Contested Rolls in BRP0?

[frogspawner]

It is pleasant to find someone of like mind on this subject.

I hope there's plenty of us out there. Being reasonable folks, maybe we don't usually shout as loud as some others, that's all...

Right now it is unlikely that I will even get the new BRP book due to all the bells and whistles that are getting attached to it. The parts I like are, alas, already known or available.I'll likely stick to Stormbringer and CoC with imports from other systems and use Atlantis if I actually get to run a game, and spend my hobby hours working on my own setting. It is still an enjoyable hobby even if it is pulling away from my tastes in many ways.

Well, it is a collection of previous works, so you can't blame it for not bringing much that's new. But there are some things, and others are treated in a more flexible way. SB/CoC with imports? That's what it is! (And generally the bells and whistles are firmly optional). So I urge you to get it, either BRP0 and/or BRP1 - you may find nuggets of gold that'll unexpectedly delight you. I did!

(Oh, and while you're shopping, scoop a copy of the Order Of The Stick adventure game, too - it's a great laugh!)

Simple is not always better. If you have been following the 4th edition news that is coming out, that is made pretty plain. Can anyone here say, "Firecube"?

The core mechanics should be the simplest possible (within reason), so the complications come only from options you think are worth adding. ("Firecube"? What? Do you have dirt on 4e? Oh do please tell...!) >:->

Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill. <snip>

Sounds like an extended version of a good ol' RQ2 mechanic. Hurrah! The Parry part is essentially the "Deflection" ability I advocated earlier. Another 'special ability' that kicks-in at 100%+, so there's another precedent for gaining extra 'shticks' at 100. Fine RQ2 provenance too... :thumb:

I'm not afraid of subtraction... Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip.

Relax, Badcat. I thought that was aimed at me - having once described subtraction (or was it addition?) as 'advanced mathematics', in the context of opposed rolls. And I don't mind.

The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS.

In what ways? I don't know GURPS. (Er, though come to mention it, I think I reviewed it once...)

Splitting and higher chance of success/special/critical allready lets the higher skilled opponent come out on op.

While subtractions might be easy, all math that is not intuitive bogs down combat.

See? Not everyone wants extra things. Yay, Options! The way to go...

[The Last Conformist]

Using a "standard" opposed roll mechanic, where equallly skilled characters have equal chances of success, would make close combat bloodier than in CoC or SB, where the attack/parry matrices inherently favour the defender. Considering how fast limbs tend to fly in either, that doesn't sound like a good thing!

(Eg., if two chars with sword skill 90% fence, the per attack chance of a hit is 9% and ~22% respectively. If a margin-of-success or other balanced mechanism was used, it'd be 50%.)

[RosenMcStern]

A 22% chance of one of the two contestants scoring a hit in a 12 second timespan looks fine to me. In a sports fencing or kendo exchange, this is the time it takes to score a hit. Of course things may be different in lethal combat, but we are talking about 22% of causing a wound, not 90%.

[The Last Conformist]

A 22% chance of one of the two contestants scoring a hit in a 12 second timespan looks fine to me.

Assuming one attack per character per 12s round and that the wounds are not incapacitating, the odds off either or both fencers inflicting a hit in a round are 17% (CoC), 39% (SB5), and 75% (hypothetical neutral system). The numbers above are for a single attack.

[Tywyll]

Assuming one attack per character per 12s round and that the wounds are not incapacitating, the odds off either or both fencers inflicting a hit in a round are 19% (CoC), 39% (SB5), and 75% (hypothetical neutral system). The numbers above are for a single attack.

Wow, I didn't realize there were such differences in the BRP systems. Could you show your math on how you came to those conclusions? I don't doubt you are correct, I'm just curious in the differences.

[The Last Conformist]

Wow, I didn't realize there were such differences in the BRP systems. Could you show your math on how you came to those conclusions? I don't doubt you are correct, I'm just curious in the differences.

For simplicity's sake, let's go back to just looking at a single attack. We're still assuming two fencers both with skill 90%.

