Contested rolls past 100%

[Gnarsh]

I'd take a completely different approach. At 100%, IMO, you have mastered a skill: so a swordsman with 100% 1H Sword can pretty much hit all the time (96-00 always fails), a rider with 100% Riding never falls off etc...
The same can be said of skills at 200% or 500%. So, to me, it doesn't seem right to assume that a skill of 200% is twice as good as a skill of 100% (however odd that may seem). The only advantage the 200% skill has over the 100% skill is that it criticals twice as often.

Sure. Except that it costs the same amount of skill increases to go from 100%-200% as it takes to go from 0-100%. The question you really need to ask in game terms is "Should the value of X amount of experience be equal for all ranges of skill?". If the answer is "yes" (which I think it should be), then the subtraction method makes the most sense. You're basically saying that it's the difference in skill level that matters, not the ratio (at least once skills progress past 100%).

If the only benefit one gained from having skills over 100% was that they could critical more often, then you really need to counter that by making it easier to improve skills once you reach that level. Perhaps allow one to "split" exp increase points allowing one to use it to either increase one skill under 100%, or two skills over. This will seem totally backwards to most past RQ players, but that's really the only sane solution (or something like it). In past versions of RQ, you got a skill increase chance any/ever time you used that skill (and it applied only for that skill). So having high skills somewhat automatically cancelled out the fact that your chance to go up decreased and the value of each gain was lessened past 100%.

In MRQ, you're forced to pick and choose where to put your skill increases (assuming you follow the base rules). Why on earth would anyone spend points to increase his perception past 100%, if any other skill was sitting at less then 100%? The problem with this is that the game can devolve into the "tank/mage" syndrome. Experienced characters will be measured not by their focus on a few specific types of skills appropriate to their profession (whatever that may be), but will end up all looking very very similar. They'll all have 100% in the common important skills, a couple weapon skills, and whatever sundry spellcasting skills they use. They'll do this because the value of having two skills at 100% will always be greater then the value of having one skill at 200%...

Apply that across a longish campaign, and you'll end up with "genericcharacter" syndrome. Making skills over 100% really useful for those who have them encourages players to focus on a smaller set of skills. So, even though there are no classes in the game, those that focus on fighting will be signficantly better then those who don't. Those who focus on spellcasting will be better then those that dont. Those who focus on stealth will be better then those who don't. And no one can focus on all of those things. But you have to both make gaining skills over 100% doable *and* make the skills over 100% a big advantage for that character that has them.'


The subtraction rule works really really well for this. If that warrior has spent the time and experience points (by whatever name you call them) to raise his weapon skill to 200%, and he's facing someone who spent his points on other things instead and is only at 100%, the first character *should* be able to fight circles around the second. Giving him a benefit that basically gives him a 10% greater chance to critical really isn't that big of an advantage at all...

 

[JohnLokiBeard]

I'm not netted up at home, so I won't see anyone elses thoughts on this until next year, but try this over the holidays.
Critical beats Success beats Fail beats Fumbles [as most folk are already using for opposed rolls]
In the event of a tie at this stage [assuming that "It's a draw" is not a reasonable outcome to the contest in question] the highest skill being rolled against wins
if still tied, then highest actual skill wins

e.g. Adam has skill 125%, Ben has skill 130%.
Adam can win by rolling a success vs Ben's Failure etc.
Ben will usually win any ties, unless he's suffering a penalty of -6% or more at the time of the contest.

No halving needed for 100%+, no "is my roll successful by a wider margin?" maths needed, highest skill is usually the winner. Might not be granular enough for some people, but works for me, I can get on with the action instead of slowing down to do sums.

 

[Gnarsh]

e.g. Adam has skill 125%, Ben has skill 130%.
Adam can win by rolling a success vs Ben's Failure etc.
Ben will usually win any ties, unless he's suffering a penalty of -6% or more at the time of the contest.

Except that this creates a "5% to succeed" for the lower skilled guy pretty much no matter the difference in skill. If it's "bad" for someone to get that 5/95 ratio effect if he's 100% higher then the other guy in a subtraction system (typically the number one complaint about it), then it's vastly worse to have it occur even if the higher skill guy is 1% higher.

The lower skilled guy will *never* have a better chance to critical then the higher skilled guy. He'll never have a lower chance to fumble. For skills over 100%, they'll both have the same chance of failing. I've mentioned many many times that I dislike "lucky guy wins" solutions to skill rolls. This solution is worse then that because it's "high guy wins unless low guy gets really lucky...".

I know that the point was to reduce the calculations and whatnot during a roll, but that's a bit much IMO. We're playing a role playing game, not chutes and ladders. I think that most of the people playing the game can add and subtract. Let's not dumb it down. I'm all for simpler rules, but to me that means "fewer steps to reach a resolution", not "no math". It's why I advocate a subtraction system for skill contests. It's *one* step. It always accurately measures the difference in character skill. And it's a mechanic you already use during play anyway (there's a whole table of bunuses and subtractions to apply to skills based on varying conditions). Subtraction does not add any extra mechanics to the resolution. That's why it's a "simple" solution. It does require some math, but it's not that hard IMO...

 

[gamesmeister]

I find the most elegant solution is to compare the quality of success of both contestants - Critical beats success beats failure beats fumble. Ties are ties.

It's the last bit that's the problem i.e ties are ties - there are many scenarios where a tie is no good.

For example, I roll against my Sneak, and you roll against your Perception. If we both succeed, how do you resolve the tie? If you see me, that's equivalent to you winning the opposed roll. If you don't see me, that's equivalent to me winning - there is no middle ground.

