Gnarsh said:
algauble said:
A method that I suggested mimics this (sort of) but requires no subtraction: If your skill is over 100 and your % roll is under your (skill - 100*), then you treat your roll as if it were 100 higher, then compare with your opponent, highest roll wins.
When I earlier suggested this, I also wanted to keep crits at 1/10 skill, which would produce some weird plateaus in skill improvement from about 96% where you hit the auto fail threshhold until 112% where you hit the first roll that would be affected by this system, a roll of 12, since rolls of 01 to 11 would be crits, but a roll of 12 would count as 112, beating all regular successes that are lower than 112. Without crits, I'm pretty sure this mimics the subtraction/RQII method, since it removes (your skill-100) chances from your opponents possible successes. Am I missing something in the maths or is this just too clunky for anyone to want to use?
I think I may not have explained this very well, since you aren't interpreting your specific examples the way that I intended. Let me try to explain/elaborate...
Well. First off, people are talking about the "subtract skill over 100% from both sides" in the context of combat skills. Your system would apply more to the opposed skill rolls. In combat, you are only rolling your own skill and determining your level of success. Then both compare their levels of success on the table to see what happened. It doesn't really make sense to use your process in combat because there really isn't the concept of "see which one wins". It's quite possible for the attacker to succeed at hitting, and the defender to succeed at parrying, with the damage applied to the shield prior to going on to the armor.
I was definitely intending for this to be a unified system for both skills and combat, though I didn't say anything to indicate this. I think that "see which one wins" can and should be introduced into combat. But it doesn't necessarily matter. Let's just address non-combat skills for the sake of discussion.
As for opposed rolls, I haven't sat down and done the math, but I think your system still introduces similar problems to the "divide in half" process in MRQ. And it's theoretically a lot more confusing. So. If I'm at 110% and my opponent is at 80%, If I roll a 01-10, I automatically win since I'm adding 100 to my roll and highest succeeds (and he can't roll higher then 80).
No. You automatically win because you rolled under 1/10 your skill - or a critical (unless your opponent also rolled a crit). The rules as written don't have crits on Opposed Tests, but I feel that they are indispensible (personal preference, I admit)
But what if I roll an 11? Do I now call that a regular success and win because I've got the lower roll? Or not?
a rolled 11 would count as 11 since it's over your skill of 110% - 100%, or 10%. That would be a weak regular success, and your opponent would win if he rolled a crit or any success of 11 to 80 (assuming ties go to your opponent). You'd still win if he rolled a 09 or a 10 ( a lower regular success - we're using blackjack style highest roll wins)
What if I have a 150% skill, but I roll a 51 and my 80% skilled opponent rolls a 50? He wins? We both succeeded normally, but he rolled lower, right?
Here too since we're using blackjack, your higher roll would win. If you had rolled a 49, under 150%-100% or 50%, you'd add 100 for 149. Since 149 is higher than 50, you'd win even though you rolled lower.
I think the problem with your system is that you're double counting the range of rolls where the higher guy is likely to win anyway (low rolls under his skill). The problem with the halving process isn't in the low roll area, it's in the high roll. Halving correctly retains the ratio of odds to roll under one's skill, and retains the relative range for both parties. What it fails miserably at is retaining that relative range ratio for the rolls *over* one's skill. In that range, the high roll wins, which gives the lower skilled character an advantage as the higher skilled character advances over 100%. I don't see how your system addresses this high-roll problem at all. What's going to happen in your system is that by maintaining the full skill, all rolls (except 96-00) will be "success", so essentially, you're just rolling to see if the other guy can roll under your roll. Sure. If you also roll under your skill over 100%, you auto-win, but you'd likely have won if you'd rolled that low anyway, right?
I haven't really addressed rolls over skill, but I'd go with the higher rolled failure wins if both parties fail their rolls.
Also, your system doesn't scale past 200%. That may or may not be an issue.
I'd extrapolate it out past 200% as well... In the above example, where you rolled a 149, let's say your opponent had a 280% instead of an 80%... we just add 200 to his roll of 50, and compare his 250 to your 149. If he had rolled an 81, we'd only add 100 for 181, so he'd still beat your 149. In fact you'd only beat him if you rolled a crit (1-15 in this case).
Honestly, for opposed skills, since the only real result you need is overcoming the opponent, I still maintain that subtracting the actual roll from your skill and then applying that as a subtraction to your opponents chance to succeed is the simpliest and most accurate method. Sure. It involves a couple of subtractions. But it's consistent with other mechanisms already in place. The GM will already apply subtractions to your skill based on environmental conditions (hurrying, difficult task, etc). This makes an opponents skill simply another modifier to your own skill. So if you take a -30% to your stealth because your trying to cross a well lit area, you might take an additional -28% if your opponent made his perception by 28%. You could even rule in some cases that if an opponent misses his opposed roll by a percentage that you get to *add* that number to your own. So a particularly unobservant watchman would make it easier for you to sneak past.
That's just how I've managed opposed type skill contests for a long time in RQ3. It works very well. The players get used to it pretty quickly. After a short time, they just automatically tell you how much they made or missed their skill by when rolling. You as the GM get to then determine the result based on your own roll (and hey! It allows you to fudge things if needed as well). It's not really any more math intensive then any other viable alternative I've seen presented, and it's a whole lot more conducive to making every skill point actually count.
I hope I've explained this a little better this time. Perhaps it's too clunky and wonky to work in play, but it my head it seems pretty straighforward. I'll readily admit that there are some problems with it, however, I'm just not sure they're the ones that you mentioned.
As for you method, I think it's flawless mathematically. I just thought that we were trying to avoid the two-to-three digit subtraction (ie roll 77, skill is 112%, that means I made the roll by 112-77 , or 35. Opposing skill level is 73%, 73%-35 is.... etc)
Thanks for your feedback!
-al
.
