Quote:
Originally Posted by frogspawner
I think the "Hide/Spot duel" is the classic example that makes people perceive a need for opposed rolls. So if we can come up with a good system for it, using a sequence of normal rolls, then we can forget the whole Opposed Rolls issue... and the hard maths!
|
The "hard maths" bit baffles me:
Better level of success wins (but losers success ameliorates the winners success a bit).
If success levels are equal, best roll wins (I use margin i.e. target-roll, as a personal preference, but higher roll is equivalent).
The only "quirk" (assuming that the amelioration ONLY occurs after determining who wins) is that on a tie of normal successes, the win is cancelled by the losers right to down grade the winners success by one level from normal success to normal failure; but that's basically what happens with a normal successful attack vs a normal successful parry anyway. One could then rule in that case that the winner achieved a "partial success".
As I say, when success levels are tied I use "best margin" (i.e. target - roll) as it feels more easthetically appropriate to the main BRP paradigm of rolling low on d100 is always better, and frankly it's usually obvious without maths who has the margin, so the subtraction is rarely necessary. But, as pointed out, "roll under, but as high as possibly" is mathematically equivalent, so I really don't see what the fuss about the opposed roll mechanic is - it's simple, straighforward and doesn't involve any significant maths.
Plus there were three optional variants in the playtest draft IIRC...
Cheers,
Nick Middleton