Opposed rolls

[Rurik]

While I've always used tied rolls always go to the higher skill, I don't like using tied levels of success always go to the higher skill. In that case a 91% skill is going to beat a 90% skill almost every single time.

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by soltakss

There's more to BRP than one rule. If you don't like opposed rolls then don't use them. I'm sure there will be many rules in BRP that I don't like, but that won't stop me buying it when it comes out.

The thread on Typos etc has supported my decision not to buy BRP.0, though, I'd have hated to buy a book and then had to apply a large errata.

Really you shouldn't buy the 0 Edition if you want a rule book. I bought mine for a "sneak peek" and as a collector's item. When the finished book is out I will buy that one as the rule book that will be used in games.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

The point is, not whether the Opposed Roll mechanism can work or not, but that introducing it breaks the stated design principle of using rules from previous BRP incarnations. And worse - it's not just an option, but officially the only way.

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...

Not sure what you mean buy adding something that wasn't there before. RQ3 Player's Book, pg 34, heading "Skill vs. Skill". That is the opposed roll rules for RQ3. The exact same machanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default meathod is much better.

Originally Posted by 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?

Sounds like you will want to choose one of the other options then. The range from very simple (both roll, high successful roll wins) to slightly harder than the default (Both roll, compare degree of success, reduce winer's success buy losers. If same degree of success each player subtracts their roll from their base skill, highest margin wins.)

So really it can be complicated with more detail or quick and easy, at your option.

[Joseph Paul]

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

[Ars Mysteriorum]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

That's actually a nice analogy.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

For those struggling with the wording of the 'roll under skill but as high as you can' I believe I have seen it called a 'blackjack' mechanic. It works the same way that the game does- stay under a threshold (your skill, 21 in blackjack) and have a higher score than your opponents. I move that we adopt the term "blackjack mechanic" or "blackjack roll" to describe this. Who's with me?

Yes that is a nice anaolgy. I just don't like how the percentages end up in BRP using it. Essentially it turns a 50 vs. 100 conflict into odds closer to the resistance table.

Aslo the analogy doesn't hold once you throw in specials and crticials. A 3 doesn't beat an 18.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Not sure what you mean buy adding something that wasn't there before. RQ3 Player's Book, pg 34, heading "Skill vs. Skill". That is the opposed roll rules for RQ3. The exact same machanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default meathod is much better.

You're right, of course. (Your post sent me running to my RQ3). I guess the way it said skills "can" be used that way let me ignore it - I never really liked that mechanism either! And so, when people said the only options in the new BRP were variations of Opposed Rolls (this included), I was led to believe it was new. Thanks for putting me straight. Mr D, please excuse me!

(Even so, I now prefer the 'higher-skill-wins-tied-success-levels' method! )

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

As a person who's only experienced BRP through Call of Cthulhu, I must say that this is terribly confusing. ... How tough is this system to learn for "casual" gamers playing it the first time?

It's a cinch - there's nothing easier or more intuitive for first-timers.

But this thread is a pretty poor place to see how easy BRP really is! It's full of hard-core old-timers fighting their corners with abstruse arguments and complex mathematics*. I should start a new thread and ask again, mate!

(* Previously defined as subtraction - or even worse! )

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Rurik

While I've always used tied rolls always go to the higher skill, I don't like using tied levels of success always go to the higher skill. In that case a 91% skill is going to beat a 90% skill almost every single time.

I see what you mean - it could be too predictable. But Specials/Failures will happen 18+10=28% of the time (on each side, which should multiply, right?). And what with modifiers (eg moving halves hide?), and other factors possibly unknown beforehand, there should be enough unpredictability to keep things interesting.
I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably...
(Anyone care to do the maths?)

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I'd say a more common case would be 75% v 25% - and the 75% thief really should be assured of getting by the 25% guard, fairly reliably...
(Anyone care to do the maths?)

Well, the simply math- baring specials and crticals, and fumbles is.

Thief success, guard fails: 56.25%
Guard Succeeds, Thief Fails: 06.25%
-------------------------------------
Both fail: 18.75%
Both Succeed: 18.75%, since anything under 25 would be 50-50 and anything other is all thief is break down to about 12.49% thief, 6.26% guard)

Note that if low roll wind on failures this flip-flops the roll high probability, since it would be the exact opposite as the both succeed.

So it would be 75 vs. 25-not counting specials and criticals.

Now if you used low roll wins, it would be the same breakdown. What the high skill looses on tied success he gains on tied failures.

Toss in crtricals and specials and they bump the results slightly more in the favor if the 75% guy. Since the 75% guy has a 2-1 advance there to, it would end up closer to 78% vs 22%

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Not sure what you mean buy adding something that wasn't there before. RQ3 Player's Book, pg 34, heading "Skill vs. Skill". That is the opposed roll rules for RQ3.

And to be honest, I never liked them, and besides when I drafted that post there were <facetious></facetious> tags round that comment as i wasn't being entirely serious.

The exact same mechanic is in BRP as an option, but honestly the default method is much better.

Good. It was the second of the three optional rules for opposed rolls in the play test draft I have, wasn't sure in among the debate if it had made it in to final draft, but I'm glad it did for those who don't like the new default. I do find the default method better (revised for clarity as discussed here), but there should be alternatives for those who don't.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton