Opposed rolls

[frogspawner]

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.

You're right, of course. (Your post sent me running to my RQ3). I guess the way it said skills "can" be used that way let me ignore it - I never really liked that mechanism either! And so, when people said the only options in the new BRP were variations of Opposed Rolls (this included), I was led to believe it was new. Thanks for putting me straight. Mr D, please excuse me!

(Even so, I now prefer the 'higher-skill-wins-tied-success-levels' method! )

[frogspawner]

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing. ... How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

It's a cinch - there's nothing easier or more intuitive for first-timers.

But this thread is a pretty poor place to see how easy BRP really is! It's full of hard-core old-timers fighting their corners with abstruse arguments and complex mathematics*. I should start a new thread and ask again, mate!

(* Previously defined as subtraction - or even worse! )

[frogspawner]

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.

I see what you mean - it could be too predictable. But Specials/Failures will happen 18+10=28% of the time (on each side, which should multiply, right?). And what with modifiers (eg moving halves hide?), and other factors possibly unknown beforehand, there should be enough unpredictability to keep things interesting.

I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably...

(Anyone care to do the maths?)

[Atgxtg]

I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably...

(Anyone care to do the maths?)

Well, the simply math- baring specials and crticals, and fumbles is.

Thief success, guard fails: 56.25%

Guard Succeeds, Thief Fails: 06.25%

-------------------------------------

Both fail: 18.75%

Both Succeed: 18.75%, since anything under 25 would be 50-50 and anything other is all thief is break down to about 12.49% thief, 6.26% guard)

Note that if low roll wind on failures this flip-flops the roll high probability, since it would be the exact opposite as the both succeed.

So it would be 75 vs. 25-not counting specials and criticals.

Now if you used low roll wins, it would be the same breakdown. What the high skill looses on tied success he gains on tied failures.

Toss in crtricals and specials and they bump the results slightly more in the favor if the 75% guy. Since the 75% guy has a 2-1 advance there to, it would end up closer to 78% vs 22%

[NickMiddleton]

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.

And to be honest, I never liked them, and besides when I drafted that post there were <facetious></facetious> tags round that comment as i wasn't being entirely serious.

The exact same mechanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default method is much better.

Good. It was the second of the three optional rules for opposed rolls in the play test draft I have, wasn't sure in among the debate if it had made it in to final draft, but I'm glad it did for those who don't like the new default. I do find the default method better (revised for clarity as discussed here), but there should be alternatives for those who don't.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[soltakss]

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.

Hide and Seek.

A hides and fails, B seeks and fumbles. Does B see A? I'd say no because he's too busy stalking the elephant he swears he saw in the roses.

[Joseph Paul]

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

Wildcard Blackjack? As is the usual fate of analogies they break down as you make finer comparisons. But at that point you have gone past what an analogy is supposed to do anyway which is to help understand how something works by comparing it to something else in the audience's experience. Exeptions, additions, deletions, provisos, caveats, and quid pro quos come free.

[Alexis Flamand]

Hi everyone !

I post here because something in the opposed roll troubles me.

The opposed roll system is great when both players wins, or if one wins and one fails. But if the two players fail ?

I read the BRP about this, the variants too, and it says that "If both of the rolls are fumbles, the character with the higher skill rating has done less

badly than the other(s)."

I just can't handle that ! It seems to be so unclear, not logical... I there a simple way to turn this around ?

In fact, what do you do when this case happens ?

Alexis

[vagabond]

Hi everyone !

I post here because something in the opposed roll troubles me.

The opposed roll system is great when both players wins, or if one wins and one fails. But if the two players fail ?

I read the BRP about this, the variants too, and it says that "If both of the rolls are fumbles, the character with the higher skill rating has done less

badly than the other(s)."

I just can't handle that ! It seems to be so unclear, not logical... I there a simple way to turn this around ?

In fact, what do you do when this case happens ?

Alexis

To use attack/parry as an example, if the attacker fails, the defender still

needs to roll. Any result other than a fumble is ignored (though, if you

use the riposte rule form SB1-4, a successful parry could still turn into a

riposte attack). A fumble could make the defender fall.

-V

[Pete Nash]

I just can't handle that ! It seems to be so unclear, not logical... I there a simple way to turn this around ?

In fact, what do you do when this case happens ?

Either...

a) Let the GM freely interpret the result of both failing

or re-roll the test

It depends on the contest and how you frame it, but the way I play it is if the active protagonist fails then the whole challenge fails and everything remains as a stalemate. Try again next time.

