So what's left?

[Rurik]

Well, High roll is good in opposed roll no matter what, high roll under skill wins.

Are we sure there are crits in opposed rolls? It goes against the logic of high roll wins. I had thought we ibnored crits for opposed rolls.

I think BlueJays calculator does (ignores crits).

Another question for Matt I suppose.

Sure, no. I sure that we aren't sure of anything. But I sort of hope there are criticals outside of combat. THe more they made combat and non-combat skill rolls different the qeasier I feel.

Doubles?

There are criticals in normal skill checks.

I'm not so sure there were intended to be crits in opposed rolls. With opposed rolls we are determining is who wins a contest(In MRQ there is no "both fail result - but that is a different issue). Someone wins, someone loses. End of story. You could factor in crits, but it seems to go against the high roll under skill wins.

If we do count crits I would just use 10% of unhalved skill is a crit, and automatically wins against any non crit result. Doubles penalizes for halving.

 

[iamtim]

But what does Mr. 20% think he's up to, exactly, trying to arm wrestle The Rock or beat Gary Kasparov at chess? Of course he'll lose! Why should anyone have a complaint when he does?

Well that's a good point, one that certainly supports my "if he's got you beat by 100 or so percent, you just lose" viewpoint.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Be interesting to see the math on this (cough...Bluejay)

Boy, that guy just doesn't get a break. I move we officially change BlueJay's name to "MathSlave"

I always read "Manslave"...


Thumbs up for team Morocanth!!

 

[Lord Twig]

I had been toying with the idea of allowing the 100%+ character to get a second roll that he can add to the first if the second roll was under his skill -100 (and a third if rolled under his skill -200).

So Master Sneakthief with 120% Stealth rolls a 53 and Mildly Perceptive Guard with a Perception of 60 rolls a 55. MS rolls again and gets a 14, so his total would be 67 and he would win. If the second roll was over 20 he would add nothing and fail. The only draw back I can see is that you have to be able to add numbers with more than 1 digit.

 

[atgxtg]

See, yeah. There's a part of me that thinks, "Dude. Why are we even rolling when one character has 20% and the other has 120%? Fugettaboudid, the 120% wins." I mean, if there's 100% between skills, that's like two different worlds.

Yes, me too. I think there's far too much rolling for the sake of rolling in just about all RPGs. It would a bizarre and random world we'd live in it worked according to anyone's game mechanics. If I arm wrestle someone from the WWF, it's fairly obvious I'll lose - and lose every time, not just 80% of the time.

But then I realize that there should be a slight chance for the 20%er to do something mind bogglingly good. So I'll probably wind up having them both roll, and if the 20% critis and the 120% fumbles, I'll give it to the 20%er.

Ah, but why should there be? In a very complicated and unpredicatable scenario, like a fight, true, anything can happen. Perhaps this is the problem: when RPGs first evolved out of wargaming, all you did was fight. But what does Mr. 20% think he's up to, exactly, trying to arm wrestle The Rock or beat Gary Kasparov at chess? Of course he'll lose! Why should anyone have a complaint when he does?

Four reasons reasons: First of all becuase of the ties between MRQ and HeroQuest, where indeed there is aslight chance of the 20%er (about an 8 in HQ) beating at 120% (about 8W^2).

Secondly becuase of the GLorathan ties where something like that can happen. That is why HQ has it.

Thridly, becuase it is good drama and stroy for the outclassed and overmatched hero to defeat the powerful villian. It's not particular good for the story if the dashing, brave, young and woefully inexperienced PC hero gets trashed by the plain, corrupt, old but far more more skilled mercenary.

Lastly, becuause the same problem shows up when the 20% makes it up to 80 or 90% and the outcome would be less certain.

 

[atgxtg]

There are criticals in normal skill checks.

I'm not so sure there were intended to be crits in opposed rolls. With opposed rolls we are determining is who wins a contest(In MRQ there is no "both fail result - but that is a different issue). Someone wins, someone loses. End of story. You could factor in crits, but it seems to go against the high roll under skill wins.

If we do count crits I would just use 10% of unhalved skill is a crit, and automatically wins against any non crit result. Doubles penalizes for halving.

Yeah halving and doubles would mess up crits-I didn't think of that. Blatsted halving. I all for straght rolling without the halving. If Joe 20% gets a critical or sucessfully rolls lower than 120%er or if the 120% rools a failure or fumble, hrrrah-otherwise it's face the music time. I mean that gives the 20% something like a 4 or 5% chance of success-seems about all her could reasonably expect.

 

[atgxtg]

Here is an idea I came up that I posted elsewhere. It is a simplier no math approach, and bvased off of someone else's idea of just rerolling failures- but with a twist.


:idea: I was thinking that if both fail it could be treated as some "push" or stalled attempt.

For esxample, let's say our hero Rusk Runerapier is trying to sneak past a Lunar guardsman (of for second age, a loony guardsman). Both fail. Rather than resolving the situation, Rusk could get part way past the guard, but maybe he made a noise and hard to duck under a streetcarrt or something while the guard looks around wondering if her heard something or not. Rusk can get another chance to slip past the guard in a bit when the situation calms down. Or maybe Rusk can make a "meow" noise and put the guard's suspicions to rest. Or maybe Rusk might have to wait until something else catches the guard's attention.

Later, the GM could allow another oppsed roll, and add the failed task time to the result. So Rusk may or may not make it past the guard, but it will take longer than expected either way.

THis could work for all sorts of contests, and might add drama to the adventure. Even wnen the "oppostion" is animimate like getting stuck half way up a tree. It even ffixes the halving rule problem.

Plus it is easy and requires no new math to learn. Very Happy

 

[Rurik]

That could work for some tests. Others need instant resolution.

When I made an example about picking pockets in another thread It occurred to me there are cases where both could fail.

Rusk could attempt to pick a pocket, fail, but the victim could fail his perception and not notice. Rusk gets no coin but doesn't get caught. No re-roll, attempt over.

There are also cases where a contest can be extended. Arm wrestling for example. Both fail the contest goes on - epic struggles could be re-created. Or your example. Your system works well for this.

Then there is instant resolution. Spell resolution for example. Someone has to win, someone has to lose. Re-rolling doesn't fit this situation.

Also, if both skills are low, say 15 vs. 20, there could be a lot of re-rolling.

 

[atgxtg]

That could work for some tests. Others need instant resolution.

When I made an example about picking pockets in another thread It occurred to me there are cases where both could fail.

Rusk could attempt to pick a pocket, fail, but the victim could fail his perception and not notice. Rusk gets no coin but doesn't get caught. No re-roll, attempt over.

There are also cases where a contest can be extended. Arm wrestling for example. Both fail the contest goes on - epic struggles could be re-created. Or your example. Your system works well for this.

Then there is instant resolution. Spell resolution for example. Someone has to win, someone has to lose. Re-rolling doesn't fit this situation.

Also, if both skills are low, say 15 vs. 20, there could be a lot of re-rolling.

Well for spell resolution it might work. I've seen movie stuff where two wizard seem to be fighting each other and holding back the magical energies for a bit before they are overwhelemed. It could be run like-spell might work, just not this round.

Yeah there might be more rerolling with the 15 to 20, but I am thinking of treating it as a dramtic pause, and gives the characters a chance to try something else. For instance maybe the guy with the 15% who is trying to sneak past the guard can try something to help improve his chances. Or maybe he fails BUT isn't spotted.

I think it would work for most, if not all situations.

 

[Rurik]

Well for spell resolution it might work. I've seen movie stuff where two wizard seem to be fighting each other and holding back the magical energies for a bit before they are overwhelemed. It could be run like-spell might work, just not this round.

And for dodging a skybolt? Ok, that is actually unnopposed, but the point is some rolls are instant.

Yeah there might be more rerolling with the 15 to 20, but I am thinking of treating it as a dramtic pause, and gives the characters a chance to try something else. For instance maybe the guy with the 15% who is trying to sneak past the guard can try something to help improve his chances. Or maybe he fails BUT isn't spotted.

I think it would work for most, if not all situations.

So basically, just reroll mutual failures, halved or not? Does that help the victim of halving math wise? It could work.

 

[Rurik]

Well for spell resolution it might work. I've seen movie stuff where two wizard seem to be fighting each other and holding back the magical energies for a bit before they are overwhelemed. It could be run like-spell might work, just not this round.

And for dodging a skybolt? Ok, that is actually unnopposed, but the point is some rolls are instant.

Yeah there might be more rerolling with the 15 to 20, but I am thinking of treating it as a dramtic pause, and gives the characters a chance to try something else. For instance maybe the guy with the 15% who is trying to sneak past the guard can try something to help improve his chances. Or maybe he fails BUT isn't spotted.

