High opposing skills. The Pendragon method

[Rurik]

One solution to picking things up/arm wrestling is to give a +5/-5 modifer per point of difference in the relative stat.

Example:

Bob, Str 11, Athletics 80% vs Bill, Str 17, Athletics 30%.

Bob gets -30 and Bill gets +30, so the adjusted skills are Bob 50% and Bill 60%.

Bobs superior skill is enough to almost even up the odds against Bills massive Strength.

Keeps the spirit of the resistence table with opposed skill rolls. I'm not saying every opposed skill needs to be resolved this way, but at GM's discretion a stat modifier could be used if appropriate.

EDIT: Obviously, the stat could be opposed by a different one - lifters STR vs. Boulders SIZ, which would be an unnoposed roll.

 

[Rurik]

EDIT: Fumbled my Lore(Online Forum Use) roll.

 

[Quire]

One solution to picking things up/arm wrestling is to give a +5/-5 modifer per point of difference in the relative stat.

Example:

Bob, Str 11, Athletics 80% vs Bill, Str 17, Athletics 30%.

Bob gets -30 and Bill gets +30, so the adjusted skills are Bob 50% and Bill 60%.

Bobs superior skill is enough to almost even up the odds against Bills massive Strength.

Keeps the spirit of the resistence table with opposed skill rolls. I'm not saying every opposed skill needs to be resolved this way, but at GM's discretion a stat modifier could be used if appropriate.

EDIT: Obviously, the stat could be opposed by a different one - lifters STR vs. Boulders SIZ, which would be an unnoposed roll.

That makes sense. We're taking about brute force (not as a skill, that makes no sense at all) which is STR, and technique, which is Athletics.

Yeah, I like that, Ru.

- Q

 

[Trifletraxor]

But what do you do with the high roll if both fail? Roll again?

It depends on the situation, but essentially, yeah: role-play what would happen if they both fluff it, then have them both try again.

- Q

Say sneak vs. listen? Not really something you could roleplay and then reroll. And what if both suck? You could be rolling for a long time.

SGL.

Edit: the fail vs. fail scenario applies for the higher margin under skill method too. there's many ways of resolving opposed rolls, but i haven't seen an entirely satisfying method yet.

 

[Rurik]

But what do you do with the high roll if both fail? Roll again?

It depends on the situation, but essentially, yeah: role-play what would happen if they both fluff it, then have them both try again.

- Q

Say sneak vs. listen? Not really something you could roleplay and then reroll. And what if both suck? You could be rolling for a long time.

SGL.

Edit: the fail vs. fail scenario applies for the higher margin under skill method too. there's many ways of resolving opposed rolls, but i haven't seen an entirely satisfying method yet.

For opposed rolls that need to be resolved in one roll, yes, whoever fails by the least wins.

I see three kinds of opposed rolls:

1) Must determine winner in one roll (as has been discussed)

2) If both fail the contest can continue (arm wrestling, etc) - in which case time passes (usually just the current round) and both roll again.

3) Cases where both fail is acceptable (picking pockets - I don't get your coin but you don't notice I tried, and we both go on our merry way).

 

[Quire]

Say sneak vs. listen? Not really something you could roleplay and then reroll. And what if both suck? You could be rolling for a long time.

SGL.

But that's an easy one, Trif. The Sneaker is trying to get past a Sentry, and the Sentry is 'hearing' as a matter of course. Both fail their rolls - the Sneaker stubs his toe on a rock, or puts his foot in a puddle, or snaps a twig, just as the Sentry is distracted by an owl hooting. Or he farts. Or flaps his newspaper, or takes a bite of a noisy snack (LOL! something really crunchy, obviously) or whatever.

Phew - the Sneaker fluffed it but got away with it. Roll again.

If it happens three or four times in a row, depending on your mood, have another sentry appear, or make the owl mistake the sneaker's moustache for a juicy mouse. These moments are comedy gold, after all.

- Q

PS - On a Sneak fumble, have the *ucker trip into a well.

 

[Deleriad]

STR vs SIZ:
I had been toying with the idea of saying that, roughly, you can lift SIZ equal to your STR. If you make an Athletics roll then you can lift SIZ up STR+5 and if you make a critical Athletics then you can lift SIZ up to STR+10.
In previous RQ (which MRQ seems to follow looking at creature stats) STR is not a linear measure so the +5/+10 rule seems roughly viable.

There always is a tension between how much of a skill is based on characteristics and how much on learned technique. For example, a highly skilled arm wrestler can probably beat people who are physically stronger but, eventually, superior strength will overwhelm skill. On the other hand, a in a game of chess, superior intelligence quickly loses out to higher skill. This is all rather a pain for RQ and always leads me to think that you don't want to micromanage the relationship between characteristic and skill because it is going to be different for almost every skill.

