A Stupid Question About Opposed Tests

[Steve Bowen]

In an opposed test where both parties fail, the one who rolls lowest, wins the test, the rulebook says. I presume that this is because they were closer to succeeding and "failed less" by virtue of their lower roll. It makes perfect sense to me.

However, I would also expect this to be the case if both parties succeed in an opposed test. A lower roll is a better success, therefore the party who rolls lower should defeat the party that rolls higher. However the rules clearly state that the higher roll wins in an opposed test where both parties succeed. I am utterly bewildered! I feel like I am overlooking something very obvious but I cannot figure out what it is.

What am I missing?

 

[AKAramis]

This makes it possible for a high-skill character to have a roll that can't be beat nor tied. It also prevents the "I need a 5 to succeed" character from winning 4.5% of the time.... reducing it to about 1% versus a 50 skill character.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I do opposed tests a bit differently.
First, a critical trumps a normal success.
If both succeed the highest roll wins.
If both fail, closest to their own target number wins.
If both critical, highest roll wins.

 

[Don Allen]

Lets say a player has 15% in a skill and he is in an opposed test with someone with a 90% skill. Lets say they both succeeded in their rolls. Which one of them do you think would win most of the time (when they both pass their test) if the LOWER roll wins?
It makes more sense to have the one with the highest skill win more often when both pass their skill roll. Thats why, I think, they chose to make HIGH roll win.

 

[atgxtg]

Lets say a player has 15% in a skill and he is in an opposed test with someone with a 90% skill. Lets say they both succeeded in their rolls. Which one of them do you think would win most of the time (when they both pass their test) if the LOWER roll wins?

It makes more sense to have the one with the highest skill win more often when both pass their skill roll. Thats why, I think, they chose to make HIGH roll win.

Not really, becuase it balances out in other areas. In this case a huge win margin if the 15% doesn't succeed.As it stands now, if the 90% player rolls a result in the 16-90 range, he is unbeatable. THe other way would give the 15% a slight chance of beating a 16.

Roll high/roll low is cumbersome. The old critical and special successes old critical beat a normal success would have accomplished the same thing in a easier way. Even the slit edge the lower player would have when both rolled the same degree of succes would have been more that offset by the limited chances of doing so.

 

[Halfbat]

Whether or not the special/critical house rule is applied (and I always liked it) I think the issue is what happens when both roll the same _type_ of success. You have to decide somehow.

MRQ tries to ensure there _is_ a winner in every case and no ties (e.g. x spots y, but y has hidden himself: who wins?) without using the "passive/active" skill rules* and without any complex maths over the %ge level of success (e.g. 80% PC rolls 40% = a 50% win; 40% NPC rolls 22% = 55% win, therefore 80% PC wins). It's still an issue and is tightly tied up with the problems surrounding the halving rule (aaargh!).


*Maybe they should have: currently active skill wins?

 

[atgxtg]

Well the old method of:

Player A rolls, if fails then Player A fails;

else Player B rolls skill-Player A skill. If successful the B wins;

else A wins.

Worked too.

In this case it would be 15% er wins 3.75% of the time, 90% wins 96.25% of the time.

I suspect that the roll method might actually work out the best, since with a 15vs 90 the breakdown should be soemthing like 14%/86%