Opposed rolls

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

I'm not going to use the opposed rolls, and I'm not going to use the major wound table as it stands. I'm still excited about the book though. When I get mine, I'll organize the wiki in the same manner as the book, and we can all add our houserules.

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"...

Originally Posted by Shaira

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.

Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them?

Originally Posted by Shaira

It's good stuff, guys!

Naturally!

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

But the only way to include the previously published BRP options would to have an entry saying something like "Opposed Skills: gloss over it." or a blank space... Or a few ad hoc specific (and different in each case) examples fro the most common pairs of skills...

Well, that's not really true, is it? ORs could have been introduced as an option (like plenty of other rules have), or even as the default with the old ways optional (but I suspect that's not what's happening...).

[Shaira]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Absolutely! And there's no way I'd resist the temptation to use houserules either. But this issue may make the difference between whether I call what I'm playing "houseruled BRP" or "houseruled RQ"...


Please could you, or anyone, tell us when The Book says we should be using Opposed Rolls (e.g. in combat, or just for sneaking etc.)? And is there an option to not use them?

Well, if you're not careful here you're gonna get bogged down in semantics. "The Book" doesn't say anywhere you *should* be using Opposed Rolls. However, they are part of the Core Rules; there are also Optional rules which present different takes on Opposed Rules.

However (again!), saying that ORs are part of the Core Rules means little; in the descriptions of skills like Hide, Listen, etc, you get wordings like "Most Hide checks are resolved as opposed skill rolls against the Spot of a guard or pursuer" or "Oppose Listen to Stealth to resolve attempts to sneak past a wary or unwary listener". So, in both cases, if you just wanted to use a single skill - roll Hide and you're hidden, roll Listen and you heard the guy - then of course you can. You just might lose some of the sublety from the system if you do (like what the Spot and Stealth rules actually mean, for example).

I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll.

Don't take it the wrong way, but I'm not entirely sure what the problem is

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Shaira

I think it's best not to read too much into this issue. Even in old RQ our guys used to have to make a successful Spot roll to see a guy who had successfully Hidden himself - you might not call it that, but as far as I can see, that's an opposed roll.

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

[Shaira]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

I'm just about to head out, so I'll reply quickly if that's okay!

In a sense, combat kind of already uses a similar mechanism. But no, not overtly, nowhere does it says "Combat uses the Opposed Roll rule", so you can rest easy

In my view the "define what happens on a tied roll" is where you come a cropper, especially when skills get above 90%, where running races, swimming contests, fast talk, hide and seek, stealth, etc, etc, are all gonna bog down into tied rolls *most* of the time unless you have some resolution mechanic for when both sides succeed. As I said, personally I'm not gonna use the "higher roll wins" rule, I'll be using my amazing mathematical skills to subtract the roll from the skill and derive a margin of success - and the better success margin wins. This is mainly to ensure I have a consistent mechanic which will work as well for 150% skill as it does for 50%.

Anyway - must dash!

Sarah

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Shaira

I'm just about to head out, so I'll reply quickly if that's okay!

In a sense, combat kind of already uses a similar mechanism. But no, not overtly, nowhere does it says "Combat uses the Opposed Roll rule", so you can rest easy

In my view the "define what happens on a tied roll" is where you come a cropper, especially when skills get above 90%, where running races, swimming contests, fast talk, hide and seek, stealth, etc, etc, are all gonna bog down into tied rolls *most* of the time unless you have some resolution mechanic for when both sides succeed. As I said, personally I'm not gonna use the "higher roll wins" rule, I'll be using my amazing mathematical skills to subtract the roll from the skill and derive a margin of success - and the better success margin wins. This is mainly to ensure I have a consistent mechanic which will work as well for 150% skill as it does for 50%.

Anyway - must dash!

Sarah

Same for me.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Thanks for that. I guess you're right.

It's just the "ii.) If both rolls achieve the same degree of success, the higher roll wins." bit that gets me. It doesn't feel right. It means you can lose when the other guy did a worse roll (to my way of thinking). Draw a line through that, define what happens on a tied roll, and everything would be hunky-dory, as far as I'm concerned.

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably well.

PS: I assume this mechanism isn't supposed to be used in combat, right?

In the play test draft Combat remained a special case, as it always has been in Chaosium BRP rules, and Attack / Parry and Dodge resolution were described in the Combat Chapter, not the Skills chapter.
Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

In the play test draft Combat remained a special case, as it always has been in Chaosium BRP rules, and Attack / Parry and Dodge resolution were described in the Combat Chapter, not the Skills chapter.

Phew. Ta!

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably* well.

Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it...

Actually, I think that resolves the whole "Opposed Roll" issue for me. If I want to prolong the suspense with a more extended contest, I can always define interim stages and call for re-rolls to get further. Otherwise, ties mean whoever should win, does win (though, rightly, that's not certain at the outset). Great!

And, what's more, this fix means I'd only have to cross-out and replace two letters, rather than a whole line, from my new BRP Book when I get it. Thanks again!

(* Only "reasonably"? Could you kindly say what niggles you found, to get me up-to-speed with it?)

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I wouldn't bump/degrade at all.

What I'd do is have success by levels. That would then determine any success-level-dependent results.

Criritcal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 4 levels
Critical vs Failure = Succeeds by 3 levels
Critical vs Normal = Succeeds by 2 levels
Critical vs Special = Succeeds by 1 level
Special vs Fumble = Succeeds by 3 Levels
Special vs Failure = Succeeds by 2 Levels
Special vs Normal = Succeeds by 1 Level
Normal vs Fumble = Succeeds by 2 Levels
Normal vs Failure = Succeeds by 1 Level
Failure vs Fumble = Succeeds by 1 Level

For opposed roll victories based on highest roll/greatest margin
Critical vs Critical = Succeeds by 0 Levels
Special vs Special = Succeeds by 0 Levels
Normal vs Normal = Succeeds by 0 Levels
Failure vs Failure = Succeeds by 0 Levels
Fumble vs Fumble = Succeeds by 0 Levels

It's quick, easy and you don't need mental gymnastics to degrade rolls.

I like this idea the best out of what I've seen here so far.

Oly I'd say Falures and Fumbles shouldn't succeed by 0 levels, but fail.Two people can both fail to achienve the gaol.

[Ars Mysteriorum]

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing.

I think I'm understanding the concept. Unknown Armies uses a comparable (but heavily simplified) approach to rolls as well, where you want to roll under, but try to get the highest possible roll at the same time (that is, if I'm understanding this correctly).

However, I must admit that having to explain this system to my group has dimmed my enthusiasm a bit. My group is made up of people with great characterization and enthusiasm for expanding characters, but they aren't interested in complex mechanics that suck them out of their imaginary world and put them into the unwelcome realm of numbers and statistics. And I admit, off the cuff my arithmetic is atrocious and will probably slow things down considerably.

How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

[Triff]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

I used to use a subtle variation in Stormbinger games actually, which was that when success levels were tied, the higher SKILL won (irrespective of rolls), which worked reasonably well.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Wow - that's a brilliant idea! I hope you don't mind if I nick it...

That was a good idea. Very simple, keeping the right "feel" and no math. This one goes in the wiki when the organization is ready.

SGL.