I have been racking my brains for a while now trying to come up with a decent task resolution system. One of the big problems is opposed actions.

if you have a system where PC has an Attack of 10 and his Enemy has a Defence of 9 - characters with comparable stats that are a challenge - then don't their stats more or less negate each other? If you are using the usual sorts of resolution system, roll xdy + stats versus the same, or roll dice pool, or whatever, then you have a situation that's ultimately just down to the roll of the dice?

Curiously the only system that resolves this is a roll under system because the player is rolling against his ability level, give or take perhaps a few modifiers. But even then rollunder systems have always been a bit weird for opposed rolls. If you use the who rolls highest-but-under then again it's just luck, more or less. If you have a roll to hit and then the opponent gets to try and dodge then the situation is weighted in his favour (he has two chances to avoid hurt: the attacker can fail and the defender can attempt to dodge).

Of course you can argue that not all characters/NPC's have the same stats, but broadly speaking,w hen it comes down to mechanics, for the NPC to be a worthy challenge that's more or less going to be the case. Regarrdless of how they defend themselves (kungfu, psychic powers, brute force, speed, superpowers, etc).

So you want to have greater differences in competence, when the stats are a little apart? Then multiply all stats by a number. So you cannot have +1 in a stat. You can only have +2 or +3 or +5.

How do you have a dice mechanic that encompasses that difference without being unbalanced?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;595948if you have a system where PC has an Attack of 10 and his Enemy has a Defence of 9 - characters with comparable stats that are a challenge - then don't their stats more or less negate each other? If you are using the usual sorts of resolution system, roll xdy + stats versus the same, or roll dice pool, or whatever, then you have a situation that's ultimately just down to the roll of the dice?

The difference between 10 "attack" and 9 "defense" can be huge depending on your mechanics.

http://anydice.com/program/18e5

If you roll stat+1d6, 10 has a 58% chance of 'winning' against 9, which has only a 28% chance of winning against 10! Even if we roll stat+12d6 for some crazy reason, the +10 is still 10% more likely to win! We can see that even in D20 just a +2 bonus can make a huge difference.

Regardless of the mechanic, unless the two opposed skills are entirely equal, it's not a matter of plain luck. Not to mention that in a "real-world real-play" scenario, player inventiveness and planning are significant factors and can easily overpower luck.

Depending on what sort of randomization mechanics you use, the extent of luck can be controlled.

Or do you want more and smaller steps in character abilities? That's often much more challenging to achieve than the alternative. That's why the approach many systems take, is to give less overall bonuses, but more situational bonuses. Since +1 to overall attack is a huge bonus in almost any system, many give player characters abilities like "+1 against vampires" or "+1 with improvised weapons" which is an increase in player power, but a much smaller one since it's situational (unless you only fight vampires with improvised weapons.. :cool: )

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;595948I have been racking my brains for a while now trying to come up with a decent task resolution system. One of the big problems is opposed actions.

if you have a system where PC has an Attack of 10 and his Enemy has a Defence of 9 - characters with comparable stats that are a challenge - then don't their stats more or less negate each other? If you are using the usual sorts of resolution system, roll xdy + stats versus the same, or roll dice pool, or whatever, then you have a situation that's ultimately just down to the roll of the dice?

Curiously the only system that resolves this is a roll under system because the player is rolling against his ability level, give or take perhaps a few modifiers. But even then rollunder systems have always been a bit weird for opposed rolls. If you use the who rolls highest-but-under then again it's just luck, more or less. If you have a roll to hit and then the opponent gets to try and dodge then the situation is weighted in his favour (he has two chances to avoid hurt: the attacker can fail and the defender can attempt to dodge).

Of course you can argue that not all characters/NPC's have the same stats, but broadly speaking,w hen it comes down to mechanics, for the NPC to be a worthy challenge that's more or less going to be the case. Regarrdless of how they defend themselves (kungfu, psychic powers, brute force, speed, superpowers, etc).

My resolution to this for SPRG was a mixed-one. You my like it, or perhaps not. Combat, for the record, is not always a mere test of skill, and luck does play a part, but skill is especially important.

To paraphrase my mechanic, any skill has a total of between 3 and 18, and you roll 3d6 to check on it, requiring you to roll under your skill total to have a success (ignoring any modifiers for now).

Let's say that a character has Combat 12 and another has combat 11. The character with combat 12 has an automatic 11.6% edge. To determine success, there is a flowchart:
Both (or all) participants roll 'Combat'. Those who are attacking will automatically strike if they have a success and the defender does not, no-matter how low the defender rolls. If Both here rolled an '11', the the character with the 12 would be the only success.

