Opposed rolls

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by 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?

No, I don't believe so (see post above).

I think there's a clause missing that regardless of the losers degree of success, the winner's result can't be made worse than a normal success. So, in effect, tied successful results always mean a normal success for the winner.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

No, I don't believe so (see post above).

I think there's a clause missing that regardless of the losers degree of success, the winner's result can't be made worse than a normal success. So, in effect, tied successful results always mean a normal success for the winner.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

That's what I would think, but just wanted to make sure. The concept, seems to match that I saw on a BRP site where a successful parry turns a crtical hit into a special.

THe fix seems to be to specify that if success levels are the same there is no downgrading. Otherwise about 80% of the opposed rolls will be tied failures.

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

That's what I would think, but just wanted to make sure. The concept, seems to match that I saw on a BRP site where a successful parry turns a crtical hit into a special.

The fix seems to be to specify that if success levels are the same there is no downgrading. Otherwise about 80% of the opposed rolls will be tied failures.

If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, but if I critical, but still lose to his "better" critical, he still criticals... Don't think that works.

If the most "downgrading" can do is reduce the winners success level to a normal success I think it works well: If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, and likewise if I crit and he crits. I can't make him fail.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[deleriad]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, but if I critical, but still lose to his "better" critical, he still criticals... Don't think that works.

If the most "downgrading" can do is reduce the winners success level to a normal success I think it works well: If I special and he crits, I reduce his crit to a normal success, and likewise if I crit and he crits. I can't make him fail.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Having not seen the BRP rulebook I can't comment on this but MRQ made exactly the same mistake when it added downgrading into opposed rolls and forgot to think through all the implications (surely some mistake...) so the BRP book really, really needs the line that the winner can't be downgraded to result that's worse than a normal success.

Personally I use a "partial success" mechanic; i.e. if I lose the opposed roll but still make my skill test successfully then I get a result that's about 1/2 as good as a normal success. I doubt it would work in BRP because that still has critical/special/normal and I wouldn't want to add yet more into it.

I must admit that ever since I started using opposed rolls in CoC and RQ back in the 90s I've been sold on the mechanic. It's not a perfect fit but, somewhat like democracy, it tends to be the least worst answer.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by deleriad

Having not seen the BRP rulebook I can't comment on this but MRQ made exactly the same mistake when it added downgrading into opposed rolls and forgot to think through all the implications (surely some mistake...) so the BRP book really, really needs the line that the winner can't be downgraded to result that's worse than a normal success.

THE MRQ situation is exactly what I'm worried about.

The desired effect seems to be that you subtract, but on a tied success level, the winner of the opposed roll gets a normal success. But I just want to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

THE MRQ situation is exactly what I'm worried about.

The desired effect seems to be that you subtract, but on a tied success level, the winner of the opposed roll gets a normal success. But I just want to be sure I'm interpreting it correctly.

Its not tidy. Having a success neutralize a success works well for some opposed cases, such as the infamous Dodge versus Attack; if it didn't work that way there, Dodge would be kind of pointless. It doesn't work too well on a parry unless you remove the idea of parry blocking and taking damage (at which point it and dodge are pretty indistinguishable).

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Its not tidy. Having a success neutralize a success works well for some opposed cases, such as the infamous Dodge versus Attack; if it didn't work that way there, Dodge would be kind of pointless. It doesn't work too well on a parry unless you remove the idea of parry blocking and taking damage (at which point it and dodge are pretty indistinguishable).

Yeah. The neutralization thing woks in games with finer degress of success., or where the margin of success makes a difference. But since BRP has 80% of successes being "Average" there isn't much distinction.

Maybe the idea of a partial success might work. A partial sucess in gamlbing reduces how much the other gun wins, or reduces the amount that you loose personally.

That is the missing component from the Pendragon system, and parry sort of works that way already.

IMO the D100 system handles opposed rolls so poorly anyway that O think it would be best to either dumped opposed rolls completely or switch over to the Pendragon method completely. Or the rolemaster D100+skill high wins method.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

IMO the D100 system handles opposed rolls so poorly anyway that O think it would be best to either dumped opposed rolls completely or switch over to the Pendragon method completely. Or the rolemaster D100+skill high wins method.

If you do the former, you have to do _something_ with the Dodge and Hide cases.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

If you do the former, you have to do _something_ with the Dodge and Hide cases.

Yes, but not much. One reason why this is a problem is that RQ didn't use opposed skill rolls. Dodge was restrcted in RQ3, making it undesirable, and Hide did have a special case.

One of the old advantages of a successful Hide roll was that it required the Spot roll to be noticed. Otherwise the defense would see you automatically. That helped to balance things out.

[CthulhuFnord]

I'd prefer a system that roles high. I've been playing Call of Cthulhu and Elric long enough to be used to role low.