Opposed rolls again

[Deleriad]

I've been thinking about making a change to the opposed rolls rule:
If all parties fail then no one wins and the situation remains as before.

Opposed rolls (not counting dodge, parry, persistence etc which aren't really opposed) aren't actually used that often in MRQ. Main uses I've come across are:
Stealth vs Perception
Influence vs Influence

For example, someone tries to sneak past a guard in reasonable cover (i.e. no modifiers each way). Both parties are 40%. If both parties fail then "nothing changes" the sneaker doesn't sneak effectively but the perceiver is not alert enough to see anyway. If the sneaker is trying to do something outrageous then a "very difficult" modifier of -40% might go to the sneaker and +40% to the perceiver.

Influence vs influence, both at 40%. One person tries to convince the other that he is a good friend of local noble. Both fail and "nothing changes" - i.e. the listener has not been convinced.

If a result is mandatory (e.g. an opposed athletics test for arm wrestling) then after a bout of arm wrestling no one has won so the contest is redone.

This is how opposed rolls first surfaced in Pendragon. It means that, with low-skilled characters, the tendency is for the current state of affairs not to change. With MRQ, with two equally skilled characters then the range of outcomes of 90% vs 90% is basically the same as 40% vs 40%.

Anyone else used this? If so, how did it go?

 

[Rurik]

The way I see it if you want to expand Opposed contests there are three cases that may apply:

1) Single contest must determine winner. As per rules.

2) Contest may extend. Arm wrestling or tug of war for example. If both parties fail there is no winner, a round (or whatever passes) and roll again. Keep goint until a winner is eventually determined.

3) Contest in which both parties failing is a valid result. Pickpocket fails roll and mark fails perception. Both go on their way none the wiser nor richer.

 

[Deleriad]

The way I see it if you want to expand Opposed contests there are three cases that may apply:

1) Single contest must determine winner. As per rules.

2) Contest may extend. Arm wrestling or tug of war for example. If both parties fail there is no winner, a round (or whatever passes) and roll again. Keep goint until a winner is eventually determined.

3) Contest in which both parties failing is a valid result. Pickpocket fails roll and mark fails perception. Both go on their way none the wiser nor richer.

Agreed. Except, I'm not sure case 1 is ever really necessary. For example, tossing a coin in the air would require one side to win and one to lose but that's not really an opposed roll.

What about then, a shell game. 3 shells, one pea. If guesser succeeds he also has to beat the hider. If guesser fails then he fails. It's just that as far as I can tell, you probably never actually need case #1. Case #1 is also the only one that needs a whole rule (if both fail then, RAW, low roll wins) to implement it.

BTW if one person fumbles and the other fails then the other has still failed but the effect of the fumble is likely to be equivalent to the other having won. E.g. sneaker fumble, listener fails. Listener would not have heard anything until the sneaker stood on a cat.

 

[Rurik]

The way I see it if you want to expand Opposed contests there are three cases that may apply:

1) Single contest must determine winner. As per rules.

2) Contest may extend. Arm wrestling or tug of war for example. If both parties fail there is no winner, a round (or whatever passes) and roll again. Keep goint until a winner is eventually determined.

3) Contest in which both parties failing is a valid result. Pickpocket fails roll and mark fails perception. Both go on their way none the wiser nor richer.

Agreed. Except, I'm not sure case 1 is ever really necessary. For example, tossing a coin in the air would require one side to win and one to lose but that's not really an opposed roll.

What about then, a shell game. 3 shells, one pea. If guesser succeeds he also has to beat the hider. If guesser fails then he fails. It's just that as far as I can tell, you probably never actually need case #1. Case #1 is also the only one that needs a whole rule (if both fail then, RAW, low roll wins) to implement it.

BTW if one person fumbles and the other fails then the other has still failed but the effect of the fumble is likely to be equivalent to the other having won. E.g. sneaker fumble, listener fails. Listener would not have heard anything until the sneaker stood on a cat.

I think much of 1 and 2 is preference. Sometimes it is nice to resolve something in one roll, some times it is nice to draw out contests for dramatic effects.

An example of 1 would be a hand of poker using a gambling skill. Someone wins - there is no fail/fail or extended result.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I think much of 1 and 2 is preference. Sometimes it is nice to resolve something in one roll, some times it is nice to draw out contests for dramatic effects.

An example of 1 would be a hand of poker using a gambling skill. Someone wins - there is no fail/fail or extended result.

