Contested Rolls in BRP0?

[Tywyll]

How are contested rolls handled in the new BRP? Is it simply defender wins (a dodge succeeds against any attack unless its a crit)? Is it a compared roll (highest/lowest roller wins)? Or something else?

Are there any changes if skills are 100+?

Cheers!

[Tywyll]

Anybody know?

[Trifletraxor]

In combat at least, the rolls are not contested. A normal dodge beats a normal attack, but fails against a special or a critical.

SGL.

[The Last Conformist]

If memory serves, there are multiple options presented, including degree of success (critical beats special beats success beats failure beats fumble) and numerical margin of success (ie. compare skill minus roll, higher number wins).

[frogspawner]

Yeah, but I don't think any of the BRP0 options for combat is free of the 'Opposed Roll' taint. I don't like to think about that - it makes me queasy. But Jason said he'd be revising the combat chapter wording for 1st Ed, so there's always hope...

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

How are contested rolls handled in the new BRP? Is it simply defender wins (a dodge succeeds against any attack unless its a crit)? Is it a compared roll (highest/lowest roller wins)? Or something else?

Are there any changes if skills are 100+?

Cheers!

The default rule: Both characters roll and the one who achieves the highest degree of success wins. Once the "winner" is determined, if the losers roll was still a success, they reduce the winners degree of success by one step for each degree of success the loser achieved above failure (So a normal success will be beaten in an opposed test by a critical roll, but the critical will be reduced to a special success). Where degrees of success are tied, the victory goes to the higher dice roll (thus rewarding the higher skill).

A number of optional variant are included, and there are some wrinkles in interpretation that were to be clarified as a result of feedback on BRP 0 IIRC. The default rule and variants automatically takes account of skills over 100.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Yeah, but I don't think any of the BRP0 options for combat is free of the 'Opposed Roll' taint.

The opposed roll for combat works fine. We have used this in MRQ for almost one year, and it works - in fact it is the only real advancement, in combat, of MRQ over previous RQs. It is the cross-indexing of opposed rolls with combat matrices / tables / whatsoever, instead of adopting the DoS mechanics, that makes the system a bit clumsy. But the opposed roll solves a lot of issues, and eliminates the old problem of endless combats when your opponent is too skilled at parrying.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

The opposed roll for combat ... is the only real advancement, in combat, of MRQ over previous RQs.

Then, since I don't like Opposed Rolls, you can see one good reason I don't like MRQ! (Although I can live with ORs for non-combat contests, like Hide v Spot, when used with a variation suggested by Nickmiddleton IIRC, i.e. higher skill wins ties).

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

It is the cross-indexing of opposed rolls with combat matrices / tables / whatsoever, instead of adopting the DoS mechanics, that makes the system a bit clumsy.

Yes, combat matrices are clumsy, and 'get in the way'. So please tell, what are the "DoS mechanics"?

[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).

[RosenMcStern]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

(Although I can live with ORs for non-combat contests, like Hide v Spot, when used with a variation suggested by Nickmiddleton IIRC, i.e. higher skill wins ties).

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