High opposing skills. The Pendragon method

[duncan_disorderly]

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

It was your use of "Simulate" that worried me... I yhought that rather than look at each possible outcome you had set of a random number generator to compare two numbers a few hundred times and used the outcome of that as your answer

 

[soltakss]

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%

I can never trust calculations where someone has looked at a pair of figures and gone "well that looks as though this will be the result", which is basically what you seem to have done.

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...)

Don't use a spreadsheet, as it is too complicated - believe me!

I put some figures in a Progress program (although VB or any other language would do as well) and got the general result:

• Roll Best is equivalent to Roll High
  Roll High and Roll Low both have problems
  It is better to take into account Criticals when using Roll Low, or any other method
  Re-roll two failures is better than using a degree of success method
  Having two failures as a tie is better than forcing a result

But, the best way of calculating them is using 2 loops of 1-100 and absolutely comparing the result for each chance-pair. It doesn't take too long unless you are comparing multiple chance-pairs. You simply work out who has won each percentile-pair, add them up and that gives you the result. Output the results to a spreadsheet, by all means.

I suppose you could do a spreadsheet with 100 lines and 100 columns and work out the result for each combo, but then you'd have to total them up at the end and analyse them. It's a lot easier with a program.

 

[Rurik]

I posted this formula last August. It does not take criticals into account, but they change the actual adds very little (and complicate the math a lot).

In the gormula C2 and B2 mean C squared and B squared respectively - I just can't superscript here.

The bit on switching to High Roll wins is for fail/fail results. To modify the results results to reflect going with low roll wins on Success/Success use subtract the following from the base (rules as written) result:

(A - B) X B

I was working on a similar results and would like to post the following formula for calculating chances of winning an opposed roll, in case anyone wants to use them)

A=Higher skill
B=Lower Skill
C=100-A (for the range above the attackers skill)

The formula for A's % to win according to the rules as is is:
A + ((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

The Chance of a Tie is (B+C)/100

To simulate the effect of changing High Roll Wins on a Fail/Fail, add to A's chances the following:

((A - B) X C)/100.

Don't know if anyone wants them, but they are what I have been using.

EDIT:
These results jive with BlueJays calculator, but do NOT take a 95% cap into account, so if you enter a result above 95 it will not jive. Simply reduce A to 95 (or whatever the cap should be after halving for very high skills).

You can use the calculator to generate the chance of success and add to it the ((A - B) X C)/100 to simulate High Roll Wins).

So with RAW (High Roll Wins on Success/Success and Low Wins on Fail/Fail)

A=90%, B=50% A wins 77.7% of the time.
A=70%, B=25% A wins 71.1% of the time.

Switching to Low Wins on Success/Success and Fail/Fail yields:

A=90%, B=50% A wins 57.7% of the time (!)
A=70%, B=25% A wins 59.85% of the time.

 

[Arlaten]

Contested rolls

I like Simon’s way, but I would tinker with it a bit to include all of the advantages of the Hero Quest system.

Call your percentage chance the Target Number (TN). (In this example, it will be 230% - the opponent will have 165%). Define each 100 percent as a Mastery Level. Therefore, you have two mastery levels and your opponent has one Mastery Level. Now for each level of Mastery one opponent has over another give them an extra ‘bump’ of success. One bump of success would raise a ‘failure’ result to a ‘success’ result for example.

A result of 95% to 100% is always a failure (you always have this conceptual problem in a roll under system), even if your TN is between 95 and 100.

First subtract the Mastery Levels from each other (giving you a TN of 30 and your opponent a TN of 65). You get an extra ‘bump’ of success when you roll.

You roll and fail your roll. Your opponent rolls and fails his roll. However, you get a ‘bump’ of success, so your result is actually a success. You win the contest.

Lets say you have 230% and your opponent has 190%.

First subtract mastery levels giving you a TN of 130 and your opponent a TN of 90. You must still roll because a result of 95 – 100 is always a failure.

Your opponent gets a success and you roll a 98 (a failure). However, your failure is ‘bumped up’ to a success, leaving a tie between the two of you. In cases of ties that are successes of the same success level (two successes, two specials, two criticals), the lowest roll wins. In the freak event that both players roll the same number there actually is a tie of some kind.

When you use this method you can use the Extended Contest rules of HeroQuest (which I will not give here) that have so many different applications.

 

[Quire]

Now I'm starting to feel like a real dumbass. My results are always close to most everyone else's, but never identical. And I get nearer to Rurik's results using my calculations than I can using his! I'm obviously missing something about Rurik's gormula (sorry, but I love that typo).

Does anyone actually want to see how I go about calculating my results? It's not pretty, but I think it works...at least, I DID...

- Q

 

[Deleriad]

There's a very important reason I wouldn't add all the machinery of the HQ system to RQ opposed rolls. In HQ, everything is an opposed roll, therefore you both need and can cope with a lengthy system. In RQ as written, opposed rolls are actually a very small minority of percentile rolls. Consequently you would end up with a complex standard system, a complex combat system and a complex opposed rolls system; too many systems and too much complexity. I started to go that way myself a few years ago until the players started to complain and I realised that I had lost track of what is meant to be an essentially simple, intuitive system.

You could turn RQ skills into a purely opposed roll systems and use HQ but then you get a sub-par version of HQ system rolled using percentile dice. That said, the problem with MRQ is that it feels very first-draft. It has too many different ways to roll d100 at the moment and treats each one rather shallowly. I would like to see some rationalisation and I hope that Space Quest provides it.

