Clarification question - Opposed Rolls

[Melkor]

Hi folks,

I know this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure what the topic was.

In Opposed rolls, if both character's succeed, with one rolling a Critical Success, and the other rolling a standard success, does the Critical Success 'trump' the rule that the character who rolls highest under his skill wins the test ?

If not, what's the justification for the Critical notwinning the opposed roll ?

 

[iamtim]

In Opposed rolls, if both character's succeed, with one rolling a Critical Success, and the other rolling a standard success, does the Critical Success 'trump' the rule that the character who rolls highest under his skill wins the test ?

According to the rules on page 20 of the main rulebook if both characters succeed, the character who rolled the highest wins.

That said, the rules on crits on page 19 state that the actual affect of the crit is up to the GM (although some "normal" results are given). So I would say that if you want crits to trump regular successes, go for it. You're the GM, you make that call.

 

[atgxtg]

Hi folks,

I know this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure what the topic was.

In Opposed rolls, if both character's succeed, with one rolling a Critical Success, and the other rolling a standard success, does the Critical Success 'trump' the rule that the character who rolls highest under his skill wins the test ?

If not, what's the justification for the Critical notwinning the opposed roll ?

The justification in the rules, is that you don't get critical results in opposed rolls, only in upossed rolls. Oppsed rolls are either a success or a failure, and the winner is determined by the result sof the opposed process. So if one character rolled and succeded with a 50, and the other rolled and succeded with a 60, the 60 wins and the 50 lodses. If the first character had rolled an 05, it wouldn not be considered a critical, just a rather poor successful roll.

THe player's Guide PDF mentions that only one of the 3results listed on page 20 are allowed/possible with the opposed system.

 

[iamtim]

THe player's Guide PDF mentions that only one of the 3results listed on page 20 are allowed/possible with the opposed system.

Right.

I don't think it actually says that crits don't apply to opposed rolls in the actual rulebook, though, and I don't think Melkor cares too much for the Players Guide. Which is why I left it out.

 

[Melkor]

Thanks for the info guys.

I was all set to ignore the Player's Guide PDF, and run with a two roll system until I realized a flaw, and slapped myself in the forehead.

Criticals. What if the attacker rolls a critical with the first roll, but not with the second. What then ? Two rolls works fine in the case of fail/fail because it's still a hit...but it's messed up on the critical end of the spectrum for the attacker. For some reason, I didn't notice that until last night.

So I bought the Companion and Rune of Chaos today...but I'm still unhappy with ignoring the Overextended and straight Riposte results on the table. It's just a little think that really sticks in my craw about MRQ. :?

 

[Lord Twig]

My fix for this (and I think others use this as well) is that I require a defense to be declared before the success or failure of that attack has been determined.

Works perfectly.

Well, I also added a fumble line to my charts. So now it is 4x4 instead of 3x3, but it feels more like RQ with fumbles in there.

You can find my charts here:
http://www.cyberkeep.org/runequest/Combat_charts.pdf

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yep, that's how I do it as well.
Intent to attack triggers a reaction, then the rolls are made.

I also allow criticals to trump normal successes on an opposed test. If both critical then highest roll wins. If both fail the winner is the one who rolled nearest to their target number.
A failure beats a fumble, if both fumble then lowest roll wins.

It's worked well for the past few weeks.

 

[iamtim]

I also allow criticals to trump normal successes on an opposed test.

Opposed tests are my least favorite aspect of MRQ. Everything else I can see the design objective -- or a logical reasoning -- for the way it was done. I just can't see it for opposed tests, though. If both rolls succeed the highest wins? I can't see the reasoning for that, especially when crits are attained by rolling low.

I'm seriously considering scrapping that and going with degrees of success: if both rolls succeed, the one with the biggest difference between skill level and roll wins, with crits trumping successes.

 

[HyrumOWC]

I also allow criticals to trump normal successes on an opposed test.

Opposed tests are my least favorite aspect of MRQ. Everything else I can see the design objective -- or a logical reasoning -- for the way it was done. I just can't see it for opposed tests, though. If both rolls succeed the highest wins? I can't see the reasoning for that, especially when crits are attained by rolling low.

I'm seriously considering scrapping that and going with degrees of success: if both rolls succeed, the one with the biggest difference between skill level and roll wins, with crits trumping successes.

The problem comes with rolling low for crits.

Having the highest wins makes it so it isn't a "race to the bottom". If someone with Stealth of 90% is opposed by a Perception of 25%, it's hard to compare the two as they're both racing for the lowest roll. If Perception guy succeeds, he'll most likely win the contest.

However, if crits were something like doubles under your skill, it fixes things a lot.

Hyrum.

