It strikes me everyone's getting a bit heated about a rule which is quite straightforward. OK, maybe it requires a paragraph break or an extra clarification, but to be honest when I read it through I had no doubt what it meant. Here is what it says:
i.) The character that achieves the highest degree of success in an opposed roll wins the contest. Success trumps Failure, Special trumps Success, Critical trumps Special, etc. HOWEVER, if the loser also succeeded their roll, the winner is "bumped down" one level of success for every level of success of the loser. As follows:
If the Loser Succeeds, Winner's Critical becomes Special, Special becomes Success.
If the Loser Specials, Winner's Critical becomes Success.
ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins.
Note that there is no mention of Bumping in example (ii). This is clear from the wording, but could definitely be made more explicit - on a casual skim through you *could* misunderstand and assume its all basically one rule instead of two. The example does make it clear what's intended, though.
It looks like Jason has agreed to put a clearer wording in the full release, which clears it up nicely.
It's a neat, elegant rule. I'll be using the first part unchanged; for me, I'll be calculating Success Margins (how much you make your roll by) for the second part, as I anticipate lots of 100%+ characters in time!
BTW - in general, the book is really impressive. It's clear it's a proof copy, with niggles which are now being cleared up, but I've been gaming since 1980, and whilst I threw my hands up in horror at the mess that was MRQ, I see nothing here deserving anything but the highest praise. Typos and unclear bits get cleared up in proofreading - that's normal. We're just casting an expert eye and doing our bit to help.
It's good stuff, guys!
Sarah