Opposed rolls

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

In the end I think a lot of us will buy it, but that most of us will prefer the rule set we are already using and will use BRP as a potential source for adding on stuff.

That's what I'm doing with RQM and that's what I'll probably do with BRP.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by soltakss

That's what I'm doing with RQM and that's what I'll probably do with BRP.

I'm not surprised. I think that is really what most of the long term BRP players are going to do. We might bend for specfic settings. We might use certain spot rules for a superhero or Sci-Fi game that we'd never use elsewhere, but I don't expect a big rush to convert over from what are using now to BRP.

I've seen some of this with posts, and from personal experience while writing stuff up. I had at times designed something one way for compatibility while I would run it a different way in my own campaigns.

[Pete Nash]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

It is all about feel. You like the Opposed Roll - fine, but some of us don't. And no way is it the best for 30 years! I feel there are quite a few issues about ORs that are not yet resolved: rolling low or high-within-low; extra maths; trivializing potentially exciting contests (e.g. sneaking, bargaining...). For me, the challenge of finding the Perfect Mechanism is still ongoing. Care to join me, or wish me luck?

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP.

For my gaming style they sort out the consistency problems RQ suffered, and streamline play. Rolling high-within-low is simply a matter of habit and becomes transparent very quickly, extra maths only kick in once you get skills above 100% and nobody I play with seems to have a problem with on the fly addition or subtraction.

Whether they 'trivialize potentially exciting contests' depends completely upon how the results are applied by the GM - it is not specifically linked to how the dice are rolled and read.

Are Opposed Rolls perfect? By no means. But until the next elegant innovation comes along, I'll be using them.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP.

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero.
Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

[Pete Nash]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero.
Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

My apologies, I appear to have made a mistake. It is part of the default rules on p174, with the addition that you also reduce an opponent's level of success if you succeed in your skill check too. The mathematical alternatives are on p170.

Please forgive my stupidity.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

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?

Well, there is always the original meaning of the phase. Originally, master was a rank for trademen that showed that they were capable enough to handle the various aspects of a task.

Hence terms like master locksmith. Or Master baker, MAster Archteict.


The main contention was that anyone with less ability was still studying.

That interpretation does seem to fit well with the skills going over 100.

But that is (yet another) a valid interpretation.

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

My apologies, I appear to have made a mistake. It is part of the default rules on p174, with the addition that you also reduce an opponent's level of success if you succeed in your skill check too.

How does that work when the success levels are equal. One guy wins by an opposed roll and then gets downgraded? Does success vs. success get downgraded to a failure?

[Pete Nash]

Hmmm. It might just be me, but on careful re-reading of the Opposed Test description on p174 the following text seems slightly flawed and a little confusing...

In situations where two skill rolls are opposed, both characters roll against their respective skills. The character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the contest. However, if the loser's skill roll was successful, he or she can modify the winner's degree of success, shifting it downward one degree for every degree of success he or she achieves above failure. In the event that both parties achieve the same degree of success, the higher die roll wins the contest, giving the advantage to character's with higher skill ratings.

Now we can all interpret this correctly so that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure. However, it does not say this specifically.

It also doesn't explain what happens if the winner of matched specials, or criticals are treated as such... or whether the winner should be treated as having only gained a normal success.

Does anybody else seem the same flaw or am I being overly pedantic?

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

How does that work when the success levels are equal. One guy wins by an opposed roll and then gets downgraded? Does success vs. success get downgraded to a failure?

My undertsanding is that you are conflating two steps:

1a) Best success level wins

1b) Iff success levels tied, highest roll wins

2) Having determined who won by method 1, if the loser has rolled a success they get to down grade the winners degree of success by one step for each step above failure that they achieved.

So downgrading ONLY comes in to play AFTER determining who "won".

The only rough spots for me are that highest roll doesn't feel right (for all I know it's simpler and mathematically the same as calculating the margin) and it's not explicitly stated that 2) cannot reduce a winners success beyond "normal" success, which is what I assume is the case.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.
Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works?

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Pete Nash

Now we can all interpret this correctly so that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure. However, it does not say this specifically.

Agreed, I just reread the play test draft (see post above) and it's NOT explicitly stated.

It also doesn't explain what happens if the winner of matched specials, or criticals are treated as such... or whether the winner should be treated as having only gained a normal success.

Same again I'd say: I.e. that downgrading can ameliorate the winners advantage but not remove it: they will always have succeeded (i.e. have at least a normal level of success), but can be downgraded from critical or special.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton