Contested Rolls in BRP0?

[frogspawner]

"Opposed Rolls... higher skill wins ties."

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Simple but awfully unrealistic. A 91% guardsman spots a 90% sneaker 90% of the times.

That's not accurate, since one or other can special/critical/fail when the other doesn't. This statistic appears to assume they both have the same 'DoS' at the same time, which ain't necessarily so. If you examine the odds properly I think you'll find it's similar to the contentious MRQ method.

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

DoS (Degree of Success) mechanics means that whenever you have an opposed roll and both succeed, one of the successes is downgraded by one or more to achieve a simpler result. This is in BRP 0, as Nick explained above (simple Dodge downgrades Critical attack to Special), and is in the MRQ player's update, albeit reversed (attack with higher roll downgrades simple parry or roll to failure, parry or dodge with higher roll downgrades successful attack to miss).

Not as simple as it could/should be, and awfully unrealistic too. A parried hit is not simply a miss - it's a different event in it's own right, and could/should have different effects.

[RosenMcStern]

Yeah! Flame wars! This forum is too nice, some real debate was needed

Originally Posted by frogspawner

"a 91% guard spots a 90% sneaker 90% of the times"

That's not accurate, since one or other can special/critical/fail when the other doesn't. This statistic appears to assume they both have the same 'DoS' at the same time, which ain't necessarily so. If you examine the odds properly I think you'll find it's similar to the contentious MRQ method.

On the contrary, I have considered it, or else I would have stated 99% of the time. Mr 90% can still special/critical, and thus it still has some chances to win, but in _all_ cases that are not a special for Mr 90%, i.e. the vast majority, Mr 91% wins. We can make the maths if you like, it's just a matter of launching DevC++ and writing twenty lines of code, but I am sure the odds are somewhere around 85%-90% in favour of Mr. 91%, whereas they should be around 50%.

Not as simple as it could/should be, and awfully unrealistic too. A parried hit is not simply a miss - it's a different event in it's own right, and could/should have different effects.

We have debated this on the other forum for ages. Most people with rea l combat experience agree can a successful parry results in the blow being deflected and landing on the ground and/or off target, so the end result is almost the same. It is the mechanics of AP deduction from the damage that is unrealistic - a steel weapon is not more effective at parrying than a bronze one, except in the [uncommon] case that you hit it so hard that it breaks. At present, I use two differnet mechanics, one for shield blocks (unopposed) and one for weapon parries and dodges (opposed), and they work very fine.

[frogspawner]

Don't flame me, I ain't flamin' you! Yes, it's nice and civilized here - I haven't been to that Other Place for ages...

I'm not interested in roasting anyone, just finding the best system. You may well be right that it won't be very near the intuitively-correct 50% mark, though it's probably less clear-cut for lower skills. Time permitting, I'll do some calculations on those odds (but if anyone else would care to, please feel free!).

The simpler the system, the better. (Surely as a C man you can appreciate that). One mechanic would be better than two. Would you care to tell us about the unopposed roll mechanic you use for weapons v shields?

[RosenMcStern]

Read carefully, I'm a C++ man. Complexity is my business

The point has been discussed variously on That Other Forum. The blocking mechanics is the "default" one used in RQ3 and the original MRQ: I hit, you parry by placing your "thing" between my weapon and your body, and - "whack!" - your "thing" takes the damage instead of you - better have a very sturdy "thing" with high AP. This is exactly what a not-exceedingly skilled shield user does. The roll is basically unopposed. The attacker's skill is less important in this case, since the defender is relying on his shield mass to block, rather than on finesse.

This is not what a skilled fighter does with a weapon. When a competent fighter parries, he attempts to deflect the blow, not simply intercept it. It is a matter of finesse, and the parry is all or nothing. This is better portrayed with an opposed roll, where the higher skill is likely to have the upper hand.

[frogspawner]

Well, I like the simple old "whack - clang" mechanism. And (call me an old fashioned C man if you will) I still say that a simpler solution is a better one (and certainly better than two different solutions).

If as you say higher-skilled fighters learn how to deflect, rather than intercept, I'd say that's a good reason to introduce a "Deflection" ability at, say, 100%+ (like Splitting Attacks). That could give the 'sorry but your hit actually missed' effect in some way, without the complexity of opposed rolls in combat.

The idea of this sort of extra (perhaps less-than-Legendary) Ability (dare I say 'Feat'?) was mooted in another thread recently.

[badcat]

I think part of it has to do with the era and weapons, too. I can see deflection if you are talking about rapiers, sure. Broadsword and shield, I don't know. From personal experience I do know that after a while it gets hard to even get a shield in position.

The thing is, in a rpg you are looking for the feel of combat without necessarily getting every little nuance of combat style and function down pat and portrayed perfectly (at least for me). You don't need mechanics like opposed rolls and 'feats' to have a perfectly good, accurate feeling (as emulating your favorite movie or historical novel) and fun game.

Give me the middle of the road complexity of Stormbringer or RQ or CoC any day. I not only like simple, but don't even like to see some of the complicating options in the new book...because they are not needed, and BRP does not need and should not try to be computer science.

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I'd say that's a good reason to introduce a "Deflection" ability

Why a new ability/skill/feat for every mechanics in game? Sword parry works this way. No need to introduce new skills - it's your good old Sword skill!

Originally Posted by badcat

I think part of it has to do with the era and weapons, too. I can see deflection if you are talking about rapiers, sure. Broadsword and shield, I don't know.

It is fighting style, instead. If you have a shield, you block with it, you don't parry with the sword. If you only have a sword, be it rapier or broadsword, you parry (i.e. deflect) with it. The fighting stance of a broadsword/shield fighter is absolutely different from the stance of a broadsword-only warrior. Pete Nash suggested something similar in his MRQ variant rules.

[Triff]

Interesting idea, but I'm sceptical of introducing the mathematics of opposed rolls into combat, when I think the parry rules work well as it is. I do think all shields should have higher AP than weapons though. Deflecting would be hard with heavier weapons too... Hmm.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by Triff

Interesting idea, but I'm sceptical of introducing the mathematics of opposed rolls into combat.

Mathematics? Finding the higher roll is too much maths for you?

I do think all shields should have higher AP than weapons though. Deflecting would be hard with heavier weapons too... Hmm.

The point is that shields have higher APs than weapons in BRP, traditionally. Unfortunately, it is more difficult to break a weapon than to break a shield. What is realistic for parries becomes heavily unrealistic when it comes to weapons sustaining damage.

Deflect poleaxe with a dagger is hard? Yes it is. Give a -20% penalty per SR of difference when parrying. Fist or dagger vs. sword - bad. Sword vs. halberd - bad. Dagger or fist vs. poleaxe - suicidal, unless you are Bruce Lee - and even he would think twice.

[sdavies2720]

I've always played that on an opposed roll where both sides succeeded, they both, well. succeeded.

So, for instance if someone has a successful Search against a successful Hide, then both succeed: the person Hiding is hidden, but the searcher has found Something, maybe a footprint, maybe a broken branch.

I've always found that much more interesting than a win/lose outcome.

If one person has a higher success, that does win, "It is clear that the Duck thinks her's totally hidden (Success), but you can see the end of his bill (Special Success) through a hole in the log he's behind."

Steve