Quote:
Originally Posted by NickMiddleton
Are you really suggesting that given a two rolls against two percentile targets you find it that hard to give an order of magnitude approximation?
|
Yep. Harder than not doing so anyway. And it's
unnecessary. Why must there always be a
winner, immediately? Ties happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trifletraxor
It's not _hard_ but it does slows down things a bit.
And as have been replied, while this is mathematically a good rule, it goes against the "roll low" tradition. It might be the best solution, but it doesn't really "feel" right.
|
Same here. It's all about the
feel. I think it's the way it'd spoil the immediacy of a 'Dramatic Moment' (slightly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by soltakss
90% vs 30% gives 83%/17%. I.e. the 90% will win an opposed roll 83% of the time.
|
But a 90% attack will get past a 30% parry about (90x70=) 63% of the time. So the same numbers will give very different probabilities if you use opposed rolls. How can that be right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atgxtg
...
2) The "partial success" option mentioned earlier. THe trick would be to let the "attacker" succed, but cut the effect on success down, the way a parry stops some of the damage (if you use parry APs).
For instance, if sneaking past a guard, the "Attacker" is the sneaking character and the "defender" is the guard. If the boths succeed, then the attacker only get's partw way before having to stop and duck behind cover (perhaps the guard thought he heard something?) for the rest of the round. Ot you could say that the attacker didn't any distance at all, but didn't get spotted so he can keep trying.
...
Most opposed contests could be handled the same way. Tie results could be treated as a deadlock, as with any for instance, gambling. Same with a climbing contest.
|
That's great - 'spot on'!
All that's needed is a good interpretation of the tied situation, like this! Call it a draw?
