Jump to content

QuickStart/RQG - Characteristic Roll or Resistance table?


Paid a bod yn dwp

Recommended Posts

Curious about the deciding factor in choosing between a characteristic roll or the resistance table. Reading through the Quick- Start example for Strenght check (STRx5) it says "intense muscular efforts like bashing a door open or carrying someone, etc" p3

likewise when reading about the resistance table, it gives the example of "They are used when pitting one characteristic against another, such as STR against the SIZ of an object to be lifted..." P6

So from those 2 examples it could be inferred that carrying a person of a certain size could be applicable to both methods. Is this ambiguity intended (GM call), or have I missed something? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally, I tend to view it as: 

1. If your characteristic is bring pitted against its own limits, like pulling yourself up by your hands, use a characteristic roll. This also applies to rolls where there's no clear skill or opposing force, like catching something thrown at you. 

2. If there's an easily-quantified opposing/passive force, use a resistance roll. 

The "carrying someone" used as a double example isn't in the rulebook. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jason Durall said:

Generally, I tend to view it as: 

1. If your characteristic is bring pitted against its own limits, like pulling yourself up by your hands, use a characteristic roll. This also applies to rolls where there's no clear skill or opposing force, like catching something thrown at you. 

2. If there's an easily-quantified opposing/passive force, use a resistance roll. 

The "carrying someone" used as a double example isn't in the rulebook. 

And just to add the last logical point:

3. If there's an active opponent using a contrary skill (ie Scan vs Hide, or Orate vs Orate to sway an audience), it would be an Opposed Roll for resolution.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, styopa said:

And just to add the last logical point:

3. If there's an active opponent using a contrary skill (ie Scan vs Hide, or Orate vs Orate to sway an audience), it would be an Opposed Roll for resolution.

Nicely fitted in :) 

So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Nicely fitted in :) 

So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table? 

IMO arm wrestling could be STR vs STR on the resist table.  If it's a player vs NPC, probably how I'd do it.

If it was two PCs, I'd go for MGF because everyone rolling dice competitively is more fun, which would be the opposed roll (probably using STRx5).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Nicely fitted in :) 

So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table? 

Yep, however opposed rolls are just for skills, passions and runes (basically anything that is measured as a percentile except combat) while the Resistance Table is just for Characteristics, STR, POW, SIZ etc. So if you had an Arm Wrestle Skill it would be an Opposed Roll, if was just STR v STR based it would be roll on the Resistance Table. 

Just now, styopa said:

IMO arm wrestling could be STR vs STR on the resist table.  If it's a player vs NPC, probably how I'd do it.

If it was two PCs, I'd go for MGF because everyone rolling dice competitively is more fun, which would be the opposed roll (probably using STRx5).

Me too, but I always wondered if you should go STRx5 v STRx5 or each rolling on the Resistance Table: e.g.: 10 v 13 = 50% v 65% or 35% v 65% 

the strait x5 seems fairer though the later seem more win keeping wth the rules.... ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Psullie said:

Yep, however opposed rolls are just for skills, passions and runes (basically anything that is measured as a percentile except combat) while the Resistance Table is just for Characteristics, STR, POW, SIZ etc. So if you had an Arm Wrestle Skill it would be an Opposed Roll, if was just STR v STR based it would be roll on the Resistance Table. 

Me too, but I always wondered if you should go STRx5 v STRx5 or each rolling on the Resistance Table: e.g.: 10 v 13 = 50% v 65% or 35% v 65% 

the strait x5 seems fairer though the later seem more win keeping wth the rules.... ???

I'm actually trying to calculate right now the odds comparison of resist table for various scores vs opposed roll for various scores (x5 or whatever)...just to see if statistically it's comparable.  It's ... surprisingly complicated to put in a spreadsheet.

However, I would say this - thinking more about it: if we did it as an opposed roll, then the winner probably would reasonably get a skill check in armwrestling, starting at STRx5.  (And then, forever after I'd have to use opposed rolls, I guess.).  The logical extension of that is...how important is skill in armwrestling?  Should a STR 13 (with a lot of skill) have any realistic chance of beating a STR18?  I would say pretty much no...but THEN, one would wonder, why even roll on the resist table?  A resist table roll implies there IS a chance of failure, which in this example the STR 18 would only have an 80% chance to win.  Is that reasonable?  Armwrestling is about as pure a STR vs STR contest as there is.

Curiously complicated question for what should be a simple example.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Psullie said:

I always wondered if you should go STRx5 v STRx5 or each rolling on the Resistance Table: e.g.: 10 v 13 = 50% v 65% or 35% v 65%

The former is effectively how 7th-edition Call of Cthulhu does it; characteristics are multiplied by 5 (so if you roll 13 on 3D6 for your STR, you have a STR score of 65), and characteristic opposition is handled using opposed rolls; there is no Resistance Table.

I prefer this approach, myself, as a simplification (one less table lookup, plus consistency between skill-vs.-skill and characteristic-vs.-characteristic contests, plus the ability to have skill-vs.-characteristic contests if you want them).

  • Like 1

— 
Self-discipline isnt everything; look at Pol Pot.”
—Helen Fielding, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, trystero said:

The former is effectively how 7th-edition Call of Cthulhu does it; characteristics are multiplied by 5 (so if you roll 13 on 3D6 for your STR, you have a STR score of 65), and characteristic opposition is handled using opposed rolls; there is no Resistance Table.

I prefer this approach, myself, as a simplification (one less table lookup, plus consistency between skill-vs.-skill and characteristic-vs.-characteristic contests, plus the ability to have skill-vs.-characteristic contests if you want them).

FWIW I checked, and insofar as my weak statistics-fu is concerned, the percentages basically track surprisingly closely - STR 17 vs STR 15 on the resist table is a 60% chance of STR17 winning, 40% of STR 15 winning.  As opposed rolls I came out with something like 59.8% win for STR 17, 39.4% win for STR 15, and 0.8% ties.  (I did NOT check against stats over 19...just, no.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Having thought about this, even as a bit of a Grognard, I question whether we still need the resistance table along with the new opposed rolls? I'm guessing there must be a good reason to be using both? 

For passive resistance tests. Lifting a SIZ 20 rock for example, with a STR of 15 you'd have a 25% of success, same with POW v POW for spell effects where it is only the caster who rolls the dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Psullie said:

For passive resistance tests. Lifting a SIZ 20 rock for example, with a STR of 15 you'd have a 25% of success, same with POW v POW for spell effects where it is only the caster who rolls the dice.

Fwiw, The results of those cases could also just as easily be resolved with the same chance of success with an opposed roll.  

I'd say a big chunk of why the resistance table remains is nostalgia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree.

I always think we should choose one or the other and stick with it. The opposed rolls seems logical, although the Resistance Table feels more unique and very RuneQuest. 

I'm happy with either, but will stick with one approach for the sake of consistency.

Edited by Mankcam

" Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

Agree.

I always think we should choose one or the other and stick with it. The opposed rolls seems logical, although the Resistance Table feels more unique and very RuneQuest. 

I'm happy with either, but will stick with one approach for the sake of consistency.

Actually, the spread of result is why both are in. The two methods end up with different statistical spreads - and POW v POW has a certain expectation of result that we do not want to alter (and opposed resolution does alter that rather substantially - in a way that would change setting assumptions). Where the Resistance Table was traditionally used, we kept it. Where the Resistance Table was not used, and where just resolving the issue fast is desired (rather than preserving a certainly predictable spread of result), use a quick opposed resolution. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

Actually, the spread of result is why both are in. The two methods end up with different statistical spreads - and POW v POW has a certain expectation of result that we do not want to alter (and opposed resolution does alter that rather substantially - in a way that would change setting assumptions). Where the Resistance Table was traditionally used, we kept it. Where the Resistance Table was not used, and where just resolving the issue fast is desired (rather than preserving a certainly predictable spread of result), use a quick opposed resolution. 

I see your point about the statistical spread.  More dice in play means more of a bell-curvy result vs a straight roll vs resist (which is a linear probability).  Good point.

So which would you use for an armwrestling contest?  Is there a context in which you'd ever use the other?

Edited by styopa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I see your point about the statistical spread.  More dice in play means more of a bell-curvy result vs a straight roll vs resist (which is a direct-probability).  Good point.

So which would you use for an armwrestling contest?  Is there a context in which you'd ever use the other?

The arm wrestle example seems like the perfect example of an opposed roll to me ( two active opposing forces both rolling dice).

What say you @Jeff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, styopa said:

FWIW I checked, and insofar as my weak statistics-fu is concerned, the percentages basically track surprisingly closely - STR 17 vs STR 15 on the resist table is a 60% chance of STR17 winning, 40% of STR 15 winning.  As opposed rolls I came out with something like 59.8% win for STR 17, 39.4% win for STR 15, and 0.8% ties.  (I did NOT check against stats over 19...just, no.)

Did you try to factor in Critical/Fumble chances? Using the resistance table, this would only apply to the active roller. In an opposed roll you have much more "interesting" possibilities should one participant critical and one fumble. 

SDLeary

Edited by SDLeary
can't seem to spell today
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Did you try to factor in Critical/Fumble chances? Using the resistance table, this would only apply to the active roller. In an opposed roll you have much more "interesting" possibilities should one participant critical and one fumble. 

SDLeary

Yes, absolutely - crit, special, success, fail, fumble for each participant 1 and participant 2.  That's what made it so bloody hard to calculate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Jeff said:

Actually, the spread of result is why both are in. The two methods end up with different statistical spreads, etc etc

I hadn't thought of this. I can now explain it better to my players when the time arrives.  Thanks for discussing the reasoning behind this Jeff

Edited by Mankcam

" Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2017 at 5:50 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Having thought about this, even as a bit of a Grognard, I question whether we still need the resistance table along with the new opposed rolls? I'm guessing there must be a good reason to be using both? 

I was a player and several times during the game, I thought to myself "7E does this far more elegantly." 

I guess nostalgia, but it's a little rose tinted. I remember people griping about the resistance table in A&E and TWH back in the day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...