide on a case-to-case basis what ever made the most sense for the situation at hand.

[Pete Nash]

but, but...that's too easy! It doesn't demonstrate how smart I am and how much better I feel when I win an OPPOSED ROLL, the greatest game innovation since, since games were invented!:lol:

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented!

Not only do they remove the inherent bias which the standard rules gave to one side or the other by default, but they also fix the associated mathematical problems caused when the contestants reach mastery+ (as demonstrated by Lord Twig above).

No more who is active/passive questions, no more in-game disagreements about consistency of how those decisions were applied, and much less repetitive dice rolling in combat... Simply if there is someone or something which could resist you, then make it an Opposed Roll and get a clear cut result.

Its streamlined the flow of all the games I've played in, or run, since we started using it.:thumb:

[NickMiddleton]

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented!

Also, what he (and others) seem to be confusing is a particular mechanic in the new BRP with a general rule.

RQI/-/III had opposed skill mechanics - they were just implicit and inconsistent: attack vs. parry worked one way, most skills worked another and some (such as move silently vs. listen or Hide vs. Spot) had yet a third method of resolution.

There's a lot of criticism that to me seems to boil down to the fact that people's preferred method of opposed skill resolution hasn't been adopted as the default rule: but since (anecdotally) most of those in favour of more explicit opposed skill mechanics seem to want more (and more consistent) details than the implicit method in RQI/-/III, the new method seems like the best way forward. It's easily ignored by those who don't want to use it, but makes a lot of sense to those who do.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Also, what he (and others) seem to be confusing is a particular mechanic in the new BRP with a general rule.

RQI/-/III had opposed skill mechanics - they were just implicit and inconsistent: attack vs. parry worked one way, most skills worked another and some (such as move silently vs. listen or Hide vs. Spot) had yet a third method of resolution.

There's a lot of criticism that to me seems to boil down to the fact that people's preferred method of opposed skill resolution hasn't been adopted as the default rule: but since (anecdotally) most of those in favour of more explicit opposed skill mechanics seem to want more (and more consistent) details than the implicit method in RQI/-/III, the new method seems like the best way forward. It's easily ignored by those who don't want to use it, but makes a lot of sense to those who do.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

I think that is going to be one cross that BRP is going to have to bear. BRP was never really a system before, but more a framework to build on. Since each RPG was built separately, with rules made up to fit new situations as they went along, there is a lot of minor differences between RQ, Stormbringer CoC, World of Wonder, etc. All well and good until you try to combine them under one hat.

By trying to appeal to d100 players as an whole rather than trying to appeal to the fans of one incarnation, guarantees that there will be something in the game that everyone won't like. Just that the "something" will vary from gamer to gamer.

Hopefully the pros will outweigh the cons in everyone's (or most eveyone's) mind and all will be good. But I think there is a real possibility of the combined approach essentially alienating everybody.

[TrippyHippy]

But I think there is a real possibility of the combined approach essentially alienating everybody.

There could equally be the real possibility that it will unite them, depending upon how you view your glass.

To me, the Basic System is useful because it irons some of the quirks out of the Call of Cthulhu rules, that I've always felt were there, whilst also opening up Basic experience to other worlds that aren't intrinsically nihilistic in tone. I mean, I think Lovecraft is great n'all, and the premise is timeless, but it's nice to encounter different times and places with a different underlying perspective, every now and then!

To me the key to whether Basic will be successful or not will not be how tightly compatible the rules are to (mostly long out-of-print) games from the past, but rather the quality and quantity of the worlds that will be provided to support it now, and in the future.

[Atgxtg]

There could equally be the real possibility that it will unite them, depending upon how you view your glass.

It could. But from what I've been seeing I think it won't. Just this thread alone is showing that. Most of us having been running some incarnation of RQ/BRP for over two decades now. BRP has to compete with that. In the end I think a lot of us will buy it, but that most of us will prefer the rule set we are already using and will use BRP as a potential source for adding on stuff.

For instance, I prefer RQ over the simpler/watered down version of the game. I prefer strikes ranks (RQ2 version over RQ3) and hit locations, skill categories and all that. So I'd be more inclined to run RQ with a few mods of BRP than to run BRP.

I think that is going to be the bane of BRP, it will get competition from earlier BRP games.

[Jack Tar]

I think that is going to be the bane of BRP, it will get competition from earlier BRP games.

Not from me. I'm a Chaosium virgin, having never played any of their RPGs, so know nothing about BRP. I'll be one of the audience who comes to it with a clean slate. Hopefully for Chaosium's financial benefit, that will be a significant number of people. What's attracted me is the recommendation of others who have CoC experience and the use of a d100 system. Way, way back when I cut my teeth on AD&D 1st edition, I lamented the lack of a more common-sense percentile system.

P.S. show the rpg.net masses that BRP is coming and is sexy by casting your 'vote' for it as what you're "excited about for 2008" in this thead;

What are you excited about for 2008? - RPGnet Forums

[NickMiddleton]

It could. But from what I've been seeing I think it won't. Just this thread alone is showing that. Most of us having been running some incarnation of RQ/BRP for over two decades now. BRP has to compete with that. In the end I think a lot of us will buy it, but that most of us will prefer the rule set we are already using and will use BRP as a potential source for adding on stuff.

For instance, I prefer RQ over the simpler/watered down version of the game. I prefer strikes ranks (RQ2 version over RQ3) and hit locations, skill categories and all that. So I'd be more inclined to run RQ with a few mods of BRP than to run BRP.

But you CAN run BRP with all those features - and someone who prefers their BRP far lighter and less crunchy can run with DEX ordering in combat, only THP / MWL, no skill categories etc. from the same core rule book.