CoC: To successfully hit, you need to roll below your skill (90% chance) and your enemy needs to fail to roll below his (100%-90%=10%). Thus, .9*.1=.09=9% chance of a successful hit.

SB5: Here it gets more complicated; you can successfully hit by rolling a normal success (19-90 on the dice - a 72% chance) and your enemy rolling a failure (10% chance), or by rolling a critical (18% chance) and your opponent a normal success or a failure (72%+10%=82% chance). Thus, the total chance of a successful hit is .72*.1+.18*.82=.22=22% (approx.)

Hypothetical neutral system: This could be implemented in various ways, but, by definition, the chance of a success against an equally skilled opponent is 50%.

The chance of at least one success in two tries, where the chance of success in a single try is X, is Y=1-(1-X)^2. Putting in X=9%, 22%, 50% gives Y=17%, 39%, 75%, respectively.

(19% above is an error for 17%.)

[Tywyll]

For simplicity's sake, let's go back to just looking at a single attack. We're still assuming two fencers both with skill 90%.

CoC: To successfully hit, you need to roll below your skill (90% chance) and your enemy needs to fail to roll below his (100%-90%=10%). Thus, .9*.1=.09=9% chance of a successful hit.

SB5: Here it gets more complicated; you can successfully hit by rolling a normal success (19-90 on the dice - a 72% chance) and your enemy rolling a failure (10% chance), or by rolling a critical (18% chance) and your opponent a normal success or a failure (72%+10%=82% chance). Thus, the total chance of a successful hit is .72*.1+.18*.82=.22=22% (approx.)

Hypothetical neutral system: This could be implemented in various ways, but, by definition, the chance of a success against an equally skilled opponent is 50%.

The chance of at least one success in two tries, where the chance of success in a single try is X, is Y=1-(1-X)^2. Putting in X=9%, 22%, 50% gives Y=17%, 39%, 75%, respectively.

(19% above is an error for 17%.)

Wow... thanks for that view behind the curtain. I really appreciate it. Were there not criticals and impales in CoC? Its been so long since I played, I just forgot the differences.

Cheers!

[The Last Conformist]

There are impales in CoC, but they affect only the amount of damage inflicted*, not the difficulty of parrying.

* And, for close-combat weapons, whether your weapon gets stuck.

[Lord Twig]

Well I am glad I came back to check this thread! I apparently failed to adequately express myself.

I'm not afraid of subtraction, and I have never said simple was always better. Indeed, what I have said is that there is a sweet spot which varies from gamer to gamer. Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip. I don't care for many of the ideas included in this BRP book because they are beginning to carry it beyond my sweet spot. Contested or opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, etc. are no improvement, IMHO, especially in a system which can be run effortlessly as it already exists.

I did not mean to aim the 'subtraction snip' at you or anyone else on this board. There are other systems that seem to make a big deal about keeping math simple and mostly my comment was motivated by that. You had mentioned that simpler is better, and while generally that is true it can be taken too far. I just wanted to point that out and apparently you agree since you posted the same thing above.

I also agree that opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, are no improvement. I do think that it is possible to improve opposed rolls though. Which, if it can be done, would be a boon for those that want to use them. The others are fine, I guess, but I probably won't use them.

I also do not like being talked down to by anyone. I like what I like. 4e just looks like a mess, and an expensive one, 'simpler' or not. The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS. There are, however, a couple of bright spots on the horizon. I do regret that I cannot give the new book more support, but I feel right now that the inclusion of clumsy mechanics such as contested rolls and the multi-genre nature of it are going to leave me, for one, out in the cold.

Again, I apologize if I came off as talking down to anyone. That was not my intent.

I don't know that 4e will be a mess... I actually think it will probably be pretty clean, but clean will not help the fact that it has moved away from being a RPG and moved more toward being a pseudo-CCG or a MMO simulator.

I believe the main reason for the BRP book is to serve as a consistent rules platform for new games to be built on. If you are looking to add new things to your current game or are looking to change things that may not work as well as you would like BRP would also be useful. If you are happy with what you have or are not looking for anything new then of course a new book won't help you. Of course if you have a game you like there is nothing wrong with that!