I think it would work for most, if not all situations.

So basically, just reroll mutual failures, halved or not? Does that help the victim of halving math wise? It could work.

It still gets funked by halving. Say your skill is 100 and his is 50, the contest will only ever be extended if you roll a 96-100 (assuming you use automatic failures for opposed rolls, I'm not so sure crits and fumbles apply). Once you go to 101, the contest becomes 50 to 25, and is very likely to be extended. So your chance of sneaking past the gaurd quickly still gets hosed by halving.

Damn halving.

 

[atgxtg]

So basically, just reroll mutual failures, halved or not? Does that help the victim of halving math wise? It could work.

I believe it does. Yest say Rusk has a 120% sneak and the guard a 20% Perception.

We halve the skills and it's 60 vs 10.

Rusk Guard Result
01-10 01-10 High roll wins (50-50) 0.5% for each
11-60 01-00 Rusk Wins 50% Rusk
01-10 11-00 Rusk wins 9% Rusk
61-00 01-10 Guard Wins 4% Guard
61-00 11-00 Stalled 36% Both fail

So that is Rusk 59.5%, Guard 4.5% Neither 36%

And Rusk should win 59.5% of the rerolls, so after round two it is:

Rusk 80.92%, Guard 6.12%, Neither 12.96%

And so on until ends up as about a 93/07 split.

 

[atgxtg]

It still gets funked by halving. Say your skill is 100 and his is 50, the contest will only ever be extended if you roll a 96-100 (assuming you use automatic failures for opposed rolls, I'm not so sure crits and fumbles apply). Once you go to 101, the contest becomes 50 to 25, and is very likely to be extended. So your chance of sneaking past the gaurd quickly still gets hosed by halving.

Damn halving.

Ture ytou chance of getting past the guard quickly does drop. But at least your chance of getting past the guard eventuially doesn't get hosed.

If we don't have cirtical in opposed rolls, why not just give the player the option to cap at 100%. If he isn't getting anything for the extra 1% other than a 51% drop what dgood is it doing him? Come to think of it, evenif we did have criticalas in opposed rolls would it be worth taking a massive drop in your success chance for very slightly higher critical chance. Just cap one and halve when both break 100.

I think someon e else posted only halving when both skills are over 100. IF we combine that with the "push" concept it makes even more sense as two highlty skilled opponents will probably be more cuautions and would take more time to come to a resolution.

 

[Rurik]

Well, the best solution mathematically to me has always been reduce the higher skill to 100, and reduce the lower skill by the same percentage as the higher skill.

For example take 300 to 240. You would reduce the 300 to 100 (which works out to 1/3), therefor the 240 skill is also reduced to 1/3, or 80.

So the contest would be 100 to 80 rather than 75 to 60.

The formula is: (Low Skill / (High Skill / 100)).

Problem is, you need a calculator, so that is out.

The numbers from the "Both fail high roll win" mechanic used for halving are coming out very close to the above formula.

Case 1: 160 vs. 80
Normal halving: (80 vs. 40) 74%
Calculator method: (100 vs. 50) 82%
High Halving: (80 vs 40) 82%

Case 2 101 vs 50
Normal Halving (50 vs 25) 59%
Calculator Method (100 vs. 49) 83%
High Halving (50 vs 25) 68%

Note case 2 is the most extreme case of halving (the 100 to 101 jump). High roll wins still shorts the high skill there, but not as bad as normal halving. In other case 1 it doesn't short change the high skill at all, unlike normal halving.

 

[atgxtg]

The more I do this the more I miss the easy and simplicity of the "primitive" critical/special/normal success system, combined with low roll wins.

It works, it maintains the proper favor to the proper side, and the math is even simplier (and not just to crunch). I mean, is diviving by 5 and by 20 that hard compared to halving and qaurtering skills? MOst of the die results are eay to "eyeball" judge anyway. My players always got excited with low "0" numbers, expected special success in the tens and twenties, and knew that 30+ was a no go.

This isn't a RQ3 is better than MRQ complaint, but just an honest look at how poorly the d100 opposed system works, especially when halving is tossed in.

What is the big advantage of the new way?

I mean even if we hjust added critical to the opposed system and then doubled the crit chance for every halfving it would work better than what we got now.

 

[Rurik]

The more I do this the more I miss the easy and simplicity of the "primitive" critical/special/normal success system, combined with low roll wins.

