Query on tied skill rolls

[Verisimilitude]

My question is : Why is it the person who rolled Highest wins?

The reason I ask is this seems counter to the logic of critical ranges, where Lower is better.


[edit] As an example A has a 89% chance and B has a 52% chance, A rolls a 10, and B rolls a 51. B wins? When A missed a critical by 1% and B barely was successful?

.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Because the guy with the higher skill can have a higher successfull roll, thus being able to outclass the lower skilled character.

An alternative that meshes better with the criticals is to count how far under skill you rolled.

 

[Verisimilitude]

ok, I follow that ... if A rolls a 53-89 he is successful and would win, this giving him a larger over all chance to win. not Just a better percent to win, but an actual better Chance to win. Statistics for the win. heh

Thanks, I had not thought of it that way.

.

 

[frogspawner]

Yes - but the higher roll winning doesn't feel right, especially in examples like the one given. And calculating the percentages by which each roll succeeded is a bit too complicated for many players.

So has anyone got a better method?

Or, in fact, why do we need outright victory to be decided by one roll? If both roll success (or whatever), why not call it a draw - later attempts should bring victory to the higher-skilled character soon enough - or the luckier one!

 

[Loz]

In an opposed test, I always rule that a crit beats a standard success, even if the standard success is very close, or even equal to, the value of the skill.

In the case of both rolling crits, the higher rolled crits wins, thus preserving the overall mechanic.

This method allows the range of the skill to be used with effectiveness without having to do some maths to work out who has the better success by subtracting rolled value from skill value.

It takes a little shift in thinking but isn't that radical.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

In an opposed test, I always rule that a crit beats a standard success, even if the standard success is very close, or even equal to, the value of the skill.

In the case of both rolling crits, the higher rolled crits wins, thus preserving the overall mechanic.

This is not only what I do, but, to me, so obvious that I automatically assume that this is what the rules mean when they say "highest roll wins".

But then I've never had the problem that some people seem to have with having criticals at the low end of the range and treating high non-critical successes as better than low non-critical successes. It's a matter of getting the information you need in the easiest, most direct way. I think everyone is able to look at two two or three digit numbers and immediately determine whether one is above or below the other*. Thus you can look at the dice and your character sheet and determine success or failure at a glance. In an opposed roll, you only need more information if both people succeed. Again you can compare the dice roll with your character sheet to determine whether or not you have a critical hit - You only need to know more if both parties have criticals, or if neither do - in which case you compare one dice roll directly with the other. No Maths. (Yes subtraction of one two digit number from another is generally trivial, but it adds more steps to the process for no real benefit)

 

[Mugen]

Yes - but the higher roll winning doesn't feel right, especially in examples like the one given. And calculating the percentages by which each roll succeeded is a bit too complicated for many players.

So has anyone got a better method?

Or, in fact, why do we need outright victory to be decided by one roll? If both roll success (or whatever), why not call it a draw - later attempts should bring victory to the higher-skilled character soon enough - or the luckier one!

Simply because with this method the odds that you get a tie are very high. In you example it would be 43%.

Note that in many occasions a tie simply has no meaning. For instance, in a Search/Hide contest, what does a tie exactly mean ?

Also, this method has quite the same odds than roll 1d100+skill and compare results. However, it gets rid of an addition (though there are some other problems with skills over 100%).

I do think the time gained in a lot of oppositions is worth the "wrong feeling" of this method.

 

[frogspawner]

Note that in many occasions a tie simply has no meaning. For instance, in a Search/Hide contest, what does a tie exactly mean ?

I would interpret ties (i.e. both successes, or both criticals, etc) in whatever way preserves the status quo. Search v Hide ties would probably mean that the hider hasn't been found... yet.

But then I still use specials (1/5th), as well as criticals, so ties should come up less often.

 

[gamesmeister]

I use the "critical beats success beats failure beats fumble" paradigm too.

However, I still don't like high roll wins, and I therefore always use low roll wins, regardless of the perceived affect this may have on the odds. But then, I prefer elegant rules to getting the maths exactly right anyway.

 

[Halfbat]

I use the "critical beats success beats failure beats fumble" paradigm too.

ditto. The player's love it - they tend to imagine themselves hiding behind a lamppost (in the old "Cannon" TV series) style and not being seen, or being able to point out to another character the oh-so-obvious, barely discernible set of footprints in the day-old dust on the stone flagging.

