atgxtg said:I'm all for this!
But, we would have to add in critical rules for opposed rolls (by the book can't critical in opposed tests).
If the difference is greater than 100, the highest has a flat 95% chance of winning.
Otherwise, subtract a multiple of 100 from each to bring them both back to a 1 to 100 scale, then resolve as normal.
GbajiTheDeceiver said:The key problem here is that it's not a simple success chance, it's an opposition. The conflict resolution system is meant to mimic the Resistance Table, and so far the only one that's mathematically identical is the one I proposed in another thread:
If the difference is greater than 100, the highest has a flat 95% chance of winning.
Otherwise, subtract a multiple of 100 from each to bring them both back to a 1 to 100 scale, then resolve as normal.
Quick, clean, simple, and mathematically identical to the Resistance Table.
GbajiTheDeceiver said:If the difference is greater than 100, the highest has a flat 95% chance of winning.
Otherwise, subtract a multiple of 100 from each to bring them both back to a 1 to 100 scale, then resolve as normal.
Quick, clean, simple, and mathematically identical to the Resistance Table.
simonh said:What do you do if one character has say a 90% chance and the other has 110%? Giving the higher skilled guy a 95% chance of success is unfair, and you can't deduct 100 from the guy with 90% either.
The resistance table approach is to add the difference between the skills to 50, and that's the chance of the higher skilled character winning. In this example the target number would be 70%.
Also, the resistance table used a single die for resolution which will give a flat statistical spread. Any system that uses two rolls combined will produce a statistical bell curve in the results.
Simon Hibbs
simonh said:The resistance table approach is to add the difference between the skills to 50, and that's the chance of the higher skilled character winning.
What then?
Good point, I hadn't actually thought of that. Very good point on the bell curve too.simonh said:GbajiTheDeceiver said:If the difference is greater than 100, the highest has a flat 95% chance of winning.
Otherwise, subtract a multiple of 100 from each to bring them both back to a 1 to 100 scale, then resolve as normal.
Quick, clean, simple, and mathematically identical to the Resistance Table.
What do you do if one character has say a 90% chance and the other has 110%? Giving the higher skilled guy a 95% chance of success is unfair, and you can't deduct 100 from the guy with 90% either.
The resistance table approach is to add the difference between the skills to 50, and that's the chance of the higher skilled character winning. In this example the target number would be 70%.
Also, the resistance table used a single die for resolution which will give a flat statistical spread. Any system that uses two rolls combined will produce a statistical bell curve in the results.
Simon Hibbs
SteveMND said:Well, exactly what you would think -- the higher-skilled guy wins.
iamtim said:SteveMND said:Well, exactly what you would think -- the higher-skilled guy wins.
Right. Exactly.
Or why not roll just to insure the equivalent of a fumble isn't rolled?
atgxtg said:I don't mind this idea. It is just that it won't handle the 150 vs 120 stuff.
atgxtg said:The table used to cap off at 5%/95% to give each side some chance of the unexpected.
You know, we could use this idea with two sides rolling. It would slant things in favor of the greater skiilled character though. We would just have to say that the contest continied until one side or the other missed the roll.
SO with the 125% vs 25%, it would be 95% vs 5% (ths is similar to someone elses idea-I think it was Lord Twig's). Both sides would roll until one side failed (probably the 5%).
Utgardloki said:The rules that I am considering are the following:
1. A success beats a failure, and a critical success beats a success or a failure. Ties go to the defender.
2. The attacker can subtract a quantity from her role, and force the defender to subtract the same quantity from his role. The attacker can not reduce her chance below 50% in this way.
3. Somebody will be assigned the role of attacker and somebody the role of defender, by GM fiat if need be. The attacker is normally the one who makes the roll necessary (the thief trying to sneak past the sentry, for example).
Lord Twig said:atgxtg said:The table used to cap off at 5%/95% to give each side some chance of the unexpected.
You know, we could use this idea with two sides rolling. It would slant things in favor of the greater skiilled character though. We would just have to say that the contest continied until one side or the other missed the roll.
SO with the 125% vs 25%, it would be 95% vs 5% (ths is similar to someone elses idea-I think it was Lord Twig's). Both sides would roll until one side failed (probably the 5%).
Not my idea. Mine was the one where you could roll again with a -100 to your skill if you had over a 100% skill and add your results. As far as I know this would give you the best (most consistent) improvement curve over any other method suggested so far. And it would give you a final result without having to roll for a test again.