A 100m sprint is another example, which would be an opposed Atheltics roll. A sprint does not keep going until one person wins.

Or a "performance" based contest - Sing, Dance, Orate etc. While, occasionally it might be possible to have a "Both parties win" or a "It's neck and neck- have another go", in general the job of the judge is determine a single winner...

I'm sure I've discussed this here before.

 

[Deleriad]

A 100m sprint is another example, which would be an opposed Athletics roll. A sprint does not keep going until one person wins.

Or a "performance" based contest - Sing, Dance, Orate etc. While, occasionally it might be possible to have a "Both parties win" or a "It's neck and neck- have another go", in general the job of the judge is determine a single winner...

OK those are good examples. Poker hand would be a good example where a person could win more through luck than judgement.

I'm sure I've discussed this here before.

The wheel of time turns...

The reason, in part, I was interested in this is that back in the day I used to use a RQ3 sorcery system where the sorceror had to pit his skill against the difficulty of the spell. Roughly a spell was 5% difficulty per MP in it. So a sorceror with 60% in his spell cast chance trying to cast a 10MP spell would roll 60 vs 50. Thing is, that's a case where (possibly) you don't want a sorceror to be able to cast a spell even though he failed because the spell "rolled worse" as it were. I was considering porting it to MRQ until I realised that it would have to work differently to standard opposed rolls and MRQ already seems to have too many different ways of resolving d100 contests. Well have to think again.

 

[atgxtg]

I mentioned something like this way back. THe example I used was a guy trying to sneak past a guard. Double failure meant that the guy didn't get past the guard, but the guard didn't notice, so the sneak could either leave, or try again after wating a time.

The big argument for condition #1 was usually things like magical effects-is the target disrupted or not?

 

[Rurik]

The reason, in part, I was interested in this is that back in the day I used to use a RQ3 sorcery system where the sorceror had to pit his skill against the difficulty of the spell. Roughly a spell was 5% difficulty per MP in it. So a sorceror with 60% in his spell cast chance trying to cast a 10MP spell would roll 60 vs 50. Thing is, that's a case where (possibly) you don't want a sorceror to be able to cast a spell even though he failed because the spell "rolled worse" as it were. I was considering porting it to MRQ until I realised that it would have to work differently to standard opposed rolls and MRQ already seems to have too many different ways of resolving d100 contests. Well have to think again.

Here is what I do for spells. The caster rolls his spell. If he succeeds the target rolls his resist, but he needs to roll better than the attackers roll to resist. This way a 100% Resilience/Persistence/Dodge is not basically automatic immunity. Also, a 150% spellcasting is more likely to overcome a 100% resistence than a 50% spellcasting. It is not exactly what you are describing mut maybe you can adapt it to your needs.

I do something similar for combat to determine whether to use the attacker fails or attacker suceeds row of the combat table.

This principle works whether you use High Roll Wins, Low Roll Wins, or Makes Roll by Most approach. I now use the Makes Roll by Most method as it worls well for normal opposed rolls, resisted rolls (spellcasting as described above, but the same method could be used for sneak/perception, etc), or combat. And rolling low is always better. Yay for consistent mechanics!

 

[Rurik]

I mentioned something like this way back. THe example I used was a guy trying to sneak past a guard. Double failure meant that the guy didn't get past the guard, but the guard didn't notice, so the sneak could either leave, or try again after wating a time.

The big argument for condition #1 was usually things like magical effects-is the target disrupted or not?

Except disruption is not opposed, it is an unopposed saving throw, err, resistance check.

Or at least it was, see my spellcasting resist blurb above.

 

[Rurik]

I'm sure I've discussed this here before.

Yeah, having been a regular around here since before the game was released I get that Deja Vu feeling a lot these days.

 

[CharlieMonster]

I've been thinking about making a change to the opposed rolls rule:
If all parties fail then no one wins and the situation remains as before.

Opposed rolls (not counting dodge, parry, persistence etc which aren't really opposed) aren't actually used that often in MRQ. Main uses I've come across are:
Stealth vs Perception
Influence vs Influence

For example, someone tries to sneak past a guard in reasonable cover (i.e. no modifiers each way). Both parties are 40%. If both parties fail then "nothing changes" the sneaker doesn't sneak effectively but the perceiver is not alert enough to see anyway. If the sneaker is trying to do something outrageous then a "very difficult" modifier of -40% might go to the sneaker and +40% to the perceiver.