I think that is going to be the bane of BRP, it will get competition from earlier BRP games.

No more than D&D (or Traveller, or Shadowrun, or GURPS...) gets competition from earlier editions. And, given the extent to which the new BRP synthesises prior BRP games in to a single coherent rule book, probably less. The new BRP rule book lets me play an ElfQuest-like game one night, a Cthulhu-esue game the next and a Stormbringer / Hawkmoon style game the next - from one rulebook and without having to lug my treasured copies of any of those old games across town in a ruck sack...

I think one of the positive things that is going to emerge from the new BRP (especially if it is reasonably well supported) is a realisation amongst the wider gaming community and even some of the more blinkered BRP fans as to just how flexible and adaptable BRP can be: it's not just gritty fantasy that it handles well...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

But you CAN run BRP with all those features - and someone who prefers their BRP far lighter and less crunchy can run with DEX ordering in combat, only THP / MWL, no skill categories etc. from the same core rule book.

But why? If you already have a game with those features why switch? That;'s always been the challenge that BRP systems present to each other. For instance many like Call of Cthulhu, I find it a waste of tree pulp. Toss out most of the RQ rules and make a game where the goal is to survive long enough to go permanently insane. It's like Paranoia played seriously.

No more than D&D (or Traveller, or Shadowrun, or GURPS...) gets competition from earlier editions. And, given the extent to which the new BRP synthesises prior BRP games in to a single coherent rule book, probably less.

I disagree. What the other games have is a continuing tradition of existence. RQ's been dead for 15 years, Strombringer nearly so. Chaosium hasn't suppoered anything well except for CoC in decades. So all us gamers have gotten used to being on our own.

The new BRP rule book lets me play an ElfQuest-like game one night, a Cthulhu-esue game the next and a Stormbringer / Hawkmoon style game the next - from one rulebook and without having to lug my treasured copies of any of those old games across town in a ruck sack...

Bull. You;ll need those other games for all the things that make them work. Setting for one. You'll need to bring stuff along for that. Also, I have strong doubts that groups will really be able to swap out game options from night to night. MOre lijkely that they will pick a set of options and end up running all the other settings with the style of the options picked for Game #1.

I think one of the positive things that is going to emerge from the new BRP (especially if it is reasonably well supported) is a realisation amongst the wider gaming community and even some of the more blinkered BRP fans as to just how flexible and adaptable BRP can be: it's not just gritty fantasy that it handles well...

Good luck. That's probably the biggest pipe dream I've heard of about the new BRP. Basically there is nothing in it that hasn't been around in some form or another for the last 20 years. If the general RPG community hasn't got their heads out of the sand at looked at BRP before this isn't going to get them to now.

Nothing against Jason, but he isn't reinventing the wheel here. In fact, more credit to him for not trying. But really, if people didn't stand up and take notice the last ten times the system been put under their noses, what makes you think they will this time?

[Nightshade]

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?

Simple, actually. I consider the skill to define the point where really sharply diminishing returns cut in in improving your skill (since that's the reality of the way advancement mechanic in BRP work). I wouldn't characterize that as applying to just any black belt or SCA knight; most of those still have a considerable ability to improve before they really flatten off.

[frogspawner]

There's a lot of criticism that to me seems to boil down to the fact that people's preferred method of opposed skill resolution hasn't been adopted as the default rule...

I'm not bothered what gets adopted as default BRP (being confident it'll be fairly sensible) - I'll be buying BRP stuff anyway. All I want is to find the way that's best...

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented!

It is all about feel. You like the Opposed Roll - fine, but some of us don't. And no way is it the best for 30 years! I feel there are quite a few issues about ORs that are not yet resolved: rolling low or high-within-low; extra maths; trivializing potentially exciting contests (e.g. sneaking, bargaining...). For me, the challenge of finding the Perfect Mechanism is still ongoing. Care to join me, or wish me luck?

[soltakss]

In the end I think a lot of us will buy it, but that most of us will prefer the rule set we are already using and will use BRP as a potential source for adding on stuff.

That's what I'm doing with RQM and that's what I'll probably do with BRP.

[Atgxtg]

That's what I'm doing with RQM and that's what I'll probably do with BRP.

I'm not surprised. I think that is really what most of the long term BRP players are going to do. We might bend for specfic settings. We might use certain spot rules for a superhero or Sci-Fi game that we'd never use elsewhere, but I don't expect a big rush to convert over from what are using now to BRP.

I've seen some of this with posts, and from personal experience while writing stuff up. I had at times designed something one way for compatibility while I would run it a different way in my own campaigns.

[Pete Nash]

It is all about feel. You like the Opposed Roll - fine, but some of us don't. And no way is it the best for 30 years! I feel there are quite a few issues about ORs that are not yet resolved: rolling low or high-within-low; extra maths; trivializing potentially exciting contests (e.g. sneaking, bargaining...). For me, the challenge of finding the Perfect Mechanism is still ongoing. Care to join me, or wish me luck?

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP.

For my gaming style they sort out the consistency problems RQ suffered, and streamline play. Rolling high-within-low is simply a matter of habit and becomes transparent very quickly, extra maths only kick in once you get skills above 100% and nobody I play with seems to have a problem with on the fly addition or subtraction.

Whether they 'trivialize potentially exciting contests' depends completely upon how the results are applied by the GM - it is not specifically linked to how the dice are rolled and read.

Are Opposed Rolls perfect? By no means. But until the next elegant innovation comes along, I'll be using them.

[frogspawner]

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP.

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?

[Pete Nash]

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?

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. The mathematical alternatives are on p170.

Please forgive my stupidity. ;-(