A success is evaluated first. If both have a success, then the lowest roll is used. You could alternatively say that if both are a success, then the character with the widest spread wins, such as rolling a 5 on a skill of 10 (a spread of five) versus rolling a 4 on a skill of 6 (a spread of two), if you wanted to put the emphasis on skill, but this might in the long term be unfair to the players.

The second thing to consider is what happens when both the attacking person and defending person fail. In this case, the lowest roll wins, as the attacker is unlucky in his strike, but the defender is also unlucky in his ability to defend. Attacking is an infinite process, but defending is not, so having a double-advantage in defense is not the worst consideration either.

You run out of health if you fail to defend, after all.

The same thing applies to critical successes and botches. In SRPG, if both the attacker and defender have a critical success on their check (usually a natural-3, but as much as a natural-5 with some weapons), then they both re-roll, with the lowest roll prevailing. A GM may decide at their own discretion to use the lowest critical success roll instead, as this favours the defender, who needs a natural-3 (0.46%) versus the man with an energy gun who only needs to roll a 5 (2.77%). Tied results are re-rolled to resolve the tie.

This is a simplified mechanic, mind you. If you are going for realism, you might want to use a d100 mechanic, with skill level from 0 to 100 (0 being untrained and not able to roll on it), and then rolling under it fir a success, and comparing the spread, with a finer range of probabilities. It is also easier to track the mathematics using base-10.

You can also have skill+die, as was suggested, using a system with a steeper and a common average, to make very lucky shots less-common. Skill+3d6 means that the average will be 9-to-11 on the rolls, an getting other numbers has a sharp downward curve, rather than the flat 5% per number progression ratio of 1d20. The more dice you use, the steeper the cure and the more likely you will roll the average result.

For example, 1d30 will produce a result of '30' 1:30 / 3.334%; if you used 3d10, the chance of rolling a 30 is 1:1,000 or 0.1%, with the identical range of numbers. The average roll on 1d30 is 15.5 (15-to-16), and on 3d10 16.5 (16-to-17). You are trading a higher average for a slimmer potential of having any number outside the range of that average. This might suit your taste better if you want to make luck a minimal factor but want a Skill+Roll system.

You may find this chart a handy reference for indexing the cumulative potential of 3d6 rolls, and the probability of producing any specific result. (X|S)

If the two combatants are of equal skill and physical ability, it would be a matter of luck, wouldn't it?

If you want more ability, you add tactical options, such as combat maneuvers. To use Chivalry & Sorcery as an example, one could:

Make a normal attack at normal values
Parry with a weapon, and if successful, have a chance of a free counterblow
Parry with a shield, with some possibility of a shield bash if successful
Attack with fecrocity, or use a great blow (takes more blows, but increases chances of both hitting and critting)
Dodge, which defends against all attackers

The Hero system has a similar set of maneuvers available to all characters, plus martial arts maneuver that cost extra points to buy, that adjust, variously, OCV, DCV, damange done, and in one or two cases, who gets to go first next phase.

This puts more of the variables on player skill with the system, rather than character skill and luck. It generally tends to favor the player character, because they generally have only one character to be concerned with, while the GM has many, and is easily distracted.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;595948if you have a system where PC has an Attack of 10 and his Enemy has a Defence of 9 - characters with comparable stats that are a challenge - then don't their stats more or less negate each other? If you are using the usual sorts of resolution system, roll xdy + stats versus the same, or roll dice pool, or whatever, then you have a situation that's ultimately just down to the roll of the dice?

Even within a given algorithm, a lot depends on the variables.

First, how often will you actually encounter a situation when one guy has an Attack of 10 and another a Defense of 9? If the possible range of these stats is 9-12, quite often. If the possible range of stats is 01-100, then this will be a freak occurency.

Second, how large is the variable value determined by the die? Do they roll d100-s or d4-s? One die (flat distribution) or several (bell curve)? Does it depend on the particulars?

All these have a major influence on whether or not your problem is even a genuine issue in the first place.

Quote from: taustin;596011If the two combatants are of equal skill and physical ability, it would be a matter of luck, wouldn't it?

Perhaps, but is that satisfying as a game experience?

Quote from: Premier;596015Even within a given algorithm, a lot depends on the variables.

First, how often will you actually encounter a situation when one guy has an Attack of 10 and another a Defense of 9? If the possible range of these stats is 9-12, quite often. If the possible range of stats is 01-100, then this will be a freak occurency.

Second, how large is the variable value determined by the die? Do they roll d100-s or d4-s? One die (flat distribution) or several (bell curve)? Does it depend on the particulars?

