Opposed rolls

[Trifletraxor]

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?

It's not _hard_ but it does slows down things a bit.

And, as has been said repeatedly, "highest roll wins on same success level" is mathematically equivalent to the subtraction, so the rule as written DOESN'T require even the terrifying complexities of basic two digit integer subtraction...

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.

SGL.

[soltakss]

90% vs 30% gives 83%/17%. I.e. the 90% will win an opposed roll 83% of the time.


10% vs 10% gives 50%/50%
10% vs 20% gives 41%/59%
10% vs 30% gives 33%/66%
10% vs 40% gives 26%/74%
10% vs 50% gives 20%/80%
10% vs 60% gives 14%/85%
10% vs 70% gives 10%/90%
10% vs 80% gives 6%/93%
10% vs 90% gives 4%/96%
20% vs 10% gives 59%/41%
20% vs 20% gives 50%/50%
20% vs 30% gives 41%/58%
20% vs 40% gives 33%/66%
20% vs 50% gives 26%/73%
20% vs 60% gives 20%/80%
20% vs 70% gives 15%/85%
20% vs 80% gives 10%/89%
20% vs 90% gives 7%/92%
30% vs 10% gives 66%/33%
30% vs 20% gives 58%/41%
30% vs 30% gives 50%/50%
30% vs 40% gives 41%/58%
30% vs 50% gives 33%/66%
30% vs 60% gives 26%/73%
30% vs 70% gives 21%/79%
30% vs 80% gives 15%/84%
30% vs 90% gives 11%/88%
40% vs 10% gives 74%/26%
40% vs 20% gives 66%/33%
40% vs 30% gives 58%/41%
40% vs 40% gives 50%/50%
40% vs 50% gives 41%/58%
40% vs 60% gives 33%/66%
40% vs 70% gives 27%/73%
40% vs 80% gives 21%/79%
40% vs 90% gives 16%/83%
50% vs 10% gives 80%/20%
50% vs 20% gives 73%/26%
50% vs 30% gives 66%/33%
50% vs 40% gives 58%/41%
50% vs 50% gives 50%/50%
50% vs 60% gives 41%/58%
50% vs 70% gives 34%/66%
50% vs 80% gives 27%/72%
50% vs 90% gives 21%/78%
60% vs 10% gives 85%/14%
60% vs 20% gives 80%/20%
60% vs 30% gives 73%/26%
60% vs 40% gives 66%/33%
60% vs 50% gives 58%/41%
60% vs 60% gives 50%/50%
60% vs 70% gives 41%/58%
60% vs 80% gives 34%/65%
60% vs 90% gives 27%/72%
70% vs 10% gives 90%/10%
70% vs 20% gives 85%/15%
70% vs 30% gives 79%/21%
70% vs 40% gives 73%/27%
70% vs 50% gives 66%/34%
70% vs 60% gives 58%/41%
70% vs 70% gives 50%/50%
70% vs 80% gives 41%/58%
70% vs 90% gives 34%/65%
80% vs 10% gives 93%/6%
80% vs 20% gives 89%/10%
80% vs 30% gives 84%/15%
80% vs 40% gives 79%/21%
80% vs 50% gives 72%/27%
80% vs 60% gives 65%/34%
80% vs 70% gives 58%/41%
80% vs 80% gives 50%/50%
80% vs 90% gives 41%/58%
90% vs 10% gives 96%/4%
90% vs 20% gives 92%/7%
90% vs 30% gives 88%/11%
90% vs 40% gives 83%/16%
90% vs 50% gives 78%/21%
90% vs 60% gives 72%/27%
90% vs 70% gives 65%/34%
90% vs 80% gives 58%/41%
90% vs 90% gives 50%/50%

[Atgxtg]

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.

SGL.

Two other possible solutionos:

1) The simple "by the most" method: Just use the tens didg and see who makes it by the most. While 7-4=3 is isn't quite the same as 76-49=27 it is close enough most of the time.

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.


If you wanted to get technical with it, you could use the movement rates and give the sneaking character a certain amount of distance based on the success level, and then downgrade it by the defenser's spot/listen roll.

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.

[frogspawner]

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.

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).

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?

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?

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

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).

Yeah. The idea that this is "hard math" just--boggles me.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Yep. Harder than not doing so anyway. And it's unnecessary. Why must there always be a winner, immediately? Ties happen.

With the skills this is usually an issue with, a "tie" is meaningless; they're usually things where, by definition, one side or the other succeeds, and where a tie if it happens, is effectively a win for one side. If one person is Hiding and one Spotting, then either the hider succeeds or the spotter succeeds; there's no result space for anything else.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

That's great - 'spot on'! All that's needed is a good interpretation of the tied situation, like this! Call it a draw?

Either than or High skill wins on ties. So if both character's roll a 40, and one guy has a higher skill he wins.

Basically the thing with RQ is that combat has a method for handling success vs success (hit but parried for a partial result) but everything else doesn't. In part because RQ was written in 1978 when 90% of RPGing was combat.

If we put some sort of staged success like I suggested in option 2 we can get the nice an easy resolution method used in combat. Since both characters get something for their success rolls, both will be happy.

[badcat]

I'd like to note that it is not about 'speed' so much as 'quality' of play. For me, the less distracted I am by unnecessary convoluted mechanics the better game I am going to run. I suspect the same for anyone. Claiming ability to deal with complications under pressure and possessing it are usually two very different animals.

[Nightshade]

The issue, however, is perceiving this as complicated in the first place. At least to my view, its not particularly, at least the quality to quality reduction, since it uses a mechanic I'm long used to dealing with anyway (as I expect any of the actual RQ players are).

[badcat]

No, that's not an issue at all. There is a difference between 'complicated' and a 'complication'...check your dictionary. I have no trouble with opposed rolls, there are simply better ways to run the game. Any game.

And hey, I never was a RQ player, so that doesn't apply either.