For example...

Two Romans are racing their chariots on the Via Appia, one tries to overtake the other on the narrow road. Marcus, attempts to overtake Caius - who is swerving back and forth to block him. Both fail their rolls. Caius fails to block, leaving a wide open gap for Marcus to overtake. Marcus however, fails to whip his horses faster to take advantage. So overall nothing happens.

Caius charges Marcus with corruption and treason and the case is heard in court. Caius decides to defame his enemy using the Law skill to illustrate his illegal activities, and Marcus decides to defend with his Rhetoric skill, flaunting his illustrious prestige and list of honourable service to the State. Both fail. In this case there is no clear winner, and the result is open to (maximum game fun) interpretation. The GM decides that Caius his made a hash of his legal charges, forgetting some important law which lets Marcus off the hook. However, during his defence Marcus makes a laughing stock of himself when he flubs his oration, quoting the honour of his grandfather who had once been exiled for corruption himself!

[RMS]

Two Romans are racing their chariots on the Via Appia, one tries to overtake the other on the narrow road. Marcus, attempts to overtake Caius - who is swerving back and forth to block him. Both fail their rolls. Caius fails to block, leaving a wide open gap for Marcus to overtake. Marcus however, fails to whip his horses faster to take advantage. So overall nothing happens.

If they both fumble, Caius gets out of control and slams his chariot into a wall doing potential damage to it, but Marcus hits the other one trying to go around him....or something similar. The crowd hurls insults, and worse, down on both.

In the other extreme, if both roll a critical, Caius pulls off a brilliant move to block Marcus off and looks to drive him into a mishap, but Marcus pulls off an equally brilliant move to evade and nearly takes advantage, but in the end the status quo is preserved. The crowd cheers for both competitors.

Caius charges Marcus with corruption and treason and the case is heard in court. Caius decides to defame his enemy using the Law skill to illustrate his illegal activities, and Marcus decides to defend with his Rhetoric skill, flaunting his illustrious prestige and list of honourable service to the State. Both fail. In this case there is no clear winner, and the result is open to (maximum game fun) interpretation. The GM decides that Caius his made a hash of his legal charges, forgetting some important law which lets Marcus off the hook. However, during his defence Marcus makes a laughing stock of himself when he flubs his oration, quoting the honour of his grandfather who had once been exiled for corruption himself!

I tend to rule that failures mean that the character failed in the short term goal, with no lasting affect. In this case, both fail to meet their goals, but fail equally so nothing happens. A fumble usually results in some longer last issue. For example, if both fumble, both are laughed at and are both considered bumpkins not fit to argue their case in front of educated....or at least would suffer a starting penalty to the next few social engagements they attend.

The flip side is that both could critical and have delivered incredible argument and gained much respect from onlookers, but the actual confrontation would have ended at the same stalemate.

To me, this is a very logical result. I do the same for winning with a failure vs. fumble, rather than success vs. failure, special vs. success, or critical vs. special. The difference in each case is the same, so the outcome of the specific issue is the same, but how they got there and any long term consequences are based on the levels of result.

[Pete Nash]

For example, if both fumble, both are laughed at and are both considered bumpkins not fit to argue their case in front of educated....or at least would suffer a starting penalty to the next few social engagements they attend.

I'm obviously a far more brutal GM than you.

Failure in my game would be brief ridicule and a penalty to Status until the next entertaining thing happens in the city. Such is the merciless criticism of the Roman gossip circuit. A fumble in the law court (depending on what the character said) would bring a permanent Status loss, gain an enmity, or even start a small riot! >:->

Evil, moi!?!

[RMS]

I'm obviously a far more brutal GM than you.

Failure in my game would be brief ridicule and a penalty to Status until the next entertaining thing happens in the city. Such is the merciless criticism of the Roman gossip circuit. A fumble in the law court (depending on what the character said) would bring a permanent Status loss, gain an enmity, or even start a small riot! >:->

Evil, moi!?!

Maybe, though this sounds like pretty much what I was picturing when I typed out the above, so maybe I wasn't clear. Either way, I was just supporting the idea that I think it's perfectly logical to consider both the difference in success level and the actual success levels. I run combat that way too, which is basically the old RQ way rather than the new BRP way (I think).

[Alexis Flamand]

Thanks, everyone ! You took the time to answer me and explain this concept, it's very kind.

Now, it's clear ! Thanks a lot ! :thumb:

Alexis