However, I still don't like high roll wins, and I therefore always use low roll wins, regardless of the perceived affect this may have on the odds. But then, I prefer elegant rules to getting the maths exactly right anyway.

I sympathise with the sentiment, as highest wins grates with the added critical rules, especially with old-school RQ. :sigh: ...but I was persuaded by the excellent ork on the maths hashed out on these boards and I'm getting used to it, now.

 

[Quire]

Crit trumps Success, highest roll wins. What's inelegant about that?

I really can't get my head round people not being able to get their head round it. That's absolutely no math involved in the observation, AND you get an explicit indicator of the quality of the success - even when the roll is unopposed.

I guess if you're saying that it's not to your taste, well, there is no accounting for taste. But it ain't rocket science, is it?

Still, at least it's not as bad as people saying that 'roll _over_ is better', something I've been seeing an awful lot of on other forums lately.

- Q

 

[Verisimilitude]

I was explaining it to my 16 year old son, whointerrupted me and said he got it right away... here is his example...

A has 200 skill, B has 101 skill, you have to reduce both by half to get your roll numbers.

So A has 100% and B has 50% as dice rolls go... that means 45% of the time A beats B "naturally".
Also A has a 20% crit roll and B has a 10% crit roll, so even in crit range A has a 50% advantage.
Then we add the statistical advantage of 10% better chance to beat a "normal" roll by B with a critical by A and the odds of A beating B on a "normal" success is really 55%.
Plus you can just look at the dice once, see who was successful, see who crit'd, see who rolled highest, and it is done.

I love math wizzes who can explain things to me. :roll:

 

[Loz]

Interesting that your son keeps the crit range based on the higher skill levels (ie, 20 and 10) rather than on the halved value (10 and 5). That makes sense, still reflects the expertise of the opponents, and, though I'm no maths whizz either, seems to take some of the relative sting out of the halving rule.

I'm sure that the resident maths and stats whizzes will now come and point out my folly in making this statement but, on face value, I like what you son's proposed.

 

[gamesmeister]

Crit trumps Success, highest roll wins. What's inelegant about that?

Because RQ has always been a low roll system, where the lower the roll, the better you've done. To turn that on it's head doesn't sit right with me. That, plus the maths arguments are a matter of interpretation - if one PC has a skill of 50% and another has a skill of 10%, is the first PC 400% better (i.e. four times as good), or a fixed 40% better? If the latter, low roll works better.

I really can't get my head round people not being able to get their head round it. That's absolutely no math involved in the observation, AND you get an explicit indicator of the quality of the success - even when the roll is unopposed.

If I crit on 5%, and fail on 51%, rolling a 6 should produce a higher quality result than rolling a 50 in an unopposed roll...taking the opposite view is counter-intuitive. Following that logic, the same applies to opposed rolls.

I guess if you're saying that it's not to your taste, well, there is no accounting for taste. But it ain't rocket science, is it?

Nope, it aint. Neither is dedicated POW for Rune Priests, or the armour penalty, but that doesn't mean I want to use them in my game.

 

[Quire]

If I crit on 5%, and fail on 51%, rolling a 6 should produce a higher quality result than rolling a 50 in an unopposed roll...taking the opposite view is counter-intuitive. Following that logic, the same applies to opposed rolls.

It's interesting logic. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. (Mongoose getting this right was no great leap, as both Pendragon and HQ use similar ideas. Shame they broke it by halving 100%+ skills) I'm happy to stick with 'inelegant it is not'.

Nope, it aint. Neither is dedicated POW for Rune Priests, or the armour penalty, but that doesn't mean I want to use them in my game.

Ah, well there we can agree. I don't use either...either.

- Q

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Crit trumps Success, highest roll wins. What's inelegant about that?

Because RQ has always been a low roll system, where the lower the roll, the better you've done.

An interesting opinion, sadly not actually supported by the rules...

RQ was a system that divided success into 5 levels - Fumble, Fail, Success, Special (Impale) and Critical - and now uses 4 levels. There is nothing explicit about a low rolling success being qualitatively better than a high rolling success - and Contested skills were resolved by comparing the skills and the active party making a single roll rather than by comparing rolls...