 

[iamtim]

Having the highest wins makes it so it isn't a "race to the bottom". If someone with Stealth of 90% is opposed by a Perception of 25%, it's hard to compare the two as they're both racing for the lowest roll. If Perception guy succeeds, he'll most likely win the contest.

I'm not sure I follow you. I'm not saying go for low roll, I'm saying go for beating your skill level by the greatest margin.

If both Stealth and Perception guy succeed in their rolls with Stealth guy rolling a 42, and Perception guy rolling a 19, Stealth guy wins because (90-42=48) > (25-19=6).

That's what I was getting at.

 

[Elandyll]

My fix for this (and I think others use this as well) is that I require a defense to be declared before the success or failure of that attack has been determined.

Works perfectly.

Well, I also added a fumble line to my charts. So now it is 4x4 instead of 3x3, but it feels more like RQ with fumbles in there.

You can find my charts here:
http://www.cyberkeep.org/runequest/Combat_charts.pdf

That's how I intend to do it, and thanks for the table, Very RQ-esque indeed

 

[Arkat]

I think the intent is that if both succeed on a skill test then whoever made the test by the biggest margin wins.

Having to declare a defense prior to rolling means your spending a reaction prior to rolling and likely a good deal of the time wasting it when your opponent misses you.

I rather like not having to roll a parry or dodge until an attack is going to be successful. I think all I will be doing is modifying the chart so that if an attack misses and the parry misses it doesn't suddenly become a hit as it suggests on the table. If you miss, you miss. If your opponent fumbles the parry then letting the attack hit (at minimal or normal damage, haven't decided) would be more reminiscent of the older RQ rules.

 

[atgxtg]

Thanks for the info guys.

I was all set to ignore the Player's Guide PDF, and run with a two roll system until I realized a flaw, and slapped myself in the forehead.

Criticals. What if the attacker rolls a critical with the first roll, but not with the second. What then ? Two rolls works fine in the case of fail/fail because it's still a hit...but it's messed up on the critical end of the spectrum for the attacker. For some reason, I didn't notice that until last night.

That is why I think the orginal intent was to have the first roll be an opposed roll and the second one determine the qaulkity of the success. I spsupect Mongoose was going to use thier poosed system for everything, but spotted a flaw and did a last minute change.

Notice the phase "Attack succeds and becomes critical hit on the combat matrix. That makes sense if it followed an opposed roll. SO does the attacker scoreing damage on "failed" attacks. It even makes the parring damages more sensible, since a "real parry" would have meant
that the defender had one the oppsed rolls and was goinhg to suffer no damage.

My pet theory, and it is just a theory is that as the ramifications of skill having became known opposed rolls were taken out of combat. I believe that it occured in the "13th hour" rather than the "11th", pretty much everything is the game becomes consistient, inclduing the examples of play if one assumes that two rolls was the way Mongoose was going with combat.

ONe problem with both the opposed roll/no crits concept and my theory is grappling. In the book it states that once an attacker hits, an opposed roll is made and results matrixed on the table. And on that table are critcal results.

 

[Melkor]

That is why I think the orginal intent was to have the first roll be an opposed roll and the second one determine the qaulkity of the success. I spsupect Mongoose was going to use thier poosed system for everything, but spotted a flaw and did a last minute change.[/qoute]

Notice the phase "Attack succeds and becomes critical hit on the combat matrix. That makes sense if it followed an opposed roll. SO does the attacker scoreing damage on "failed" attacks. It even makes the parring damages more sensible, since a "real parry" would have meant
that the defender had one the oppsed rolls and was goinhg to suffer no damage.

Interesting thought atgxtg - so how would combat have worked in that light (mind spelling out an example - I'm not quite following it).

My pet theory, and it is just a theory is that as the ramifications of skill having became known opposed rolls were taken out of combat. I believe that it occured in the "13th hour" rather than the "11th", pretty much everything is the game becomes consistient, inclduing the examples of play if one assumes that two rolls was the way Mongoose was going with combat.

That's the one thing that bothers me about MRQ. I really like the system, and think it can do pretty much any fantasy setting I want to do....but the way some of the rules seem a bit strange, some of the examples seem like they weren't just mistakes in the book (but actually worked before a change was made to the system), and some of Matt's comments and the changes made in the Player's Guide PDF seem to read - just kind of makes me think that at some point, the rules worked quite differently (and possible worked better), but they ended up being changed late in production. That left things in a bit of disarray (like the Parry/Dodge table results I'm sure you guys are all sick of hearing me mention).

How are you handling your combats now atgxtg ?

I haven't decided what I am going to do - I thought I was set until I had the epiphany that two rolls would cause problems with the criticals....I'm thinking I might use your 'Partial/Full' success model now.