All these have a major influence on whether or not your problem is even a genuine issue in the first place.

Broadly speaking I expect them to have comparable stats.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;596035Perhaps, but is that satisfying as a game experience?

Yes.

Honestly, nothing makes occasional parity any less satisfying than disparity in opposed rolls.

Cramming more info than pass/fail into the same roll or a related roll can help keep people on par in one way unique from each other somewhere else (so you're equal on attack v. dodge, but one person has more damage or hp or whatever). So can differing combat options (so each person can do something different with the same numbers).

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;596035Perhaps, but is that satisfying as a game experience?

More so than opponents of equal skill and physical abilitied not being evenly matched, I would think.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;596035Perhaps, but is that satisfying as a game experience?

This will always depend on the players' styles, wants and expectations combined with the skill, style and experience of their storyteller.

If the players want simple combat, where the storyteller simply says 'you hit', 'you missed', and the like, and to blow through combat, or if they want flourished combat, where the storyteller describes the action in some level of detail, they need to be paired with a GM that can achieve that desire.

In short, you need to decide, as a system designer, what works for your game framework, and apply it effectively. I prefer skill-based combat, not the BAB of many d20 systems, with opposed rolls to attack, parry, defend, et. al., and other people want a THAC0-type system.

When i run games, I look at the numbers and the space between to determine how effectively any character was in a combat segment, and provide story details. In our chat game last night, this occurred:

(Javri_Olden): I will grab Rhonius by the collar, or the closest equivalent.
(Rhonius_Jharvo): That would be an opposed check, I believe.
(Javri_Olden): Deftness vs. Deftness?
(Rhonius_Jharvo): Battle.
ChatBot: (Javri_Olden) rolls 3d6 and gets 4,3,3.
(storyteller): battle vs battle
(Javri_Olden): 10/5 Battle.
ChatBot: (Rhonius_Jharvo) rolls 3d6 and gets 4,1,4.
(Rhonius_Jharvo): 9/12 Battle.
(storyteller): You find your hand grabbed and pressed very uncomfortably, and then wrapped around you in a lock as you go after is throat

Here, you will note that the combined failure to attack by Javri and the success to defend by Rhonius reverses the position, granting the combat initiative to Rhonius. in fact, with Battle-5, Javri has around a mere 2% chance to make a successful combat check, and thus, the numbers that he rolls against another poorly-skilled opponent matter greatly, in terms of luck.

Two skilled opponents need to rely less on luck, with an average check of 10-to-11. Rhonius, with Battle-12 has around a 62.5% chance of making a successful check, and even when failing, his margin of failure will be smaller, so that it is less likely for him to lose the combat initiative in a circumstance like this, placing him at a disadvantage.

If he is against an opponent with Battle-12, then the numbers reflect choices. Combat in real-life is not a computer-simulation... if it was, then it would usually end in deadlock / stalemate (as occurred in 'Doctor Who: Destiny of the Daleks'). Real people make decisions based on reactions, terrain, conditions, physical condition, emotional capacity, and a multitude of other factors and are prone to error, however slim the margin.

Luck works both ways. The player who rolls a success based on luck could be luck himself because he noticed an advantage, or because his opponent didn't notice a flay in his style. This is usually corrected by the next flurry, so that the opponent who was struck corrects for it, this re-balancing the luck situation, assuming he is still alive.

(Rhonius_Jharvo): "Is there a problem?"
(Javri_Olden): ""Lock up, will you Javri? Look up, will you Javri!" You slimy bastard, what is this disc you're talking about?! What have you been holding out on me?!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "We disturbed the dead. It is not a habit that I make. It was your idea. You have to take on the responsibilities of your actions."
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "As I take on the responsibility that I had a part in it."
(Javri_Olden): "Screw you! You're holding out on me now?! Here?! When we're about to die?! I swear, you'll die before I do!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "Maybe. We shall see. If you want to calm down in your room, feel free. I am not going to act so irrationally as to make death threats against one who has actually tried to solve what is going on."
(Javri_Olden): "You clearly know more than you're saying! Fess up, what is your part in this?!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "My part? I am apparently a decoy, one that has failed."
(Javri_Olden): "Don't you try to evade the issue. I am an expert at evading the issue, I know it when I see it! No more lies! No more evasions! If you knwo something I want to hear it!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "You, on the other hand, need to calm yourself, and meet your end with dignity if this ship is going to get torn apart in hyperspace."
(Javri_Olden): "Don't give me that tripe, you, you...traitor!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "Traitor am I? How?"
(Javri_Olden): "Are you going to tell me what you know or not?!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "There are things which I might tell you, once you have calmed down, but others I feel best to be kept to one person, else our resident psychopath get their hands or ears on it."
(Javri_Olden): "Fine! Forget you then! If you don't want to tell me then you can rot here for all I care!" I'll float to the lift.
(Rhonius_Jharvo): Trying to break the hold?
(storyteller): you are still pinned
(Javri_Olden): Yes, I'll obviously try to break the pin.
(Javri_Olden): Might or Combat?
(Rhonius_Jharvo): Opposed Battle, I believe.
(storyteller): battle, unless you use a Psi-Ability
ChatBot: (Javri_Olden) rolls 3d6 and gets 3,3,6.
(Javri_Olden): 12/5
ChatBot: (Rhonius_Jharvo) rolls 3d6 and gets 4,4,4.
(Rhonius_Jharvo): 12/12

