Opposed rolls

[Lord Twig]

I have realized that I was over thinking things and the default method makes a bit more sense now.

So the way I understand it. First check level of success, Critical beats Special beats Success beats Failure beats Fumble. Then the loser, if successful can downgrade the winners success one level for every level of success achieved.

If both get the SAME level of success then highest roll wins. In this case you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner, which would result in a Failure every time.

Now for another problem I noticed. For skills over 100% the only benefit you are receiving is increasing your chance to Critical or Special. So if I have 200% vs. someone who has 100% then if we both succeed I can't roll over 100% so the extra 100% I have is not helping.

By contrast if you use the "roll low" method (a.k.a. "best margin") then if I roll a 85 vs. the other guys 30 the 200-85=115 beats 100-30=70.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Now for another problem I noticed. For skills over 100% the only benefit you are receiving is increasing your chance to Critical or Special. So if I have 200% vs. someone who has 100% then if we both succeed I can't roll over 100% so the extra 100% I have is not helping.

By contrast if you use the "roll low" method (a.k.a. "best margin") then if I roll a 85 vs. the other guys 30 the 200-85=115 beats 100-30=70.

Yeah but the "margin" method makes it not worth rolling in cases like that. It pretty much become high skill wins unless low skill gets a crti or special.

I think that to some extent it all depends on just how you imagine very high skill levels. If you see things as a "mythic" linear progression as in Glorantha, then 200% is twice as good as 100%.

If you look at it with a more "realistic" view, then the standard method makes more sense. Generally in a fight between masters the difference between them is rather slight. And it will take a little while for that extra critical and special chances to make the difference.

[Rurik]

That is true, you need a way to deal with skills over a hundred when using high roll wins.

Simply halve both skills until they are both under 100...

(NOT!)

The way MRQ deals with it (after two updates) is to add your skill over 100 to your roll to determine the winner of tied success levels. So if my skill is 140 and your skill is 120, and I roll a 72 and you roll an 85, my roll become 112 and your roll becomes 105 for purposes of deciding a winner.

At that point the "makes roll by most" method is almost as simple, though most people find addition easier than subtraction.

I used the makes roll by most method for a while as I am not afraid of simple subtraction (also known as "complex math" on various boards) - but must admit in the end I switched to just using highest roll wins as it seems simpler in practice at the table. It becomes second nature in short order.

[AikiGhost]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

RQ3 (or was it 2?) said perception always beat stealth,

Thats my take on it too, Perception would be the defending skill, so like a parry against an attack a basic perception test should detect a basic success on a stealth test.

[Sven Norén]

I've never seen the sneak/spot situation as requiring opposed rolls, but that may be because I never upgraded from RQ2 to RQ3...

What I would do is ask for a straight roll from the sneaker. If he fails he can be spotted by anyone looking in the right direction. If he succeds it takes a succesful Spot roll to spot him, and if he scores a critical success it takes a critical Spot to discover him.

If you want skill levels over 100% to make a difference, then borrow from the (optional?) combat rules: Any attack percentage over 100% acts as a penalty to parry, such as if you attack with a skill of 120% then the defender gets a -20% penalty to his parry skill.

[Pete Nash]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think that to some extent it all depends on just how you imagine very high skill levels. If you see things as a "mythic" linear progression as in Glorantha, then 200% is twice as good as 100%.

If you look at it with a more "realistic" view, then the standard method makes more sense. Generally in a fight between masters the difference between them is rather slight. And it will take a little while for that extra critical and special chances to make the difference.

This is definitely a matter of personal interpretation. My personal experience is that some masters are much better than others, and the difference between them (modeled as percentage skills) is nowhere near slight!

For example, you could place a newly made 1st dan black belt against a senior 7th dan of his martial art... Or a standard knight of the SCA versus one of the Super-dukes. These sort of bouts don't normally last much beyond a few blows. Single combats normally only bog down between people of roughly equal skill.

