Opposed rolls

[Lord Twig]

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

Hahaha! Good one!

[soltakss]

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

There's more to BRP than one rule. If you don't like opposed rolls then don't use them. I'm sure there will be many rules in BRP that I don't like, but that won't stop me buying it when it comes out.

The thread on Typos etc has supported my decision not to buy BRP.0, though, I'd have hated to buy a book and then had to apply a large errata.

[frogspawner]

I don't remember what thread, but I asked Jason about opposed rolls since I was confused and he cleared it up.

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

[Trifletraxor]

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

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

I'm not going to use the opposed rolls, and I'm not going to use the major wound table as it stands. I'm still excited about the book though. When I get mine, I'll organize the wiki in the same manner as the book, and we can all add our houserules.

SGL.

[Shaira]

It strikes me everyone's getting a bit heated about a rule which is quite straightforward. OK, maybe it requires a paragraph break or an extra clarification, but to be honest when I read it through I had no doubt what it meant. Here is what it says:

i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows:

If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success.

If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success.

ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins.

Note that there is no mention of Bumping in example (ii). This is clear from the wording, but could definitely be made more explicit - on a casual skim through you *could* misunderstand and assume its all basically one rule instead of two. The example does make it clear what's intended, though.

It looks like Jason has agreed to put a clearer wording in the full release, which clears it up nicely.

It's a neat, elegant rule. I'll be using the first part unchanged; for me, I'll be calculating Success Margins (how much you make your roll by) for the second part, as I anticipate lots of 100%+ characters in time!

BTW - in general, the book is really impressive. It's clear it's a proof copy, with niggles which are now being cleared up, but I've been gaming since 1980, and whilst I threw my hands up in horror at the mess that was MRQ, I see nothing here deserving anything but the highest praise. Typos and unclear bits get cleared up in proofreading - that's normal. We're just casting an expert eye and doing our bit to help.

It's good stuff, guys!

Sarah

[NickMiddleton]

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

But the only way to include the previously published BRP options would to have an entry saying something like "Opposed Skills: gloss over it." or a blank space... Or a few ad hoc specific (and different in each case) examples fro the most common pairs of skills...

Seriously, a LOT of criticism is levelled at BRP for lacking a generalised Opposed skill mechanic, and a LOT of people have used a variant rule like Jason's included as the "default" as a house rule for decades. Plus optional variants are included.

Also note that Combat (Attack, Parry and Dodge) are special cases (they were in the playtest draft anyway), as they've always been in most BRP games: RQII and III handled the specific cases of opposed skills it bothered to mention (Sneak vs Spot mostly) very differently to combat.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[NickMiddleton]

i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows:

If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success.

If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success.

ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins.

Note that there is no mention of Bumping in example (ii). This is clear from the wording, but could definitely be made more explicit - on a casual skim through you *could* misunderstand and assume its all basically one rule instead of two. The example does make it clear what's intended, though.

It looks like Jason has agreed to put a clearer wording in the full release, which clears it up nicely.

It's a neat, elegant rule. I'll be using the first part unchanged; for me, I'll be calculating Success Margins (how much you make your roll by) for the second part, as I anticipate lots of 100%+ characters in time!

Quite agree - but there is a flaw in this version: If I special my Sneak against the Guards critical Spot, he only gets a normal success (he won, I got a success two steps better than failure, so I get to bump him down two steps from Criticla success to normal successs). But if I critical my Sneak, but still lose, against his critical Spot he still gets a critical Spot... :confused:

Hence Pete Nash and I saying (in different fashions) that in case ii, the rule should be "higher roll wins, but only achieves a normal success" or, "bumping happens in case ii, but can't reduce a winner's degree of success to worse than a normal success" whichever is deemed clearer. This address the flaw.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Shaira]

Quite agree - but there is a flaw in this version: If I special my Sneak against the Guards critical Spot, he only gets a normal success (he won, I got a success two steps better than failure, so I get to bump him down two steps from Criticla success to normal successs). But if I critical my Sneak, but still lose, against his critical Spot he still gets a critical Spot... :confused:

Hence Pete Nash and I saying (in different fashions) that in case ii, the rule should be "higher roll wins, but only achieves a normal success" or, "bumping happens in case ii, but can't reduce a winner's degree of success to worse than a normal success" whichever is deemed clearer. This address the flaw.

I take your point - and I think the "higher roll wins, but only achieves a normal success" solves it nicely. I'll have a think just to see if there aren't any weirdo side effects, but it sounds good.

Has Jason commented on this?

[CruelDespot]

Thanks to Shaira for posting the actual rules from the book.

What Shaira posted from the book is different from what I expected based on the earlier comments in this thread. I assumed the rules in the book followed the more common BRP rule of "best degree of success wins; if both roll the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." That is what I would prefer. I understand why a crit vs a success should be less overwhelming than a crit vs a failure, but the genius of BRP has always been in its elegant simplicity, IMHO.