To turn that on it's head doesn't sit right with me. That, plus the maths arguments are a matter of interpretation - if one PC has a skill of 50% and another has a skill of 10%, is the first PC 400% better (i.e. four times as good), or a fixed 40% better? If the latter, low roll works better.

Likewise if you say "Low roll is good" why does someone with a skill of 15 rolling an 11 (4 under) achieve a better success than someone with a skill of 95 rolling a 12 (83 under)

I really can't get my head round people not being able to get their head round it. That's absolutely no math involved in the observation, AND you get an explicit indicator of the quality of the success - even when the roll is unopposed.

If I crit on 5%, and fail on 51%, rolling a 6 should produce a higher quality result than rolling a 50 in an unopposed roll

Only if you treat the whole thing as a continuum - And having Criticals confuses this If I crit on a 5 and you Crit on a 10, why does your 9 beat my 7, when I have the lowest roll?

If you start by saying "Crit beats Success, High roll beats Low Roll" then a Crit of 5% beats a crit of 4% and a success of 6%, and a Success of 7% beats a success of 6%. Why is this difficult or contentious.

 

[frogspawner]

An interesting opinion, sadly not actually supported by the rules...

Only the MRQ rules.

RQ was a system that divided success into 5 levels - Fumble, Fail, Success, Special (Impale) and Critical...

And, for me, true RQ still is. But MRQ - now that's something else.

Why is this difficult or contentious.

Good question - why would Mongoose try to make such contentious changes to a system that's already pretty darn spot-on?
Personally, I suspect it's an attempt to break our loyalty to true RQ and suck us all down, after a couple more versions, into the D&D market...

 

[Loz]

Good question - why would Mongoose try to make such contentious changes to a system that's already pretty darn spot-on?
Personally, I suspect it's an attempt to break our loyalty to true RQ and suck us all down, after a couple more versions, into the D&D market...

I disagree. BRP has never truly had an effective way of resolving opposed rolls. Different degrees of success works to a certain level, but can still result in ties where a finer granularity is required to determine the likely outcome. The Resistance Table worked for characteristic-scale opposed resolution and the underlying formula can easily be applied to skill differential, but that involves more maths. Roll under but High for opposed rolls has, once you get into the mindset (and it doesn't take much) a certain elegance to it.

I think your view that this is some attempt to D&Dise RQ is cynically wide of the mark. If this was true, and let's continue using the Roll under but High model, then Pendragon was also following the same D&D route systemwise, and long before MRQ ever came into existence: it uses a d20 for resolving skills; it includes a similar model for resolving opposed contests. Pendragon's system is recognised as being elegant and fluid without being accused of 'breaking loyalty to true RQ', even though it came from the Chaosium stable.

It's also interesting to note that Deluxe BRP includes a very similar mechanism, in addition to crit/special/standard/fail/fumble, for opposed roles as one of its system options - at least it does in my playtest copy. Is Deluxe BRP also attempting a D&Disation?

I firmly believe the opposed resolution system in MRQ is there to enable opposed contests to be resolved with the minimum effort. No more, no less. You're free to believe otherwise, of course, but I think you'd be mistaken to do so.

 

[Rurik]

It is worth noting though that in Pendragon a high roll is always better than a low roll. You critical rolling your skill exactly, so you want to roll as high as possible under your skill, ideally rolling your skill exactly.

In MRQ you want to roll really low (critical) OR failing a crit roll as high as possible while remaining under your skill. The Pendragon equivalent would be to say you crit on a 1, but other than that high roll wins - not nearly as elegant.

The MRQ method works well if you look at the odds and it is simple to see who wins and loses. This is good enough for some people.

Obviously, others are bothered by a mechanic that is roll really low else roll high.

Well 'nuff said on that point.

Regarding the deetwentyization of RQ I don't think it is fair to say that MP is trying to make RQ into D20, they are trying to make it a viable alternative to D20. I think there goal is to make it easier for D20 players to move into RQ, not to move RQ players into D20 (cause we all know that someone who has stayed a RQ up until 2007 ain't goint to the dark side now because someone added feats to RQ).

All told I believe that comes to my four pennies worth.

 

[GianniVacca]

(cause we all know that someone who has stayed a RQ up until 2007 ain't goint to the dark side now because someone added feats to RQ).

What are 'feats'? (I stopped playing AD&D in the 90s....)