It works, it maintains the proper favor to the proper side, and the math is even simplier (and not just to crunch). I mean, is diviving by 5 and by 20 that hard compared to halving and qaurtering skills? MOst of the die results are eay to "eyeball" judge anyway. My players always got excited with low "0" numbers, expected special success in the tens and twenties, and knew that 30+ was a no go.

This isn't a RQ3 is better than MRQ complaint, but just an honest look at how poorly the d100 opposed system works, especially when halving is tossed in.

What is the big advantage of the new way?

I mean even if we hjust added critical to the opposed system and then doubled the crit chance for every halfving it would work better than what we got now.

Yeah, it feels like there are 3 different skill resolution systems - Normal, opposed, and combat. In actuality they are all very simple mechanics in MRQ, but the math behind them is what makes our brain hurt in the wee morning hours.

I was gonna just subtract the what the higher skilled amount over 100 from both skills. 125 vs 55 becomes 100 vs 30. 140 vs 120 becomes 100 vs 80. Never hurts the better character. Max skill allowed for is 200, which at first I figured was fine.

It was when it seemed like very high skills meant things like 350 or 500 I realized that system wouldn't work well. If you never plan on dealing with 'Legendary' beings, the simpler fixes work fine, and I may use them at first.

 

[frobisher]

Just to through another idea into the mix, but why not just do something along the following lines.

if
Attacking Skill is 140
Defending Skill is 60

Then do two opposed tests and sum the results (somehow).

100 vs 60 and then the remaining 40 vs 0

Anyone can do the maths, and it would reflect the entirety of the skill ratings. Just a thought.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

How does this sound?
Opposed test
One character succeeds, the other fails - the succeding character wins
Both characters succeed - the highest roll wins
Both characters loose (including tieds rolls) - work down this list

• 
  If one character has a skill of > 100 and the other doesnt, then he wins
  If "both fail" is an option, then both fail*
  If "temporary stalemate" is an option, roll again next round**
  The highest skill wins

If both characters roll the same number, and both succeed -

• 
  If one character has a skill of > 100 and the other doesnt, then he wins
  If "temporary stalemate" is an option, roll again next round**
  The highest skill wins

If both characters have the same skill, roll the same total and succed, and a "temporary stalemate" is not an option*** roll again immediately

* eg an attempt to pick a pocket - the thief does not get anything, but the victim does not notice the attempt

** eg an attempt to sneak past a guard - the sneak gets part way, but then has to wait as the guard appears suspicious

*** eg a contest to be the first character to grab the Rune...

 

[King Amenjar]

...I was gonna just subtract the what the higher skilled amount over 100 from both skills. 125 vs 55 becomes 100 vs 30. 140 vs 120 becomes 100 vs 80. Never hurts the better character. Max skill allowed for is 200, which at first I figured was fine.

It was when it seemed like very high skills meant things like 350 or 500 I realized that system wouldn't work well. If you never plan on dealing with 'Legendary' beings, the simpler fixes work fine, and I may use them at first.

If you're dealing with such extreme skills, why not just drop a 0 from both, as was done with some pre-HQ post-RQ Heroquesting rules that were knocking about on the web about 10 years ago? 500 v 350 becomes 50 vs 35, 1220 vs 900 becomes 122 v 90 and then 61 v 45, etc.

 

[Rurik]

...I was gonna just subtract the what the higher skilled amount over 100 from both skills. 125 vs 55 becomes 100 vs 30. 140 vs 120 becomes 100 vs 80. Never hurts the better character. Max skill allowed for is 200, which at first I figured was fine.

It was when it seemed like very high skills meant things like 350 or 500 I realized that system wouldn't work well. If you never plan on dealing with 'Legendary' beings, the simpler fixes work fine, and I may use them at first.

If you're dealing with such extreme skills, why not just drop a 0 from both, as was done with some pre-HQ post-RQ Heroquesting rules that were knocking about on the web about 10 years ago? 500 v 350 becomes 50 vs 35, 1220 vs 900 becomes 122 v 90 and then 61 v 45, etc.

I would think that would screw the high skill worse than halving. With the way opposed skills work the lower the scores the more of a coin flip the odds become. A 35 vs 20 contest is a lot closer to 50/50 than a 95 vs 80 contest. With halving the higher skill is never going to drop below 50, which is a pretty big penalty already. Reducing 350 vs 250 to a 35 vs 25 contest penalizes the high score even more.