[soltakss]

I wouldn't bump/degrade at all.

What I'd do is have success by levels. That would then determine any success-level-dependent results.

Criritcal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 4 levels

Critical vs Failure = Succeeds by 3 levels

Critical vs Normal = Succeeds by 2 levels

Critical vs Special = Succeeds by 1 level

Special vs Fumble = Succeeds by 3 Levels

Special vs Failure = Succeeds by 2 Levels

Special vs Normal = Succeeds by 1 Level

Normal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 2 Levels

Normal vs Failure = Succeeds by 1 Level

Failure vs Fumble = Succeeds by 1 Level

For opposed roll victories based on highest roll/greatest margin

Critical vs Critical = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Special vs Special = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Normal vs Normal = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Failure vs Failure = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Fumble vs Fumble = Succeeds by 0 Levels

It's quick, easy and you don't need mental gymnastics to degrade rolls.

[frogspawner]

I'm not going to use the opposed rolls, and I'm not going to use the major wound table as it stands. I'm still excited about the book though. When I get mine, I'll organize the wiki in the same manner as the book, and we can all add our houserules.

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"...

Here is what it says:

i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows:

If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success.

If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success.

ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins.

Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them?

It's good stuff, guys!

Naturally!

But the only way to include the previously published BRP options would to have an entry saying something like "Opposed Skills: gloss over it." or a blank space... Or a few ad hoc specific (and different in each case) examples fro the most common pairs of skills...

Well, that's not really true, is it? ORs could have been introduced as an option (like plenty of other rules have), or even as the default with the old ways optional (but I suspect that's not what's happening...).

[Shaira]

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"...

Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them?

Well, if you're not careful here you're gonna get bogged down in semantics. "The Book" doesn't say anywhere you *should* be using Opposed Rolls. However, they are part of the Core Rules; there are also Optional rules which present different takes on Opposed Rules.

However (again!), saying that ORs are part of the Core Rules means little; in the descriptions of skills like Hide, Listen, etc, you get wordings like "Most Hide checks are resolved as opposed skill rolls against the Spot of a guard or pursuer" or "Oppose Listen to Stealth to resolve attempts to sneak past a wary or unwary listener". So, in both cases, if you just wanted to use a single skill - roll Hide and you're hidden, roll Listen and you heard the guy - then of course you can. You just might lose some of the sublety from the system if you do (like what the Spot and Stealth rules actually mean, for example).

I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I'm not entirely sure what the problem is

[frogspawner]

I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll.

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

[Shaira]

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

I'm just about to head out, so I'll reply quickly if that's okay!

In a sense, combat kind of already uses a similar mechanism. But no, not overtly, nowhere does it says "Combat uses the Opposed Roll rule", so you can rest easy

In my view the "define what happens on a tied roll" is where you come a cropper, especially when skills get above 90%, where running races, swimming contests, fast talk, hide and seek, stealth, etc, etc, are all gonna bog down into tied rolls *most* of the time unless you have some resolution mechanic for when both sides succeed. As I said, personally I'm not gonna use the "higher roll wins" rule, I'll be using my amazing mathematical skills to subtract the roll from the skill and derive a margin of success - and the better success margin wins. This is mainly to ensure I have a consistent mechanic which will work as well for 150% skill as it does for 50%.

Anyway - must dash! :thumb:

Sarah

[Kloster]

I'm just about to head out, so I'll reply quickly if that's okay!

In a sense, combat kind of already uses a similar mechanism. But no, not overtly, nowhere does it says "Combat uses the Opposed Roll rule", so you can rest easy

In my view the "define what happens on a tied roll" is where you come a cropper, especially when skills get above 90%, where running races, swimming contests, fast talk, hide and seek, stealth, etc, etc, are all gonna bog down into tied rolls *most* of the time unless you have some resolution mechanic for when both sides succeed. As I said, personally I'm not gonna use the "higher roll wins" rule, I'll be using my amazing mathematical skills to subtract the roll from the skill and derive a margin of success - and the better success margin wins. This is mainly to ensure I have a consistent mechanic which will work as well for 150% skill as it does for 50%.

Anyway - must dash! :thumb:

Sarah

Same for me.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[NickMiddleton]

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably well.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

In the play test draft Combat remained a special case, as it always has been in Chaosium BRP rules, and Attack / Parry and Dodge resolution were described in the Combat Chapter, not the Skills chapter.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[frogspawner]

In the play test draft Combat remained a special case, as it always has been in Chaosium BRP rules, and Attack / Parry and Dodge resolution were described in the Combat Chapter, not the Skills chapter.

Phew. Ta!

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably* well.

Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it...