So from my perspective the "realism" is that its the difference between the individual fighter's skills which counts... not the fact that they reached 100%. Thus I'm definitely a 'mythic linear' kind of guy and use a similar rule to the one Rurik mentions to preserve the skill difference in favour of the most skillful fighter.

(Sorry for using a fighting analogy here, but the trend should apply to most other things. E.g. A physics professor at a university vs. Einstein over a question of relativity. Both are masters of the subject, but I think I know who should win the overwhelming majority of debates... at least in the early 1900's! )

[Shaira]

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

So from my perspective the "realism" is that its the difference between the individual fighter's skills which counts... not the fact that they reached 100%. Thus I'm definitely a 'mythic linear' kind of guy and use a similar rule to the one Rurik mentions to preserve the skill difference in favour of the most skillful fighter.

Hi Pete, hi all,

I'm just dipping into this discussion from time to time - this bit has piqued my interest quite a bit.

Just to clarify - are you saying that if the winner (in the sense of biggest success margin where both attacker and parryer make their rolls) of an opposed combat roll is the attacker, the parry effectively fails? I'm asking as the default SB5 behaviour (I still haven't received my BRP copy!) is obviously that if both attacker and defender succeed, the parry or dodge takes precedence over the attack. Your suggestion would obviously go a heckuva long way to break the combat deadlock which would otherwise occur between your 1st and 7th dan fighters.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

This is definitely a matter of personal interpretation. My personal experience is that some masters are much better than others, and the difference between them (modeled as percentage skills) is nowhere near slight!

For example, you could place a newly made 1st dan black belt against a senior 7th dan of his martial art... Or a standard knight of the SCA versus one of the Super-dukes. These sort of bouts don't normally last much beyond a

However, that turns on assuming such people are, indeed masters. The fact they have certain titles attached to it does not mean they have reached 90% or better in skill in the sense the game uses them.

[Pete Nash]

Originally Posted by Shaira

Just to clarify - are you saying that if the winner (in the sense of biggest success margin where both attacker and parryer make their rolls) of an opposed combat roll is the attacker, the parry effectively fails? I'm asking as the default SB5 behaviour (I still haven't received my BRP copy!) is obviously that if both attacker and defender succeed, the parry or dodge takes precedence over the attack. Your suggestion would obviously go a heckuva long way to break the combat deadlock which would otherwise occur between your 1st and 7th dan fighters.

Effectively yes, whomever wins the opposed roll gains the advantage... But this is my own personal way of doing things. I like opposed rolls so much, I even wrote my own set of combat house-rules based on them, which can be found at the following link if you're interested. Unfortunately they are designed for use with MRQ rather than BRP, but the core opposed roll mechanic will translate cleanly between both systems.

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/...Rules_v2.4.pdf

They resolve the SB5 type combat deadlocks very effectively, and give a significant advantage to the higher skilled combatant, even when skills reach the hundreds. I like my combats to be short, deadly and spectacular!

BRP (when you get it) uses a matrix of attack LOS vs. parry LOS which, just like SB5, gives precedence to the defender when ties occur. So despite the slightly increased chance of a critical result in BRP, it is still prone to deadlock situations.

[Pete Nash]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

However, that turns on assuming such people are, indeed masters. The fact they have certain titles attached to it does not mean they have reached 90% or better in skill in the sense the game uses them.

Indeed. It is all a matter of semantics and interpretation. However, I personally consider anyone who achieves a 1st dan in an oriental martial art to be at least 90% in their skill, and I apply the same standard to an SCA knight or a Master in the European martial arts. Such titles are usually only applied to those who have shown (at the very least) an extremely high level of prowess, and the ability to consistently overcome their peers in competition.

I also use the same standard for educational awards too, i.e. a PhD for example.

Thus for me, these 'titles' are the vital anchor point to what otherwise is a completely abstract value. How else can you qualify what the skill percentage actually means?