Rurik's system is a nice clean for one contests but I would slightly tune it to say that if characteristics are involved in an opposed roll then the actor with the higher characteristic gets +10% per point over but there is no effect on the other character. E.g.
Bob, Str 11, Athletics 80% vs Bill, Str 17, Athletics 30%.
Bill is 6 points higher so Bill gets +60% Athletics taking him to 90% while Bob's stays at 80%.
This way GM's can tune it by giving smaller or greater bonuses to reflect different characteristics.
E.g. Marvellous Max (CHA18) and Plain Pete (CHA 10) are both trying to impress a dowager at a dance. Max is dance 40% (he's a pretty face) while Pete's a tango master of 90%. The dowager's a sucker for a pretty face, though. GM gets them to make an opposed dance roll but lets Max get a bonus of +5% for each point of CHA in excess of Pete (+40%). That kind of thing. Doesn't need to be overused but gives the GM more options.

 

[Rurik]

PS - On a Sneak fumble, have the *ucker trip into a well.

I hope you give a pretty harsh penalty to attempting to sneak while *ucking!

 

[Quire]

PS - On a Sneak fumble, have the *ucker trip into a well.

I hope you give a pretty harsh penalty to attempting to sneak while *ucking!

LOL! I'm not even going there, you bad man.

- Q

 

[gamesmeister]

One option I was just mulling over for contests that must produce a result is to modify the passive skill based on the result of the active skill roll

i.e

Sneak vs Perception

Roll Sneak, then modify Perception as follows:

Critical Sneak = Critical Perception required to spot
Successful Sneak = Half Perception or less to spot
Failed Sneak = Full Perception or less to spot
Fumbled Sneak = Automatic spot (possibly make this 96-00 rather than just 00).

Just a thought.

 

[Mugen]

But what do you do with the high roll if both fail? Roll again?

I suggest to simply use the same rule and let the highest roll win in such a case.

Note that by doing so you end up with quite the same probabilities than if you had rolled 1d100+skill and compared the results. You simply replaced 2 additions with 2 comparisons with skill levels.

 

[Mugen]

What about the RQ4 version:

Pitch your critical chance (1/10 of your skill) against eachother on the resistance table? Character with the active skill throws the dice?

And....no. See post above.

I...well...I'm not sure how to tell you guys this but...erm...oh bugger.

I'm probably the only grognard here who is actually OVER THE BLOODY MOON to see the Resistance Table gone.

I really do think opposed rolls are much 'better'.



Sorry, guys.

- Q

Note that Steve Perrin doesn't use those anymore in his SPQR rules either, but rather a "degree of success" system with skill/2, skill/10 and skill/100 thresholds.

 

[Trifletraxor]

AW!!! GOD DAMN!!! you're bloody right.... :evil:

:lol: Thanks mate.

- Q

Wait! Maybe I can retract my statement, I'll try again with the roll low!

The last calculations was based on degrees of success (critical beats success, beats failure, beats fumble), and if both had the same degree of success, lowest roller won.

Now, let say you use the degree of success, but reroll if both roll failures.

A 25%, B 70% (following calculations do not include criticals & fumbles, as they do not make that big an impact, but complicates the math...)
= A wins 22% of the times, B wins 56% of the times, reroll 23% of the times (total chance including rerolls=A 28%, B 72%).
With the A 50%, B 90% example
=A wins 37% of the times, B wins 57% of the times, reroll ~6% of the times (total chance including rerolls=A 39%, B 61%).

I think those fractions are okay!

Now, if you have to deceide the opposed test in one single roll, without any reroll, then use highest roll wins if both roll failures:
A25%-B70%=A 27% of winning, B 73% chance of winning.
A50%-B90%=A 38% chance of winning, B 62% chance of winning.

Roll low is back in for my part!



SGL.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

With roll low, if the character with a 50 skill makes his roll (it doesn't really matter what he rolls for this example), the character with a 90 skill CANNOT WIN if he rolls between a 51 and a 90. With roll high the 90 skill always wins if he rolls a 51-90.

That is a pretty significant difference.

Turn it around.
(Ignoring Criticals)
With a High roll:
The character with a 50% skill CANNOT WIN if his opponent rolls between 51-90
With a Low Roll:
The character with a 90% skill can alwys be beaten by the lower skilled chartacter rolling better, unless he rolls 01%, in which case the lower skilled character still has a chance of forcing a tie...