Influence vs influence, both at 40%. One person tries to convince the other that he is a good friend of local noble. Both fail and "nothing changes" - i.e. the listener has not been convinced.

If a result is mandatory (e.g. an opposed athletics test for arm wrestling) then after a bout of arm wrestling no one has won so the contest is redone.

This is how opposed rolls first surfaced in Pendragon. It means that, with low-skilled characters, the tendency is for the current state of affairs not to change. With MRQ, with two equally skilled characters then the range of outcomes of 90% vs 90% is basically the same as 40% vs 40%.

Anyone else used this? If so, how did it go?
































Only Kidding! (Red Dwarf reference)

 

[atgxtg]

One thing I noticed during my self imposed exile was that a lot of the new threads were revisiting old topics. Not surprising. When someone new joins the board they probably haven't go through every thread to see if the topic had been covered 6-12 months back. Plus a lot of the things that many people don't like, don't have any widely accepted alternatives yet.

I think once a month or so skill having gets raised, or someone mentions something like getting a criticial in an opposed roll, or uses an opposed combat roll for an example.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Influence vs influence, both at 40%. One person tries to convince the other that he is a good friend of local noble. Both fail and "nothing changes" - i.e. the listener has not been convinced.

So if I am "One Person" and I fail my Influence roll then I don't convince the listener, regardless of what he rolls (Not really an opposed roll then...)

What, though if two people are using their influence to persuade a third party to make a decision? (Persuade the cop to arrest person A or Person B? Persuade Someone to turn Left ort Right at the T junction?) If both fail does the third party just stand their dithering? What if both parties have 20% influence and keep rolling failures?

 

[simonh]

Here is what I do for spells. The caster rolls his spell. If he succeeds the target rolls his resist, but he needs to roll better than the attackers roll to resist. This way a 100% Resilience/Persistence/Dodge is not basically automatic immunity. Also, a 150% spellcasting is more likely to overcome a 100% resistence than a 50% spellcasting. It is not exactly what you are describing mut maybe you can adapt it to your needs.

This doesn't take into account using MPs to boost spells through defenses, something that most people discussing magical attacks and defenses don't seem to be taking into account. 100% Resistance is only good if your opponent is low on MPS, otherwise 10 MPS behind the spell with give it a 50% chance of punching through. Since there are fewer reasons to maintain a high MP pool in MRQ, expending MPs to increase the 'penetration' of your spells is a very useful tactic.

 

[gamesmeister]

Here is what I do for spells. The caster rolls his spell. If he succeeds the target rolls his resist, but he needs to roll better than the attackers roll to resist. This way a 100% Resilience/Persistence/Dodge is not basically automatic immunity. Also, a 150% spellcasting is more likely to overcome a 100% resistence than a 50% spellcasting. It is not exactly what you are describing mut maybe you can adapt it to your needs.

This doesn't take into account using MPs to boost spells through defenses, something that most people discussing magical attacks and defenses don't seem to be taking into account. 100% Resistance is only good if your opponent is low on MPS, otherwise 10 MPS behind the spell with give it a 50% chance of punching through. Since there are fewer reasons to maintain a high MP pool in MRQ, expending MPs to increase the 'penetration' of your spells is a very useful tactic.

Overcharging applies a percentage penalty to your opponent's Resist - how is this not taken into account? If you've reduced his resist he's less likely to succeed in his roll and you're more likely to win the opposed roll.

 

[CharlieMonster]

What, though if two people are using their influence to persuade a third party to make a decision? (Persuade the cop to arrest person A or Person B? Persuade Someone to turn Left ort Right at the T junction?) If both fail does the third party just stand their dithering? What if both parties have 20% influence and keep rolling failures?

That would be covered by the "assisted" tests rule. Decide who is "taking the lead" presumably the guy with the highest influence skill and apply a bonus equal to the crit chance (i.e. one tenth) of the other guy's skill. This roll is then made as a usual against the target's influence.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

What, though if two people are using their influence to persuade a third party to make a decision? (Persuade the cop to arrest person A or Person B? Persuade Someone to turn Left ort Right at the T junction?) If both fail does the third party just stand their dithering? What if both parties have 20% influence and keep rolling failures?

That would be covered by the "assisted" tests rule. Decide who is "taking the lead" presumably the guy with the highest influence skill and apply a bonus equal to the crit chance (i.e. one tenth) of the other guy's skill. This roll is then made as a usual against the target's influence.

