Opposed rolls

[AikiGhost]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I think the "Hide/Spot duel" is the classic example that makes people perceive a need for opposed rolls.

In this situation you need to decide which is the active (IE: attacking skill) and the which is the defending skill, then err on the side of the defending skill when equal success levels are attained.

EG: Sneaking past a guard, attacker = sneaker, defender = guard

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by badcat

About how some people think you have to break the game to make an omelet.

More to the point, some people deny it breaks the game while others assert it. I don't think much is going to get done on that argument.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

In this situation you need to decide which is the active (IE: attacking skill) and the which is the defending skill, then err on the side of the defending skill when equal success levels are attained.

EG: Sneaking past a guard, attacker = sneaker, defender = guard

The problem is its not clear which is which, and frankly, there's no absolute need to make the decision here. Doing so inevitably ends up favoring either people who use stealth or punishing them.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The problem is its not clear which is which, and frankly, there's no absolute need to make the decision here. Doing so inevitably ends up favoring either people who use stealth or punishing them.

Unless you treat it like combat and give the sneaker some benefit, but reduce it for the successful "Parry" of the defender. For instace the sneaker isn't detected but either didn't get to move (and has to try again), or inly gets part of the distance before he has to duck behind cover.

That sort of thing happens all the time.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

In this situation you need to decide which is the active (IE: attacking skill) and the which is the defending skill, then err on the side of the defending skill when equal success levels are attained.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The problem is its not clear which is which, and frankly, there's no absolute need to make the decision here. Doing so inevitably ends up favoring either people who use stealth or punishing them.

RQ3 (or was it 2?) said perception always beat stealth, I think (can't find the reference). However, I agree it's not always so clear-cut. I'd suggest deciding in favour of the status quo in any given situation, i.e. whoever stands to lose something (their pocket contents, their job as guard, their liberty, their life...) should have the advantage.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Unless you treat it like combat and give the sneaker some benefit, but reduce it for the successful "Parry" of the defender. For instace the sneaker isn't detected but either didn't get to move (and has to try again), or inly gets part of the distance before he has to duck behind cover.

That sort of thing happens all the time.

If more potentially opposed skills actually had degrees of results, I think you'd have an argument, but that's not the game we're actually dealing with here.

[Rurik]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Unless you treat it like combat and give the sneaker some benefit, but reduce it for the successful "Parry" of the defender. For instace the sneaker isn't detected but either didn't get to move (and has to try again), or inly gets part of the distance before he has to duck behind cover.

That sort of thing happens all the time.

That basically is just putting dramatic emphasis on the "Re-roll tied levels of success" approach - ultimately you just keep rolling until one side gets a clear victory (which can take a while if they both keep rolling normal successes or failures).

Not that this a problem, but I would think it would bog down the game more than just using the standard opposed roll rule as presented.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Rurik

That basically is just putting dramatic emphasis on the "Re-roll tied levels of success" approach - ultimately you just keep rolling until one side gets a clear victory (which can take a while if they both keep rolling normal successes or failures).

Not that this a problem, but I would think it would bog down the game more than just using the standard opposed roll rule as presented.

It depends; if it means you have to keep trying and events progress, it could also add some nice dramatic tension. Of course that's always a case of one man's meat...

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

It depends; if it means you have to keep trying and events progress, it could also add some nice dramatic tension. Of course that's always a case of one man's meat...

Exaclty. O could see someone throwing a stone across the yard to divert the guar's attention for the second try.

But it doe depend on if you want a simply pass/fail result or a degree of success result. I lean more towards the latter.

Oh, and pretty much any and every opposed skill can be set up with a degree of success. It is just that we tend to gloss over those "boring" tests to get to the "omportant" combat ones.

You could actually work up a debate as a series of Faslk Talk/Persuade/Oratory rolls with "attacks" and "parries" and have it do damage and beat down the opponent's resolve (say equal to POW points).

Would I want to do that all the time, no. But it would be a great bit for when the PCs get captured and have to convince the locals to spare their lives and not throw them to the volcano god.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Unless you treat it like combat and give the sneaker some benefit, but reduce it for the successful "Parry" of the defender. For instace the sneaker isn't detected but either didn't get to move (and has to try again), or inly gets part of the distance before he has to duck behind cover.

That sort of thing happens all the time.

I've tended to do exactly this. If there's a tie, I use it to build the tension a bit and allow characters to make a choice before proceeding. I don't try to immediately resolve it. In the case of stealth vs. perception, I use success vs. success or failure vs. failure to generally have the guard notice something but not be definitive, so there's still a chance to sneak past the guard but the guard is now on the lookout for something. Both characters can make a decision from here. The guard moves toward the hidden character to investigate, perhaps, so the tie gave him something, but the character still hasn't be conclusively observed, so can choose to sneak off, throw a rock to distract the guard, hide deeper in the shadows, cast a spell, jump the guard, etc.

I've never run into a problem with this interpretation, and if all else fails we can just reroll to see what happens. (Note: I never call for a reroll without allowing a change in actions, tactics, etc.)

I also do interpret the difference in success levels as a determination of how successful the opposed action was, frequently resulting in the winning side having some sort of advantage in the subsequent interactions. A big success of the guard or sneaking character results in a starting advantage in combat, or in sneaking through and leaving no trace to find later, etc.

I find using the highest-under roll inelegant in a very distasteful way, and while largest success is perfectly fine I just don't see the point in bothering with it. I like ties during the game like this. They add something to the game with tension and choices that I like.