Now if your Runelords are regularly beating up on Trollkin (Rurik, I'm looking at you...) then this is probably a good thing.
On the other hand if your players are Heroes comprting against mighty foes who regularly outclass them, you might like to adjust the odds in favour of the little guy...

(In Other Words, Roll Low instead of Roll High isn't necessarily Wrong providing you know why you are choosing it!

 

[Trifletraxor]

(In Other Words, Roll Low instead of Roll High isn't necessarily Wrong providing you know why you are choosing it!

If you take a look at my latest calculations, you'll see the opposed roll method with:
*degrees of success (crit beats success beats failure beats fumble), coupled with
*roll lowest under skill
gives very good overall fractions.

If both roll failures, roll over, or use highest roll wins.

So far I'm not able to see any advantages with the other systems compared with this one.

SGL.

 

[Deleriad]

A 25%, B 70% (following calculations do not include criticals & fumbles, as they do not make that big an impact, but complicates the math...)
= A wins 22% of the times, B wins 56% of the times, reroll 23% of the times (total chance including rerolls=A 28%, B 72%).
With the A 50%, B 90% example
=A wins 37% of the times, B wins 57% of the times, reroll ~6% of the times (total chance including rerolls=A 39%, B 61%).

Do you really think that 90% vs 50% should result in the master only beating the apprentice 3 times to 2?
For example, lets say you have two identical twins playing chess with the same characteristics (say they're both INT 15 and Chess is a lore with a base score equal to 15). Say that, roughly, they both had 15 Improvement rolls to go from 15% to 50%. after that, the 90% had roughly 25 Improvement rolls to go from 50 to 90. Say it takes a year to get 5 improvement rolls in chess then Twin A has been playing for 3 years, Twin B has been playing for 8 years. In a best of 5 series, Twin A will win 3 to 2.

To take a different approach, say two characters are armwrestling using the resistance table. Someone with STR18 is 90% (STR*5) vs STR 10 (50%). Using the resistance table, STR 18 wins 90% and STR 10 wins 10%. Using the low roll system, then STR 18 wins 60 times to STR 10 winning 40 times.

The point is that rolling low does not seem to adequately reflect what appears to be the intuitive understanding of the difference between 90% skill and 50% skill. In rough terms, 90% refers to mastering the skill while 50% is apprentice level.

A final example, two characters in a cult are a Rune Lord (90% in all cult skills) and an Initiate (50% in all cult skills). They have a contest of 5 cult skills. The Rune Lord wins 3 of them and the new initiate wins 2 of them. Should an initiate have a realistic chance of beating a Rune Lord at *any* of the cult skills?

The roll under system means that differences in skills are relatively minor. Going from 50 to 90 might take 25 Improvement rolls - all of the rolls granted for 5-6 sessions of play. Yet means that you have gone from winning 50% of your contests against a fellow 50%er to winning 61% of the contests. That's a rather small progression.

 

[Quire]

Wait! Maybe I can retract my statement, I'll try again with the roll low!

So far I'm not able to see any advantages with the other systems compared with [low roll to win].

Have you tried your calculations using a high roll instead, Trif? I think you might be surprised by the results. I was!

- Q

 

[Mugen]

Now, if you have to deceide the opposed test in one single roll, without any reroll, then use highest roll wins if both roll failures:
A25%-B70%=A 27% of winning, B 73% chance of winning.

Are you sure with your calculations ?

I used a simple visual basic program to simulate this, and found 39,5% for A and 60% for B.

With Roll high it was roughly 14% and 85%.

Note that I didn't include Fumbles in my program (but it should not make a big difference) and that I may be wrong myself...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Are you sure with your calculations ?

I used a simple visual basic program to simulate this, and found 39,5% for A and 60% for B.

With Roll high it was roughly 14% and 85%.

At a quick glance, I'd say Mugen's figures are closer.
To simplify even further, I locked at 20% vs 70%, then only looked at the "10's" dice, which meant I could look at the results on a 10 by 10 matrix.
With Roll High, Highest roll wins if both fail the chances are
A- 10%, B - 85%, Tie (both roll 1,2,8,9,or 10) - 5%
With Roll Low, Lowest roll wins if both fail, the chances are
A- 35%, B - 60%, Tie 5%

If you have the time you can work this out accurately by comparing the 1000 combinations generated by 2 d100 rolls and see who would win in each situation (I'd use a spreadsheet if I were you...)

 

[Mugen]

If you have the time you can work this out accurately by comparing the 1000 combinations generated by 2 d100 rolls and see who would win in each situation (I'd use a spreadsheet if I were you...)

That is basically what I asked my computer to do for me