Contested Rolls in BRP0?

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by badcat

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.

Yes, this is why the core mechanic should be the simplest - and people can add options to suit their taste. So the deflection-type complications really ought not to be built-in to the fundamental combat rolls.

Originally Posted by 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.

Same here. Sadly, I think the Attack/Parry matrix does have opposed roll type ideas built-in to it (although not the full-blown 'highest-roll-wins' garbage, at least not by default).

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly! You have hidden well, but the Creature has spotted something to make it suspicious, and is coming closer... and more hide/spot rolls (or other actions) are needed to resolve the matter. Opposed rolls smack of impatience ("I want a winner NOW!") and invite trivializing situations that may deserve more drama.

[badcat]

It is pleasant to find someone of like mind on this subject.

I am afraid I am thinking of giving up on the hobby as a group activity because most gamers I talk to these days seem to favor mechanics like opposed rolls and 'modern' rpg mechanics. Right now it is unlikely that I will even get the new BRP book due to all the bells and whistles that are getting attached to it. The parts I like are, alas, already known or available. Unfortunately it looks like hte new book will not bring anything useful to me to the table. I don't know.

I'll likely stick to Stormbringer and CoC with imports from other systems and use Atlantis if I actually get to run a game, and spend my hobby hours working on my own setting. It is still an enjoyable hobby even if it is pulling away from my tastes in many ways.

[Lord Twig]

Simple is not always better. If you have been following the 4th edition news that is coming out, that is made pretty plain. Can anyone here say, "Firecube"?

Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill.

So if you have 134% in broad sword, you can subtract 34% from the defenders parry, making it easier to get around his defenses. By the same token if you have a 156% in parry you can subtract 56% from your opponents attack, thereby causing him to miss, or deflect his attack. It really is very easy to remember and is very simple as long as you are not afraid of <gasp!> subtraction.

So in the above case the attacker will have a 44% chance to hit (134-34-56=44) and the defender will have a 66% chance to parry (156-56-34=66). Real easy once you figure out that the first one always reduces you to 100% and the second is then subtracted from 100. Or course you could always choose to NOT subtract anything from your skill, but then you are only subtracting one number.

[badcat]

I'm not afraid of subtraction, and I have never said simple was always better. Indeed, what I have said is that there is a sweet spot which varies from gamer to gamer. Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip. I don't care for many of the ideas included in this BRP book because they are beginning to carry it beyond my sweet spot. Contested or opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, etc. are no improvement, IMHO, especially in a system which can be run effortlessly as it already exists.

I also do not like being talked down to by anyone. I like what I like. 4e just looks like a mess, and an expensive one, 'simpler' or not. The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS. There are, however, a couple of bright spots on the horizon. I do regret that I cannot give the new book more support, but I feel right now that the inclusion of clumsy mechanics such as contested rolls and the multi-genre nature of it are going to leave me, for one, out in the cold.

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill.

Splitting and higher chance of success/special/critical allready lets the higher skilled opponent come out on op.

So if you have 134% in broad sword, you can subtract 34% from the defenders parry, making it easier to get around his defenses. By the same token if you have a 156% in parry you can subtract 56% from your opponents attack, thereby causing him to miss, or deflect his attack. It really is very easy to remember and is very simple as long as you are not afraid of <gasp!> subtraction.

While subtractions might be easy, all math that is not intuitive bogs down combat.

SGL.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by badcat

It is pleasant to find someone of like mind on this subject.

I hope there's plenty of us out there. Being reasonable folks, maybe we don't usually shout as loud as some others, that's all...

Originally Posted by badcat

Right now it is unlikely that I will even get the new BRP book due to all the bells and whistles that are getting attached to it. The parts I like are, alas, already known or available.I'll likely stick to Stormbringer and CoC with imports from other systems and use Atlantis if I actually get to run a game, and spend my hobby hours working on my own setting. It is still an enjoyable hobby even if it is pulling away from my tastes in many ways.

Well, it is a collection of previous works, so you can't blame it for not bringing much that's new. But there are some things, and others are treated in a more flexible way. SB/CoC with imports? That's what it is! (And generally the bells and whistles are firmly optional). So I urge you to get it, either BRP0 and/or BRP1 - you may find nuggets of gold that'll unexpectedly delight you. I did!
(Oh, and while you're shopping, scoop a copy of the Order Of The Stick adventure game, too - it's a great laugh!)

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Simple is not always better. If you have been following the 4th edition news that is coming out, that is made pretty plain. Can anyone here say, "Firecube"?

The core mechanics should be the simplest possible (within reason), so the complications come only from options you think are worth adding. ("Firecube"? What? Do you have dirt on 4e? Oh do please tell...!)

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill. <snip>

Sounds like an extended version of a good ol' RQ2 mechanic. Hurrah! The Parry part is essentially the "Deflection" ability I advocated earlier. Another 'special ability' that kicks-in at 100%+, so there's another precedent for gaining extra 'shticks' at 100. Fine RQ2 provenance too...

Originally Posted by badcat

I'm not afraid of subtraction... Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip.

Relax, Badcat. I thought that was aimed at me - having once described subtraction (or was it addition?) as 'advanced mathematics', in the context of opposed rolls. And I don't mind.

Originally Posted by badcat

The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS.

In what ways? I don't know GURPS. (Er, though come to mention it, I think I reviewed it once...)

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

Splitting and higher chance of success/special/critical allready lets the higher skilled opponent come out on op.

While subtractions might be easy, all math that is not intuitive bogs down combat.

See? Not everyone wants extra things. Yay, Options! The way to go...

[The Last Conformist]

Using a "standard" opposed roll mechanic, where equallly skilled characters have equal chances of success, would make close combat bloodier than in CoC or SB, where the attack/parry matrices inherently favour the defender. Considering how fast limbs tend to fly in either, that doesn't sound like a good thing!

(Eg., if two chars with sword skill 90% fence, the per attack chance of a hit is 9% and ~22% respectively. If a margin-of-success or other balanced mechanism was used, it'd be 50%.)

[RosenMcStern]

A 22% chance of one of the two contestants scoring a hit in a 12 second timespan looks fine to me. In a sports fencing or kendo exchange, this is the time it takes to score a hit. Of course things may be different in lethal combat, but we are talking about 22% of causing a wound, not 90%.

[The Last Conformist]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

A 22% chance of one of the two contestants scoring a hit in a 12 second timespan looks fine to me.

Assuming one attack per character per 12s round and that the wounds are not incapacitating, the odds off either or both fencers inflicting a hit in a round are 17% (CoC), 39% (SB5), and 75% (hypothetical neutral system). The numbers above are for a single attack.

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by The Last Conformist

Assuming one attack per character per 12s round and that the wounds are not incapacitating, the odds off either or both fencers inflicting a hit in a round are 19% (CoC), 39% (SB5), and 75% (hypothetical neutral system). The numbers above are for a single attack.

Wow, I didn't realize there were such differences in the BRP systems. Could you show your math on how you came to those conclusions? I don't doubt you are correct, I'm just curious in the differences.