 

[Rurik]

Now I'm starting to feel like a real dumbass. My results are always close to most everyone else's, but never identical. And I get nearer to Rurik's results using my calculations than I can using his! I'm obviously missing something about Rurik's gormula (sorry, but I love that typo).

Does anyone actually want to see how I go about calculating my results? It's not pretty, but I think it works...at least, I DID...

- Q

:shock: If you follow my gormula you should get exactly my results.

Post away your method. I'd love to see it. I'm a Mathocist.

 

[Quire]

:shock: If you follow my gormula you should get exactly my results.

Post away your method. I'd love to see it. I'm a Mathocist.

And when it comes to maths, I'm a masochist.

So, in your gormula, where's the missing bracket meant to be?

A + ((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

I'll write up my galculations and PM them to you.

- Q

 

[Rurik]

:shock: If you follow my gormula you should get exactly my results.

Post away your method. I'd love to see it. I'm a Mathocist.

And when it comes to maths, I'm a masochist.

So, in your gormula, where's the missing bracket meant to be?

A + ((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

There:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

Or there:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

Or maybe there:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

I can't tell.

I'll write up my galculations and PM them to you.

- Q

Gank You.

 

[Quire]

There:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

Or there:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

Or maybe there:
A + (((C2 - C) - (B2 + B))/200)

I can't tell.

:lol:

Gank You.

You're gelcome. On their way shortly.

- Q

 

[Arlaten]

There's a very important reason I wouldn't add all the machinery of the HQ system to RQ opposed rolls. In HQ, everything is an opposed roll, therefore you both need and can cope with a lengthy system. In RQ as written, opposed rolls are actually a very small minority of percentile rolls. Consequently you would end up with a complex standard system, a complex combat system and a complex opposed rolls system; too many systems and too much complexity. I started to go that way myself a few years ago until the players started to complain and I realised that I had lost track of what is meant to be an essentially simple, intuitive system.

I wasn't thinking of making everything an opposed roll. You keep the same mechanics of percentile rolls, but your opposed rolls are set up so that you can do extended resolutions, if you want or need to. I like RQ better than HQ.

However, if you had a situation, for instance, where you were climbing the side of a difficult cliff, or if you were arguing with someone to gain public advantage, it might be nice to have opposed rolls following a system that would allow for it. We ran into this situation several times in the campaigns we had, and we really didn't have a good way of resolving it. In one situation the players needed some kind of way to get in to see the Count (he wouldn't see just anyone) and the characters weren't local. They developed an ingenious method of seeing him where they challenged his best counselors to debates on warfare and honor. They wanted to make his counselors seem a bit foolish, so the count would see that they were not just traveling riffraff. The GM noted that to make his court look too foolish could be worse for them than to not do anything at all. It became a challenging task. How do you roleplay an argument about which you know little or nothing at all (but your character is supposed to)?

It was difficult for the GM to devise a method to play this out...the HQ extended opposed roll would have been great for this.

 

[soltakss]

However, if you had a situation, for instance, where you were climbing the side of a difficult cliff, or if you were arguing with someone to gain public advantage, it might be nice to have opposed rolls following a system that would allow for it. We ran into this situation several times in the campaigns we had, and we really didn't have a good way of resolving it. In one situation the players needed some kind of way to get in to see the Count (he wouldn't see just anyone) and the characters weren't local. They developed an ingenious method of seeing him where they challenged his best counselors to debates on warfare and honor. They wanted to make his counselors seem a bit foolish, so the count would see that they were not just traveling riffraff. The GM noted that to make his court look too foolish could be worse for them than to not do anything at all. It became a challenging task. How do you roleplay an argument about which you know little or nothing at all (but your character is supposed to)?

That's the problem with roleplaying to extremes. If you know nothing about a subject yet your character does, how do you handle it? That's where dice rolling comes into play. If you've thought of a groovy argument that makes your case, then that should give you a bonus, or if it's rubbish that should give you a penalty. Then roll the dice.

It was difficult for the GM to devise a method to play this out...the HQ extended opposed roll would have been great for this.

Maybe, but I've never really liked the Extended Contest rules. I'd just have rolled each argument separately, added up the number of victories against the number of defeats and judged accordingly. For instance, if they were arguing against the Lawspeaker, Warband Leader, Vizier and High Priest, to mix a few terms up, and defeated the Lawspeaker and Vizier, tied with the High Priest and lost to the Warband leader, you might judge that they had the law on their side, couldn't make a religious argument but were perceived as a tactical threat. They would be allowed in (50% success) but the Warband Leader would not trust them, which might be important later on.

 

[Arlaten]

soltakss wrote:

Maybe, but I've never really liked the Extended Contest rules. I'd just have rolled each argument separately, added up the number of victories against the number of defeats and judged accordingly. For instance, if they were arguing against the Lawspeaker, Warband Leader, Vizier and High Priest, to mix a few terms up, and defeated the Lawspeaker and Vizier, tied with the High Priest and lost to the Warband leader, you might judge that they had the law on their side, couldn't make a religious argument but were perceived as a tactical threat. They would be allowed in (50% success) but the Warband Leader would not trust them, which might be important later on.

Thats what our GM did and it worked out very interesting. Maybe extended contests ARE to canned to allow for some good roleplaying. Another thing is that it's fun and challenging to try some home grown rules once in a while.