("Firecube"? What? Do you have dirt on 4e? Oh do please tell...!) >:->

There is information out there if you look for it. Simplicity and ease of play seem to be the order of the day. Anything that slows the game down, even a fraction of a second, is removed from the game.

In order to simulate movement and distance on a grid 3.5 used a rule that ever second diagonal move counted as two squares. This meant that you had to remember if you counted one or two squares the last time you moved diagonal. This was 'too hard'. Spells with area of effects that were not a simple radius was 'too hard' (goodbye Cone of Cold!). Figuring out that 20' was equal to four 5' squares was 'too hard'.

Therefore Fireball is now described as having: Area 4.

That means that you count four squares in all directions, including up, down, left, right, and diagonal. What you end up with is a cube. All spells now either effect a target or number of targets or they effect an area. Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, etc. Done. Everything is a cube.

They also got rid of durations. It was 'too hard' to remember how many rounds a spell had left or how long before a spell or power recharged. Now all spells last until a successful save. Everybody has a save. You might have a save of +3 or +4 or whatever and that is the save you use for everything.

If you have a power that recharges it will be listed as "Recharge: 5 6"

This means that you need to roll a 5 or a 6 on a d6 for the power to recharge. Notice that they don't say 5 or higher or Recharge: 5 and assume that you know to roll a 5 or higher, they actually say "5 6". If you have a 50/50 chance of recharging they will say "Recharge: 4 5 6".

My immediate response to all of this is, "Just how stupid and/or lazy do they think we are?" Apparently we are considered pretty stupid by Wizard of the Coast.

All of this may have effected me a bit and made me overly sensitive to the "Simpler is better" idea.

Sounds like an extended version of a good ol' RQ2 mechanic. Hurrah! The Parry part is essentially the "Deflection" ability I advocated earlier. Another 'special ability' that kicks-in at 100%+, so there's another precedent for gaining extra 'shticks' at 100. Fine RQ2 provenance too... :thumb:

RQ2 is indeed where it was pulled from, just modified a bit.

Relax, Badcat. I thought that was aimed at me - having once described subtraction (or was it addition?) as 'advanced mathematics', in the context of opposed rolls. And I don't mind.

Again, not aimed at anyone in particular. Just a general venting on the push toward simplicity that I have been seeing. It is not just D&D either, I think MRQ also suffers from this, though to a lesser degree.

[frogspawner]

Thanks for that. There is simple and there is simplistic. The difference may be fine and a matter of taste, but I think I'm with you on this one. "Firecube" - nice!

[Trifletraxor]

DoS (Degree of Success) mechanics means that whenever you have an opposed roll and both succeed, one of the successes is downgraded by one or more to achieve a simpler result. This is in BRP 0, as Nick explained above (simple Dodge downgrades Critical attack to Special), and is in the MRQ player's update, albeit reversed (attack with higher roll downgrades simple parry or roll to failure, parry or dodge with higher roll downgrades successful attack to miss).

Is parry or dodge equal in MRQ? And the opposed rolls, do they include the higher roller wins if same success level?

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Is parry or dodge equal in MRQ?

Similar, but not quite the same.

And the opposed rolls, do they include the higher roller wins if same success evel?

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

Trif, i had not realized you had been away from The Other Forum for so long

[Trifletraxor]

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

but what happens to AP then? you can't have a normal hit countered by a normal parry, but with some damage going through if the damage was high enough?

Trif, i had not realized you had been away from The Other Forum for so long

it's long since my glory days of multiple bans a day. :cool:

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

but what happens to AP then? you can't have a normal hit countered by a normal parry, but with some damage going through if the damage was high enough?

<mrq>Ah, The Big Complaint #2, you mean! The "attack succeeds but AP is subtracted" happens only if both roll the same number (and none has a skil above 100%). Many people complained that this makes APs useless, but I think they are wrong because this is effectively what happens in CoC and "default", AP-less BRP, so it is a perfectly viable rule.

I houserule that damage reduction by APs happens only if you have a shield, effectively differentiating between Parry and Block.</mrq>

it's long since my glory days of multiple bans a day. :cool:

Yeah, I remember. I had not suspected there were so many synonyms for the word "Beetle". And I have a degree in Entomology!