Rerolling ties seems like the best option, but there is a danger that you could keep rerolling forever, waiting for someone to get a crit or roll 96-00.

I was thinking that rerolling would be a more viable option if the old special successes still existed (i.e. if you roll less than 20% of your skill without rolling a crit). However, trying to roll less than 20% could still take some time, and get rather boring.

It then occurred to me that 20% is a rather arbitary number, and there's no reason why you couldn't make it higher for the purposes of opposed rolls e.g. 50%.

In other words, for opposed rolls, if we assume criticals beat successes which beat failures which beat fumbles, why not introduce a subcategory in the middle equal to 50% of your target number - call it a 'major success'. So now criticals beat major successes which beat successes which beat failures which beat fumbles.

Now you can reroll until you get a winner, which you'll almost certainly get with no more than a couple of attempts, and I think it keeps the maths intact too (although I guess it could take a few attempts if both characters have very low skills).

Note that once both characters start to approach 200%, you might need to tweak it again, but let's face it, if you play long enough to get that high a skill, you can cope with a bit more tweaking.

Another whacky idea brought to you in association with Gamesmeister Productions Ltd...

 

[Utgardloki]

The problem of a "tie" in an opposed context has always vexed me. If a tie makes sense, then just tick off a combat action and continue. But if a tie does not make sense, then who wins.

My thought is to give a tie to whoever has the higher default chance of success. Is this fair? It means that you have to be better than a guy who is bigger/stronger/faster/more intelligent/etc than you if you want a good chance of winning.

I've heard it said that in a fight between two equally skilled fighters, the bigger guy will usually win. (I wouldn't know from experience -- and it also begs the question of how, in real life, you KNOW two fighters are equally skilled.)

There is also a problem of what happens if the default chances are also equal (say two characters of the same STR and SIZ are wrestling). In that case, I think I'd just say "roll straight D100s until somebody beats the other. This only applies if the result HAS to be resolved without a tie."

 

[duncan_disorderly]

-- and it also begs the question of how, in real life, you KNOW two fighters are equally skilled.

You look at their character sheets... :lol:

 

[Dr. Halflight]

I'd take a completely different approach. At 100%, IMO, you have mastered a skill: so a swordsman with 100% 1H Sword can pretty much hit all the time (96-00 always fails), a rider with 100% Riding never falls off etc...
The same can be said of skills at 200% or 500%. So, to me, it doesn't seem right to assume that a skill of 200% is twice as good as a skill of 100% (however odd that may seem). The only advantage the 200% skill has over the 100% skill is that it criticals twice as often.

I've been thinking along similar lines & come up with some ideas, but I haven't playtested them yet, so you've been warned:

A) Basically Criticals (success or failure) occur when the Ones Die comes up a Zero. Once you hit 100%, your only improving Critical Range. Every 5 Successful Improvement rolls for a Skill at 100%, adds another Critical Result to the Ones Die (i.e. at 5 Successful Improvements rolls I Crit on 0 & a 1, at 10 Successful Improvement I crit on 0, 1, & 2, etc.)

This goes along with an alternative basic opposed system where if both characters succeed, High Roll wins; If one character succeeds & one fails, the succeeding character wins; However, if both fail, look at the One die & the high number wins.

Character A has a 67%, A rolls a 72
Character B has an 49%, B rolls an 89

B wins, since his Ones die is higher.

I haven't playtested this yet, but with Lankhmar looming, hopefully I will soon.

Doc

 

[iamtim]

A: 100% vs B: 50% skill:
A wins 70.125% of the time. (this isn't 75%, because a roll of 96-100% on A's part still loses)

A: 102% vs B: 50% skill.
A wins 59.88% of the time.

Breaking 100% skill makes you worse at contested skills.

Thus, clearly the "halve both skills" system is junk.

Observe as I completely bypass the four pages of this thread to put in my $.02, regardless of whether it's been said or not! Ha ha!

It's not junk. A is 49% better than B at 102% vs. 50%. A is 49% better than B at 51% vs. 25%. The relative degree of difference (I don't know what else to call it) is intact over the halving. It's all in how you look at it.

That said, I don't use either skill halving or high roll wins as my "solution"; they both seem counter-intuitive to me. I just use a straight d% roll regardless of the skill level -- crits beat successes, successes beat failures. In the case of similar success levels (i.e. both crit, or both succeed), he who beat his skill level by the most wins.

This certainly gives one heck of a boon to the 150% character when going against a 25% character, but IMHO that's the way it should be.

 

[simonh]

I'd take a completely different approach. At 100%, IMO, you have mastered a skill: so a swordsman with 100% 1H Sword can pretty much hit all the time (96-00 always fails), a rider with 100% Riding never falls off etc...

This completely ignores external modifiers, i.e. the relative difficulty of the task. Is he 100% likely to hit any target under any conditions? Presumably not. In the rules, and in all previous versions of RQ, it's conferred only a 95% chance under a fairly loosely defined basic level of difficulty.

I've been thinking along similar lines & come up with some ideas, but I haven't playtested them yet, so you've been warned:

A) Basically Criticals (success or failure) occur when the Ones Die comes up a Zero. Once you hit 100%, your only improving Critical Range. Every 5 Successful Improvement rolls for a Skill at 100%, adds another Critical Result to the Ones Die (i.e. at 5 Successful Improvements rolls I Crit on 0 & a 1, at 10 Successful Improvement I crit on 0, 1, & 2, etc.)

That seems very generous. Under the current rules that measn that a skill increase from 100% up to 150% increases your crit chance from 10% all the way up to 100%!