Actually, I think that resolves the whole "Opposed Roll" issue for me. If I want to prolong the suspense with a more extended contest, I can always define interim stages and call for re-rolls to get further. Otherwise, ties mean whoever should win, does win (though, rightly, that's not certain at the outset). Great!

And, what's more, this fix means I'd only have to cross-out and replace two letters, rather than a whole line, from my new BRP Book when I get it. Thanks again!

(* Only "reasonably"? Could you kindly say what niggles you found, to get me up-to-speed with it?)

[Atgxtg]

I wouldn't bump/degrade at all.

What I'd do is have success by levels. That would then determine any success-level-dependent results.

Criritcal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 4 levels

Critical vs Failure = Succeeds by 3 levels

Critical vs Normal = Succeeds by 2 levels

Critical vs Special = Succeeds by 1 level

Special vs Fumble = Succeeds by 3 Levels

Special vs Failure = Succeeds by 2 Levels

Special vs Normal = Succeeds by 1 Level

Normal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 2 Levels

Normal vs Failure = Succeeds by 1 Level

Failure vs Fumble = Succeeds by 1 Level

For opposed roll victories based on highest roll/greatest margin

Critical vs Critical = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Special vs Special = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Normal vs Normal = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Failure vs Failure = Succeeds by 0 Levels

Fumble vs Fumble = Succeeds by 0 Levels

It's quick, easy and you don't need mental gymnastics to degrade rolls.

:thumb::thumb:

I like this idea the best out of what I've seen here so far.

Oly I'd say Falures and Fumbles shouldn't succeed by 0 levels, but fail.Two people can both fail to achienve the gaol.

[Ars Mysteriorum]

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing.

I think I'm understanding the concept. Unknown Armies uses a comparable (but heavily simplified) approach to rolls as well, where you want to roll under, but try to get the highest possible roll at the same time (that is, if I'm understanding this correctly).

However, I must admit that having to explain this system to my group has dimmed my enthusiasm a bit. My group is made up of people with great characterization and enthusiasm for expanding characters, but they aren't interested in complex mechanics that suck them out of their imaginary world and put them into the unwelcome realm of numbers and statistics. And I admit, off the cuff my arithmetic is atrocious and will probably slow things down considerably.

How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

[Triff]

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably well.

Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it...

That was a good idea. Very simple, keeping the right "feel" and no math. This one goes in the wiki when the organization is ready.

SGL.

[Rurik]

While I've always used tied rolls always go to the higher skill, I don't like using tied levels of success always go to the higher skill. In that case a 91% skill is going to beat a 90% skill almost every single time.

[Lord Twig]

There's more to BRP than one rule. If you don't like opposed rolls then don't use them. I'm sure there will be many rules in BRP that I don't like, but that won't stop me buying it when it comes out.

The thread on Typos etc has supported my decision not to buy BRP.0, though, I'd have hated to buy a book and then had to apply a large errata.

Really you shouldn't buy the 0 Edition if you want a rule book. I bought mine for a "sneak peek" and as a collector's item. When the finished book is out I will buy that one as the rule book that will be used in games.

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

But the only way to include the previously published BRP options would to have an entry saying something like "Opposed Skills: gloss over it." or a blank space... Or a few ad hoc specific (and different in each case) examples fro the most common pairs of skills...

Not sure what you mean buy adding something that wasn't there before. RQ3 Player's Book, pg 34, heading "Skill vs. Skill". That is the opposed roll rules for RQ3. The exact same machanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default meathod is much better.

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing.

I think I'm understanding the concept. Unknown Armies uses a comparable (but heavily simplified) approach to rolls as well, where you want to roll under, but try to get the highest possible roll at the same time (that is, if I'm understanding this correctly).

However, I must admit that having to explain this system to my group has dimmed my enthusiasm a bit. My group is made up of people with great characterization and enthusiasm for expanding characters, but they aren't interested in complex mechanics that suck them out of their imaginary world and put them into the unwelcome realm of numbers and statistics. And I admit, off the cuff my arithmetic is atrocious and will probably slow things down considerably.

How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

Sounds like you will want to choose one of the other options then. The range from very simple (both roll, high successful roll wins) to slightly harder than the default (Both roll, compare degree of success, reduce winer's success buy losers. If same degree of success each player subtracts their roll from their base skill, highest margin wins.)

So really it can be complicated with more detail or quick and easy, at your option.

[Joseph Paul]

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

[Ars Mysteriorum]

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

That's actually a nice analogy.

[Atgxtg]

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

Yes that is a nice anaolgy. I just don't like how the percentages end up in BRP using it. Essentially it turns a 50 vs. 100 conflict into odds closer to the resistance table.

Aslo the analogy doesn't hold once you throw in specials and crticials. A 3 doesn't beat an 18.