Here you will note that the numbers are the same, and both a failure. I could have ruled that this was a failed attempt to break the pin, but instead, I give the defending player the advantage, and permit him to re-roll.

(05:03:34) (Javri_Olden): "Let go of me you bastard!"
(storyteller): both reroll
ChatBot: (Javri_Olden) rolls 3d6 and gets 4,4,6.
ChatBot: (Rhonius_Jharvo) rolls 3d6 and gets 2,1,2.
(Javri_Olden): 14/5
(Rhonius_Jharvo): 5/12... Hmmm.
(storyteller): Javri, you find that trying to break free causes a pain that shoots up your arm and down your back.
(Javri_Olden): "I said let go!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): "You need to calm down. Losing your head in a crisis situation is a bad thing to do. I suggest you think on that in your room."
(Javri_Olden): "Let go of me!"
(Rhonius_Jharvo): I will let him go, and lock the room that was so rudely entered.

In this part of the scenario, I outline that in trying to break the pin, with such a wide margin of success on the behalf of the person in control of the initiative, that the attempt is not only thwarted, but is painful, and I do this in a reasonable and colourful manner.

In another game that I ran for white a while, the players had no patience for this, and I adapted my storytelling methods to suit their preferences.

If the system was reversed, with purely roll+skill, Javri would not have been able to re-roll, and the likelihood of being able to escape would be very slim, as he is 7-points shy of the Battle-12 skill of Rhonius. Is that realistic? Yes. Is it fair in a game? Not really. is it fun for everyone involved? No.

I also find that battle mechanics are something that becomes the focus of too many systems and games, ignoring other skill mechanics. In my systems, I use the same die-mechanics for all skills, including combat, so that there is no shift in what you need to do for different checks.

This, however, is not a requirement.

RIFTS uses d100 checks for skills, and d20 rolls for combat. If you system is combat-intensive, rolling a simple check with one die speeds up the results. (In theory, the more realistic you make your simulated battles, the longer any action takes to play-out.)

There is nothing wrong with having one mechanic for combat and another for other skills, but I still believe that combat should be something that is not class-restricted; there is nothing wrong with giving other professions an edge, such as special combat tactics as class-features, but the basic mechanic should allow any two people with equal stats an equal footing, and let the rest fall to luck.

In this instance, if your two people had Combat-9 and Defend-9, then if you use a system with a sharp bell-curve, they will stand there fighting back and forth for quite some time. This is realistic, but slows the story down. If you expect GMs to be excellent storytellers, and the players to have the patience to handle this, then it isn't a problem, but keep in mind that not all players or GMs shall have these qualities, and not all the characters will have any desire to participate in the combat.

When two characters are fighting, and the rest of the group is elsewhere, say, exploring a room, then the exploration and combat, which you need to run simultaneously, may be problematic (temporally). The combat, that takes place in one minute to ten minutes of in-game 'real time', will take longer in player-time than the exploration of a room that takes an hour in-game 'real-time'.

There is no real way to avoid this, when one part of the group is in segmented time, and the other in normal time, but the more time any combat requires, the longer the differential between the two increases.

Rather than realism in battle-mechanics, you might want to focus on realism vs. enjoyment in health of characters. HP are a game-mechanic to permit all combat to last longer than a one-hit kill. How much health do characters have in your game? (i.e. How many hits can they take?)

Does it scale with progression in level / experience? If so, why?

Is there an upper-limit, based on species and physics?

In D&D, HP was defined as the character's ability in combat to know how to avoid blows. That is why there was no 'Defend' skill. If you have opposed rolls, you need to decide if HP is fixed or increases, and if all classes gain the same level of health, and then find out what the players enjoy.