I'm not talking about Assisted rolls.
You and I are PC's hired to guard a merchant caravan. We get to a river to discover the bridge is out, and the Caravan leader asks us whether we should go upstream (where we may encounter Gagarthi Outlaws) or downstream (towards Troll territory). I say we should go downstream as I think the Argan Argar merchants will recognise us as legitimate traders and we should be able to conduct extra trade with them. You say we should go upstream as you think there are fewer bandits than trolls, and if the worst comes to the worst, the Gagarthi will ransom us, while the trolls will eat us... We both have influence of 20%. How long will the Caravan leader be prepared to let us argue when we both keep rolling high?

 

[Deleriad]

You and I are PC's hired to guard a merchant caravan. We get to a river to discover the bridge is out, and the Caravan leader asks us whether we should go upstream (where we may encounter Gagarthi Outlaws) or downstream (towards Troll territory). I say we should go downstream as I think the Argan Argar merchants will recognise us as legitimate traders and we should be able to conduct extra trade with them. You say we should go upstream as you think there are fewer bandits than trolls, and if the worst comes to the worst, the Gagarthi will ransom us, while the trolls will eat us... We both have influence of 20%. How long will the Caravan leader be prepared to let us argue when we both keep rolling high?

I would be quite happy as a GM to say that neither argument convinced the caravan master. Depending on the NPC's personality I would say that he either dithers and listens for longer, follows his pre-existing belief (if he had one) or makes a random choice.

 

[Rurik]

Here is what I do for spells. The caster rolls his spell. If he succeeds the target rolls his resist, but he needs to roll better than the attackers roll to resist. This way a 100% Resilience/Persistence/Dodge is not basically automatic immunity. Also, a 150% spellcasting is more likely to overcome a 100% resistence than a 50% spellcasting. It is not exactly what you are describing mut maybe you can adapt it to your needs.

This doesn't take into account using MPs to boost spells through defenses, something that most people discussing magical attacks and defenses don't seem to be taking into account. 100% Resistance is only good if your opponent is low on MPS, otherwise 10 MPS behind the spell with give it a 50% chance of punching through. Since there are fewer reasons to maintain a high MP pool in MRQ, expending MPs to increase the 'penetration' of your spells is a very useful tactic.

Boosting with 10MP actually gives the target -100%; it also comes with a -50% penalty to your spellcasting test, and if the casting fails you still lose 11mp (the 1 base loss and the 10 for overcharging). That is a pretty significant risk. If the spell still suceeds, the target can use MP to boost his resistance.

The whole boosting defense thing has always seemed a bit awkward to me. Do you tell the target his penalty before he decides on how many points to boost with? Because there is no roll, this seems kinda unfair. He can just spend as many MP as he needs to raise his resist - though it does take 2 MP to counter every one the attacker used.

I ignored boosting because it adds a lot of complexity to the example - and is not really relevent to the fact that in a straight contest a 100% in a resist skill is pretty much immunity - even if the caster has a 150% skill, or 200% skill.

The drawback to the system I described is the either the defender gets to see the attackers roll (and so knows what he has to beat) or the attackers roll needs to be made in the blind - which is what I was planning, but can be awkward. Another option I had considered was make a second opposed skill test of spell skill vs resist skill - similiar to the traditional POW vs. POW roll from previous releases.

 

[CharlieMonster]

You and I are PC's hired to guard a merchant caravan. We get to a river to discover the bridge is out, and the Caravan leader asks us whether we should go upstream (where we may encounter Gagarthi Outlaws) or downstream (towards Troll territory). I say we should go downstream as I think the Argan Argar merchants will recognise us as legitimate traders and we should be able to conduct extra trade with them. You say we should go upstream as you think there are fewer bandits than trolls, and if the worst comes to the worst, the Gagarthi will ransom us, while the trolls will eat us... We both have influence of 20%. How long will the Caravan leader be prepared to let us argue when we both keep rolling high?

I would be quite happy as a GM to say that neither argument convinced the caravan master. Depending on the NPC's personality I would say that he either dithers and listens for longer, follows his pre-existing belief (if he had one) or makes a random choice.

Yeah, I would tend to side with Deleriad on this one. I would also if the players keep hammering on at an argument which isn't working (say three or more rolls down the line) bring in the trolls or gagarthi, who clearly got bored waiting for the Caravan to walk into their carefully planned trap! As with all things, the key is to be flexible and not to get bogged down by the mechanics.