Quote from: Ghost Whistler;532215It isn't but doing that is just comparing random results and so the ability levels of the characters involved becomes meaningless.

That's the problem I have, and why I have responded to this thread at this time.

I would prefer skill to have a greater influence on the roll. You could compare higher results (that don't exceed the target number, which would automatically disqualify that character), but there's still too high a random element.

Now this is a complaint I at least understand. It wasn't all that much of an issue for me when I played d20 games, but I do get it. I also prefer skills to have more of an impact on success/failure, although it's not a deal-breaker for my enjoyment of the game.

Quote from: gleichman;520899While that's common and understandable (each player wants to roll), it causes serious problems.

For example, consider 5 players vs. a NPC with a greatly superior skill. The odds start to favor the players because the chances of someone rolling *really* low increases greatly. The NPC will be overwhelmed by lesser skill due to the dice which is hardly how the contest would go in reality.

I've seen the same problem occur when a party of players tries to sneak up on an enemy and everyone has to roll an opposed stealth roll against a watchman's observation, and the problem gets even worse if they make multiple rolls in the course of sneaking in.  The odds of someone failing their sneaking skill roll or the watchmen doing really well on their observation can make it almost guaranteed that one of the players will almost always be spotted.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;522886Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

Where is he wrong?  In a percentile skill system where one character has a 33% skill and another character has a 94% skill and margin of success is compared to determine who wins a contest, the character with the 33% skill will get a greater margin of success than the character with the 94% skill (throwing out failure results for both) 726 out of 10000 possible results or 7.26% of the time.  He said that was unacceptable to him, so he chose another method for determining who wins in those cases.

Quote from: John Morrow;532536Where is he wrong?  In a percentile skill system where one character has a 33% skill and another character has a 94% skill and margin of success is compared to determine who wins a contest, the character with the 33% skill will get a greater margin of success than the character with the 94% skill (throwing out failure results for both) 726 out of 10000 possible results or 7.26% of the time.  He said that was unacceptable to him, so he chose another method for determining who wins in those cases.

He may be referencing that I originally botched my math a little (hence the note about correcting my math in the edit after I caught it myself a bit latter).

To me the error didn't matter, the chance is still far too high by almost an order of magitude.




Looking back on this, I think I may be more sensitive to such things due to the fact that I run and play in campaigns lasting for years or decades (in real time).  This means that problems in the game system become very visible patterns for me, more than able to ruin a campaign. Thus I'm willing to take the time to make sure the system works correctly.

Most people don't, and as a result are very undemanding of their game systems. Basically as thread shows- they'all accept anything as long as it's easy, looks reasonable at a glance, and they get their game session over quick enough.

Quote from: gleichman;532548Looking back on this, I think I may be more sensitive to such things due to the fact that I run and play in campaigns lasting for years or decades (in real time).  This means that problems in the game system become very visible patterns for me, more than able to ruin a campaign. Thus I'm willing to take the time to make sure the system works correctly.

I think this problem is most serious where something critical hinges on a single roll and the place where I've actually seen it be a big problem is the example I gave earlier, which is characters trying to use a stealth skill making opposed rolls against watchmen as they try to sneak in to an enemy stronghold.  The more rolls, the more chances that someone will be spotted such that it's almost impossible for a whole party to use stealth to infiltrate anything if everyone has to make stealth rolls, even if their skill is very high.  So a GM who asks for a lot of rolls is basically guaranteeing that the PCs will fail most of the time, which leads to GM fudging.

I think it's often less of a problem in combat mechanics because few systems have one-roll kills.  So while a lower-skilled character might get in a lucky shot, the whole combat won't hinge on it and the more skilled character will usually ultimately win.  In Fudge, the damage is tied to to the degree of success such that a lucky shot by a lower skilled character will likely produce a scratch or maybe a light wound while a more experienced character will regularly be getting more severe wounds, if not one-shot kills on a much less skilled opponent.

Quote from: John Morrow;532610I think this problem is most serious where something critical hinges on a single roll and the place where I've actually seen it be a big problem is the example I gave earlier, which is characters trying to use a stealth skill making opposed rolls against watchmen as they try to sneak in to an enemy stronghold.

This sort of thing is where it's most easily noticed, in fact that is the exact case where I first ran across it many years ago.

Even systems that offer reasonable odds for a single roll need to be aware of the impact of making a long series of rolls. In general it should always be avoided IMO.

Quote from: John Morrow;532610I think it's often less of a problem in combat mechanics because few systems have one-roll kills.

Agreed, as I said earlier- I think the reason such systems are accepted is that they were designed for combat first and then shoved into non-combat resolution due to the modern need for a 'unified' system.

The greatest mechanic for RPG is GM's brain and common sense.

Next thread please!

Quote from: Rincewind1;532622The greatest mechanic for RPG is GM's brain and common sense.

Disagree completely.

Left to their own, people's decisions are inconsistent and undependable for details such as 'skill tests' and 'combat'. The inability of people in this very thread to spot the mechanical issues with a simple d100 opposed roll proves that their judgement is at best spotty and at worst completely unconnected to reality.

Let GMs do what they do best- create settings and adventures. Let mechanics do what they do best- create consistent simulations of alternative reality for objective resolution.

I like the idea of a reroll because it can be made into an interesting GAME. There's a reason the things a game is about (such as combat) are not resolved in single rolls.

Say we're using blackjack method and the Spotter rolls higher than the Sneaker. Well, what if we gave the Sneaker the option to reroll either their own or the Spotter's result? If they reroll their own, it means they were correcting or amending their previous action in some way. If they reroll the Spotter's result, it means they are taking additional action to counter the Spotter. And after the Sneaker gets their chance to reroll, we can do the same for the Spotter, back and forth, perhaps even allowing certain different skills to take the place of the original Spot and Sneak.

All you need now is hidden information and/or potential consequences for making the choice to reroll, and you have an interesting opposed action system.