[The Last Conformist]

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

How does it add realism?

[RosenMcStern]

How does it add realism?

Your ability to parry effectively no longer depends on how sturdy is your weapon, but on your skill.

[The Last Conformist]

Your ability to parry effectively no longer depends on how sturdy is your weapon, but on your skill.

Huh? In my experience (SB5, mostly) skill is far more important than weapon quality already. And if you wanted to further diminish the importance of weapon sturdiness, removing the weapon damage on criticals would be a much simpler and more targeted fix.

[RosenMcStern]

We are talking different system variants. MRQ is more similar to RQ3 (with lowered weapon APs) while SB is already focusing more on skill. There is no "weapon damage on criticals" in any edition of RQ, for instance.

[The Last Conformist]

Changing the attack/parry matrix still sounds like the wrong solution to me - why not make the weapons more durable across the board instead? Even a "hollywood parry" that blocks rahter than deflects a blow ought be unlikely to break a decent sword.

[Shaira]

Ah, The Big Complaint #2, you mean! The "attack succeeds but AP is subtracted" happens only if both roll the same number (and none has a skil above 100%). Many people complained that this makes APs useless, but I think they are wrong because this is effectively what happens in CoC and "default", AP-less BRP, so it is a perfectly viable rule.

I think it falls down when you try to parry a brontosaur. I don't know what MRQ's position on parrying *enormous* attacks is, but BRP says "you can't parry a brontosaur". Which is fine, except you start getting into the question "well, what *can* I parry, then?", which ends up with everyone learning Dodge 'cos at least that's usable pretty much anywhere and you only need one skill

Admittedly the BRP rule works fine as long as you don't split Attacks / Parries (where Dodge is the fallback for all instances where you can't use your generalised Weapon Skill to defend). Personally - all IMHO of course - I think if you *do* split Attacks and Parries, you pretty much have to go down the old RQ rule of allowing a successful parry to block a certain number of points, and the rest get through, but you can try and parry an airliner if you want to - although unless you've got some pretty heavy sorcery going you're going to end up smeared all over the runway...

I'm loathe to houserule things, but as I prefer separate Attacks & Parries, I may have to make an exception here...

Cheers,

Sarah

[RosenMcStern]

I think it falls down when you try to parry a brontosaur. I don't know what MRQ's position on parrying *enormous* attacks is, but BRP says "you can't parry a brontosaur". Which is fine, except you start getting into the question "well, what *can* I parry, then?", which ends up with everyone learning Dodge 'cos at least that's usable pretty much anywhere and you only need one skill

The discussion is getting messy 'cause we are discussing MRQ rather than BRP. Anyway, the official position in MRQ after the player's update is that you *can* parry a brontosaur. After a long debate on The Other Forum I think that the reality is that you can parry a Brontosaur, but only with a polearm, i.e. something that can damage the creature or hold it at bay. Parrying in that case is rather anticipating the opponent's move and feninting so that it does not really have a chance to attack, or its attack is disrupted - difficult but not thoroughly impossible. A shield or short weapon would be pointless in this case. The problem is "how do we define a rule of thumb to decide what can parry what?"

(where Dodge is the fallback for all instances where you can't use your generalised Weapon Skill to defend).

The point is that any Parry is always also a partial Dodge, and any Dodge is facilitated by the fact you have a weapon. In cases like the above (the Bronto) I would rather go for a Dodge augmented by the parrying skill with the weapon in hand. In my current RQ3 group we are experimenting with penalties to Dodge if you have no weapon in hand - unless of course you are dodging an unarmed attack.

[NickMiddleton]

I haven't got BRP zero to hand, and this is off the cuff, but how about:

1) Attack vs. Dodge is an Opposed Roll per the opposed skills rule (with a bit of fine tuning and clarification#).