You can also do health as points, based entirely on the size of the creature. A human can take more damage than a rat, and an elephant more than a human, because they are bigger. (Imagine of a midge and a man both had the same level of health!)

There is more to a combat mechanic than just the types of rolls that you use. (X|S)

How about...

Attack of 60% v. Defence of 40%

The attacker makes the roll and if he rolls 1-40 he hits fully. If he rolls over 60 he misses. But if he rolls 41-60 he gts a glancing blow (or some form of 'compromised' success, as per the situation if not combat). No dodge roll, no reaction roll though active dodging can be discussed separately.

I think I'm going to use Difficulty Levels (or Opposing Value for opposed rolls, like combat). It's going to need regular person ability levels as well as scaled to really difficult stuff that people can do with chi powers. So there needs to be a broad scale. Difficulty levels are more comfortable imo than processing modifiers, pluses and minuses.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;596200I think I'm going to use Difficulty Levels (or Opposing Value for opposed rolls, like combat). It's going to need regular person ability levels as well as scaled to really difficult stuff that people can do with chi powers. So there needs to be a broad scale. Difficulty levels are more comfortable imo than processing modifiers, pluses and minuses.

I presume you mean that, in order to do effect 'X',you need to pass the opposed roll by a certain numerical value? I do not understand how you are implementing it though.

Say, to do the Vulcan nerve pinch you need to roll a Venusian-Judo check, in a mechanic that rolls under stats of 20. You roll a 9, with a skill of 16, which means you passed your check by 7. Your opponent, to defend, rolls as normal, and fails to defend. In order to do the 'Vulcan Nerve pinch' though, you need to roll a check of 6 or less, so you can pinch him, but it doesn't work. (I would avoid this mechanic, as it is purely luck-based and doesn't account for your skill.)

Is that what you are aiming for here, or, is it the spread of 'beating the check by x'? Thus using the same circumstance I outlined above, you passed your check by 7, and you need to beat your check by 5 or more to do the 'nerve pinch', and you did, so it works. This method is acceptable, as it is now your skill-level that determines if you passed the difficulty, but this is nothing more than a translucent modifier to the roll. You ae still calculating by how large a margin you passed the check, which still requires doing calculations. Honestly, its like covering a burnt pie with whipped cream to cover the bad taste.

The only other example I can consider for what you've been describing is if you are using both the spread and the difference between the attack and defend checks, thus:

You beat your score by seven; your opponent has a 19 to defend, and rolls a 10. His roll is higher than yours, but he has a spread of nine. What happens now? Does he defend because of the larger spread? Does your attack strike, but not affect him because your spread is lower than his? Does your attack work because it has a difficulty of (5) and you passed that???

Does the magical table of goodness detail this unusual circumstance, or is a visit through the book required to resolve it in the middle of combat?
Expect a GM to start ripping his hair (if he has any) out, or gouging out his eyes when he needs to do this for every single combat action.

I can tell you that from the standpoint of many GMs, 'tis easier to track difficulty modifiers, than to continually check the difference between rolls, as you can either do it yourself, or rely on the player to do that part of the work. It also permits you to have a crib sheet of some kind, listing special combat technique modifiers, so that you don't need to reference the book every time someone makes an unusual combat action.

I can say that I want (and plan) to include a very detailed hand-to-hand martial-arts combat system in Zoria, but I left it on the back-burner, as firstly, it is something that a storyteller may not want to use because of the level of complexity between different styles, and because it is hard to write as a mechanic for a game that operates efficiently.

My main idea is to have a skill for a list of styles, and the same style can be used to attack or defend against itself without penalty. Every other style has  penalty toward or for attacking or defending against every other style, and each will have specific techniques that apply damage.

In this case, using that technique applies a penalty to the attacker's combat check, as I feel it is simpler to have the person making the initial roll handle the modifier. It also means that if they are using a secret technique of some kind, that they can signal it without stating what it is in font of everyone, and therefore keep it secret. having them handle a penalty modifier means that I need not give anything away if it is being used on another player.

Even if I do not tell them that they have a bonus, they would work it out and wonder why using pure mathematics and logic: 'Marty there just rolled a total check of 16, but my check to defend that should have failed just passed. Something is wrong here...'.

I also believe that in a complex combat system of this kind, there should be a slight bonus for pure defense, passing on the chance to riposte, in order to observe the tactics of your opponent--at least for one-on-one fighting, and an opportunity to check to notice weak spots in his defense tactics, and then to take the initiative after observation.

Unlike warfare, being patient in single-combat can often lead to a victory.

In the end, this particular subject is difficult to write, mostly because you need to balance realism with playability. (X|S)