Contested Rolls in BRP0?

[The Last Conformist]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

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.

For simplicity's sake, let's go back to just looking at a single attack. We're still assuming two fencers both with skill 90%.

CoC: To successfully hit, you need to roll below your skill (90% chance) and your enemy needs to fail to roll below his (100%-90%=10%). Thus, .9*.1=.09=9% chance of a successful hit.

SB5: Here it gets more complicated; you can successfully hit by rolling a normal success (19-90 on the dice - a 72% chance) and your enemy rolling a failure (10% chance), or by rolling a critical (18% chance) and your opponent a normal success or a failure (72%+10%=82% chance). Thus, the total chance of a successful hit is .72*.1+.18*.82=.22=22% (approx.)

Hypothetical neutral system: This could be implemented in various ways, but, by definition, the chance of a success against an equally skilled opponent is 50%.


The chance of at least one success in two tries, where the chance of success in a single try is X, is Y=1-(1-X)^2. Putting in X=9%, 22%, 50% gives Y=17%, 39%, 75%, respectively.

(19% above is an error for 17%.)

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by The Last Conformist

For simplicity's sake, let's go back to just looking at a single attack. We're still assuming two fencers both with skill 90%.

CoC: To successfully hit, you need to roll below your skill (90% chance) and your enemy needs to fail to roll below his (100%-90%=10%). Thus, .9*.1=.09=9% chance of a successful hit.

SB5: Here it gets more complicated; you can successfully hit by rolling a normal success (19-90 on the dice - a 72% chance) and your enemy rolling a failure (10% chance), or by rolling a critical (18% chance) and your opponent a normal success or a failure (72%+10%=82% chance). Thus, the total chance of a successful hit is .72*.1+.18*.82=.22=22% (approx.)

Hypothetical neutral system: This could be implemented in various ways, but, by definition, the chance of a success against an equally skilled opponent is 50%.


The chance of at least one success in two tries, where the chance of success in a single try is X, is Y=1-(1-X)^2. Putting in X=9%, 22%, 50% gives Y=17%, 39%, 75%, respectively.

(19% above is an error for 17%.)

Wow... thanks for that view behind the curtain. I really appreciate it. Were there not criticals and impales in CoC? Its been so long since I played, I just forgot the differences.

Cheers!

[The Last Conformist]

There are impales in CoC, but they affect only the amount of damage inflicted*, not the difficulty of parrying.

* And, for close-combat weapons, whether your weapon gets stuck.

[Lord Twig]

Well I am glad I came back to check this thread! I apparently failed to adequately express myself.

Originally Posted by 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 did not mean to aim the 'subtraction snip' at you or anyone else on this board. There are other systems that seem to make a big deal about keeping math simple and mostly my comment was motivated by that. You had mentioned that simpler is better, and while generally that is true it can be taken too far. I just wanted to point that out and apparently you agree since you posted the same thing above.

I also agree that opposed rolls, traits, heroic abilities, fate points, are no improvement. I do think that it is possible to improve opposed rolls though. Which, if it can be done, would be a boon for those that want to use them. The others are fine, I guess, but I probably won't use them.

Originally Posted by badcat

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.

Again, I apologize if I came off as talking down to anyone. That was not my intent.

I don't know that 4e will be a mess... I actually think it will probably be pretty clean, but clean will not help the fact that it has moved away from being a RPG and moved more toward being a pseudo-CCG or a MMO simulator.

I believe the main reason for the BRP book is to serve as a consistent rules platform for new games to be built on. If you are looking to add new things to your current game or are looking to change things that may not work as well as you would like BRP would also be useful. If you are happy with what you have or are not looking for anything new then of course a new book won't help you. Of course if you have a game you like there is nothing wrong with that!

Originally Posted by frogspawner

("Firecube"? What? Do you have dirt on 4e? Oh do please tell...!)

There is information out there if you look for it. Simplicity and ease of play seem to be the order of the day. Anything that slows the game down, even a fraction of a second, is removed from the game.

In order to simulate movement and distance on a grid 3.5 used a rule that ever second diagonal move counted as two squares. This meant that you had to remember if you counted one or two squares the last time you moved diagonal. This was 'too hard'. Spells with area of effects that were not a simple radius was 'too hard' (goodbye Cone of Cold!). Figuring out that 20' was equal to four 5' squares was 'too hard'.

Therefore Fireball is now described as having: Area 4.

That means that you count four squares in all directions, including up, down, left, right, and diagonal. What you end up with is a cube. All spells now either effect a target or number of targets or they effect an area. Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, etc. Done. Everything is a cube.

They also got rid of durations. It was 'too hard' to remember how many rounds a spell had left or how long before a spell or power recharged. Now all spells last until a successful save. Everybody has a save. You might have a save of +3 or +4 or whatever and that is the save you use for everything.

If you have a power that recharges it will be listed as "Recharge: 5 6"

This means that you need to roll a 5 or a 6 on a d6 for the power to recharge. Notice that they don't say 5 or higher or Recharge: 5 and assume that you know to roll a 5 or higher, they actually say "5 6". If you have a 50/50 chance of recharging they will say "Recharge: 4 5 6".

My immediate response to all of this is, "Just how stupid and/or lazy do they think we are?" Apparently we are considered pretty stupid by Wizard of the Coast.

All of this may have effected me a bit and made me overly sensitive to the "Simpler is better" idea.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

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...

RQ2 is indeed where it was pulled from, just modified a bit.

Originally Posted by frogspawner

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.

Again, not aimed at anyone in particular. Just a general venting on the push toward simplicity that I have been seeing. It is not just D&D either, I think MRQ also suffers from this, though to a lesser degree.

[frogspawner]

Thanks for that. There is simple and there is simplistic. The difference may be fine and a matter of taste, but I think I'm with you on this one. "Firecube" - nice!

[Trifletraxor]

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).

Is parry or dodge equal in MRQ? And the opposed rolls, do they include the higher roller wins if same success level?

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Is parry or dodge equal in MRQ?

Similar, but not quite the same.

And the opposed rolls, do they include the higher roller wins if same success evel?

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

Trif, i had not realized you had been away from The Other Forum for so long

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

but what happens to AP then? you can't have a normal hit countered by a normal parry, but with some damage going through if the damage was high enough?

Trif, i had not realized you had been away from The Other Forum for so long

it's long since my glory days of multiple bans a day.

SGL.

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

but what happens to AP then? you can't have a normal hit countered by a normal parry, but with some damage going through if the damage was high enough?

<mrq>Ah, The Big Complaint #2, you mean! The "attack succeeds but AP is subtracted" happens only if both roll the same number (and none has a skil above 100%). Many people complained that this makes APs useless, but I think they are wrong because this is effectively what happens in CoC and "default", AP-less BRP, so it is a perfectly viable rule.

I houserule that damage reduction by APs happens only if you have a shield, effectively differentiating between Parry and Block.</mrq>

it's long since my glory days of multiple bans a day.

Yeah, I remember. I had not suspected there were so many synonyms for the word "Beetle". And I have a degree in Entomology!

[The Last Conformist]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Yes, even in combat. Many people do not like this, but once you grasp the idea it adds realism.

How does it add realism?