# Opposed skill tests

#### Sigtrygg

##### Emperor Mongoose
Am I misunderstanding this:
Both Characters Fail
Whoever rolled the lowest in their skill test wins the opposed test.

I take it to mean whoever is closest to their target number.

Arc and Bec are in an opposed contest, Arc 36%, Bec 78%.

Arc rolls - 43 - Bec rolls - 81.

Bec wins because he's rolled the lowest number close to his target.

Next turn Arc rolls - 47 - Bec rolls - 93.

This time Arc wins.

*************

That's exactly as I handle this! It seems more logic to me.

I guess when I first read it I placed the emphasis on the word "their".

So if you consider each participent in an opposed check, the winner has rolled the lowest failure i.e. closest to their success taget.

This means just use the rules as they are written... :lol:

Actually, it doesn't mean closest, it just means lowest. if you have a skill of 84% vs 37%, and the 84%-er rolled 89 and the 37%-er rolled 56, the 37%-er wins as 56 is lower than 89.

If were lowest difference (as you suggest) then the skills become even more biased towards the highest skilled, though they may make sense in tehmiddle somewhere.

Yep, so the most skilled character stands more chance of winning an opposed test if both fail.

Makes sense to me.

To me:
Whoever rolled the lowest in their skill test wins the opposed test.
still reads like the closest to rolling a real success.

So you aren't comparing the numbers rolled by the participants, you are comparing how close they are to succeeding in their own individual roll.

I'm reading it as the lowest score on the dice, and would expect to see "whoever rolled the nearest" or "closest" otherwise.

Ahh, but reading it my way solves the problem of a low skilled character having a greater chance of success on a both fail result

Yup. The question is should they? After all the higher skilled character already missed that huge chance advantage they had in the initial roll, why give them any more than a 50/50 chance in the tiebreak?

Obviously anyone can do whatever they want in their own games, I just read it the way I read it - it would be nice to have a clarification on the "official" way of doing it though.

Actually scratch that - its obviously not a 50/50 chance

There still remains the fact the greater skilled character had a huge advantage already, and that the advantage to the lower skilled character doesnt come into play unless the higher skilled character missed already, reducing that advantage in proportion to the higher skilled character's chance of winning in the first place.

Maybe a coin toss would be fairer?

I'm happy enough to play with the "lowest scoring roll" though.

And another thing...

tonight it happened, a player rolled a critical in an opposed check, while their opponent rolled a success.

Much... discussion followed

We've changed this too.

A critical beats a success, if both critical then highest roll wins.

Sigtrygg said:
tonight it happened, a player rolled a critical in an opposed check, while their opponent rolled a success.

A critical beats a success, if both critical then highest roll wins.

Couldn't agree more. I don't see any point in running it any other way, despite there being no comment in the rules (which states that criticals may only be important _sometimes_).

This whole mechanism is just silly. The winner should be whoever succedes by the largest number or fails by the smallest with the caveat that a critical should still win.

This whole mechanism is just silly. The winner should be whoever succedes by the largest number or fails by the smallest with the caveat that a critical should still win.

Its logical, but it involves maths...

t-tauri said:
This whole mechanism is just silly. The winner should be whoever succedes by the largest number or fails by the smallest with the caveat that a critical should still win.
Which neatly distils what I've suggested on this thread

Sigtrygg said:
t-tauri said:
This whole mechanism is just silly. The winner should be whoever succedes by the largest number or fails by the smallest with the caveat that a critical should still win.
Which neatly distils what I've suggested on this thread
Precisely. The degree to which even basic maths is avoided in MRQ is something I find disturbing. In an attempt to remove anything resembling a calculation the rules have broken down to become counter intuitive.

While I think the mechanic has a problem - an obvious problem seems to be people not understanding it.

They seem to be using an expanded version of Pendragon's (also written by Mr Stafford of RQ/Glorantha fame) opposed roll mechanic - which while simple is very good at confusing gamers who are used to the old 'how much did you make it by' idea.

Basically - either
1/ both succeed - higher number on the dice wins
2/ both fail - lower number on the dice wins
3/ one succeeds, one fails - should be obvious who wins....

No maths involved. Just look at your skills and the number you rolled on the dice. I dont have a problem with maths (as you'll see later) - but anything that speed up the game is good

The problem with the MRQ opposed tests comes with possibility 2. (which pendragon didnt have)
Possibility 2 skews the probabilities in favour of the lower skill if the higher skill is low - the lower always has less chance of winning - but not proportionate with his lack of skill.

Currently -

Skill 50 vs. Skill 40 - Higher wins 54.05%, Lower wins 45.05%, Draw 0.9% - seems ok

Skill 90 vs. Skill 70 - Higher wins 65.6%, Lower wins 33.6%, Draw 0.8% - again seems ok

Skill 70 vs. Skill 20 - Higher wins 72.25%, Lower wins 27.25%, Draw 0.5% - a bit off

Skill 90 vs. Skill 5 - Higher wins 90.3%, Lower wins 9.55%, Draw 0.15% - again a bit off IMHO

However -
Skill 50 vs. Skill 5 - Higher wins 62.1%, Lower wins 37.35%, Draw 0.55% - wildly out...

Someone with a 10th of the skill winning more than 1 in 3????

So - I think it should be higher number on the dice wins for possibility 2 (as well as 1)

Do these probabilites sound more reasonable?

Skill 50 vs. Skill 40 - Higher wins 59.05%, Lower wins 40.05%, Draw 0.9%
Skill 90 vs. Skill 70 - Higher wins 67.6%, Lower wins 31.6%, Draw 0.8%
Skill 70 vs. Skill 20 - Higher wins 87.25%, Lower wins 12.25%, Draw 0.5%
Skill 90 vs. Skill 5 - Higher wins 98.8%, Lower wins 1.05%, Draw 0.15%
Skill 50 vs. Skill 5 - Higher wins 84.6%, Lower wins 14.85%, Draw 0.55%

Dort Onion
Mathemagician

p.s. For those interested in the maths -

% Chance of a draw =
(100-Higher+Lower)/100

Current System -
% Chance of Lower Skilled Char winning =
((Lower*Lower-Lower)/2+((100-Higher)*(100-Higher)-(100-Higher))/2+((100-Higher)*Higher))/100

My revision -
((Lower*Lower-Lower)/2+((100-Higher)*(100-Higher)-(100-Higher))/2+((100-Higher)*Lower))/100

This would be easier to understand with illustrations but not sure i f can put pictures here :/

Emm, so is this a mathematical proof that the idea is sound?

Sigtrygg said:
Emm, so is this a mathematical proof that the idea is sound?

It is. I have put a similar formula in other threads. Both fail/high roll wins definitely shifts the odds in the favor of the higher skill. It cuts down on the 'pain of halving' considerably.

I have also considered using the rule as is for opposed tests, and switching to fail/fail high roll wins once halving is involved. The reason for this is that a 50 vs 20 skill check has a 60.15% chance of winning, while a 101 vs 40 that has been halved to gets an 75.15% chance of winning.

Kind of an 'optical illusion' to make the higher skill feel like he is getting something (when in fact he is just getting screwed less).

Plus I plan to give ties to the higher skilled character. This at most is a .99% increase but hey, every little bit counts.

Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
7K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
4K