2) Attack vs. Parry is not treated as an Opposed Roll

i) A successful (critical, special or normal) parry blocks the parrying objects AP from a succesful (critical, special or normal) Attack's damage roll.

ii) Whichever "object" achieved the

lesser

degree of success out of the attack or parry

reduces

its AP by 1 if its AP were exceeded by the other objects damage, plus an additional one for each degree of success less.

iii)Where sensible (e.g. Impaling weapons vs. Shields) aspects of weapon special effects may (GM's discretion be applied) e.g. impaling weapons getting stuck in a shield.

So... Parrying with a shield, even perfectly, probably won't break a sword, and may well not stop all the damage, but unlike armour CAN'T be by passed (and the shield will have a LOT of AP); weapon AP's have a role, and weapons and shields do degrade, but slowly.

And in the past in RQIII I've let characters use their weapon skills as a Maintenace roll with appropriate resource's to hand to "first aid" their weapons and shield and replace lost AP, so I'd certainly allow that as a possibility.

Quite like that actually, will have to try it some time...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

# Specifically, that when Degrees of Success are tied, the higher roll wins but is in ALL cases treated as having only achieved a normal success, so ties on any DoS result in a normal success for the winner.

[Shaira]

I haven't got BRP zero to hand, and this is off the cuff, but how about:

1) Attack vs. Dodge is an Opposed Roll per the opposed skills rule (with a bit off fine tuning and clarification#).

2) Attack vs. Parry is not treated as an Opposed Roll

Nick - you're a genius, sir! That's the method I use!

Well, mostly. I ended up rewriting the Attack Matrix with an entirely new Parry column, which is more or less the "common sense" version of RQ3. I've just uploaded it to the Downloads section (Game Aids). It means that parrying weapons and shields will stop a certain amount of damage but that with high levels of damage some will get through. It looks horribly complex, but isn't actually.

Anyhow, just a bit of fun!

Cheers,

Sarah

[lawrence.whitaker]

I think it falls down when you try to parry a brontosaur. I don't know what MRQ's position on parrying *enormous* attacks is, but BRP says "you can't parry a brontosaur".

Surely this is a simple matter of commonsense? Why on earth would you need an explicit statement? If you're playing a brontosaur, then its simply like-for-like, but if you're a poor old human, armed with a decent shield, and see a bloody great foot coming your way, intent on stamping you flat, you're hardly likely to say - 'Yep, I'll parry that.' You'd most likely say 'Shit! I'm rolling out of ther way!'

And, if someone did try to parry whilst I was GMing, then they'd find themself pancake-shaped. There's no way on earth that a human, no matter how good their skill or how big their shield, could withstand a tree-sized leg, backed by 40-odd tons of animal behind it. Magic's another matter; but in terms of straight combat...

Really, commonsense should prevail in situations like this - no matter what the rules do or don't say.

[Shaira]

Surely this is a simple matter of commonsense? Why on earth would you need an explicit statement?

Hi Loz,

I think you took me a bit too literally there . Brontosaur is a reductio ad absurdum just to ram the point home (in case it needed it... ). The point being, if you have a judgement call - ie "well, of course you CAN'T parry a brontosaur, that's absurd", then at some point you enter the fuzzy ground where it's more "hmm... well you *might* be able to parry that great troll maul / griffin claw / elephant tusk, but I'm not completely sure". Your judgement then, in the current case of parry-blocks-all-damage, is that you have to somehow imagine that a weapon parry could conceivably block all the damage / knockback / whatever before you can allow a parry to happen, ie a relatively arbitrary GM decision - and before you know it you're houseruling so you don't have to be quite so arbitrary.

Whilst my point is, if you go with the old "parrying-weapons-absorb-a-certain-amount-of-damage-but-let-the-rest-through", then you have a watertight rule with no arbitrariness and you no longer have the problem of trying to decide whether the attack can actually be parried or not. Sure, you can *try* and parry that brontosaur / troll maul / griffin claw / elephant tusk / whatever, but you're probably gonna get squished unless you're sewn into your armor real good!

Anyway, it's an old argument, and I'm completely happy with the new BRP paradigm as long as you *don't* separate Attacks & Parries - it's just that in my campaign we *do*, so I think I'll be houseruling. No big deal.

Mind that bronto!

Cheers,

Sarah