I don't know what systems you're familiar with, but I'm going to use 3.5 as an example.

In my experience, most players don't mind people rolling an attack roll on their behalf, but they prefer to roll their own 'saving throws'.  If something 'bad' is going to happen to their character, they prefer to feel they have 'some control' by rolling the dice.

If the opposed roll is for something negative, they'll want to be involved more often.  But the fact is, for static rolls only the player who's turn it is needs to be there.  

For example, an attack in 3.5 is agaist a 'static DC' - the target's AC.  If that player is away, it's a simple thing to look at the sheet, roll the dice, and determine if you hit or not.  The missing player has no ability to interact with the roll.  When he gets back to the table someone says 'you took 15 damage' and you leave it at that.  

If the player has to make a roll, especially if their may be 'situational modifiers' figuring out which dice to roll is harder for anyone other than that player - if there are abilities that relate to the dice rolling (for instance, the defender may use an ability to add another dice to their pool, for instance) it creates a decision point.  Any decision point requires the participation of the player who's decision it is, and further slows down play as people need to evaluate factors to make that decision...  

It's not insurmountable, and if it's a major feature of the game (like the opposed rolls in RISK are) it can work - but it becomes a game more about the dice and the rolls than what they're supposed to represent.

I certainly don't want you to take this as any kind of "disparagement" or punitive action, but the subject of this thread is a bit too narrow in its scope to really qualify for the general forum; I'm going to move it to the Design forum, where I think its better suited.

RPGPundit

Since opposed seems to be a dissonant definition, how about 'assist' or something?

And instead of an opposed roll, how about both players roll and you take the lowest result for the effect? Still not sure what you would use to determine the dice the Fighter rolls though.

Quote from: Opaopajr;556769It'd help me why it is so that "the situation dictates that success isn't automatic, so the cleric has to roll" AND why the cleric cannot move himself and the fighter to a safer nearby situation where success would be automatic.

This.

If the Cleric fails the roll, what does it cost him?

Quote from: Marleycat;556772It's easy and fun for the GM because the players never know with certainy what will guarantee success, so they take risks and stunt like insane people.

But is it easy and fun for the players?

A large part of gameplay is in finding how to minimize the chance of failure. And even if the Cleric has no clue at all how likely they are to succeed in that Buff, they are still taking that action because it creates a known effect which will make failure less likely in the future.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;556773Opposed rolls are just variable target numbers. You don't have to have any specific opposition in order to justify having an opposed roll. An opposed roll does three things:

• Takes more time to resolve.
• Reduces the impact of character skill/power.
• Makes more extreme results more likely.

That's it.

You missed one.

An opposed roll gives the players an idea of what the target number might be instead of what it is.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;556791The real question is what you're hoping to get mechanically out of opposed vs. static rolls. And what you get for an opposed roll is that:

• It takes longer to resolve the action.
• The player character's bonuses matter less because the TN might be really high or really low.
• The player is more likely to pass or fail by a large amount, because the TN might be really high or really low.

You missed one.

An opposed roll can generate more data which can be used to determine additional effects related to the action.

Quote from: vgunn;556905Whenever your character attempts to overcome a foe or peril and the outcome is not certain, you'll need to roll dice to see if you succeed. If you try something which is related to your trade you get one die [1D]. Add another die for each tool and trademark you can use. If your die pool doesn't seem like it's enough, you can lower your threat score on a one point for one die basis. Any of your companions can also tag one of their tools or trademarks to give you a die of their own. Keep in mind, however, that you cannot roll more than six dice at a time. This is known as the 'rule of six'. Finally, roll all the dice in your pool. Keep the highest die. If you have a pair for your highest dice, add them together. With three or more of a highest number, each die beyond the pair can be used to refresh your threat score, remove a trouble, or add a triumph to a successful result. If your roll is equal to, or higher than, the opposing score then you have succeeded.

Ah, now that I know the system, I'd go with opposed roll.

Here's why:

• A static target number adds an additional rule.
• A static target number can render certain outcomes impossible.

Quote from: vgunn;557045But if you have extra multiples of the same dice (beyond the doubles), for example, roll 5D (5,5,5,3,2). 5+5=10. The other 5 gives you an extra success, which comes with benefits.

Why have target numbers AND successes?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;557065While outputs nominally go from 1 to 12, the 1 is only possible on a one die roll. For all others, the minimum output is 2. Furthermore, outputs of 7, 9, and 11 cannot happen under any circumstances. So you only really have 8 potential output numbers. The way you're describing it, it's incredibly easy to roll 4 dice and the maximum you can ever roll is 6, so the inputs are even more compressed.

Treat results of 6 as 0. I had to do the same thing in Shadowrun to avoid my OCD from ruining everything for me.

vgunn, also consider using d10s instead, and treat additional results which match the highest roll as additional successes (but see above).

Quote from: vgunn;558154Yes, this is the hiccup for me as well.

Call it an Opposition Roll then?

My problem with TN is,  they give people a number(goal) to strive for.  Especially in a game like D&D with stacking modifiers.
I've been amazed by the number of people over the years that I have met(or read on forums) that want the illusion of randomness or want the roll to be more about a chance to crit than hitting.

My group was playing 1e, but stopped when the magic wasn't coming back.  We switched over to Usagi Yojimbo(yeah I know not a game to bring up here).  They have rules for random TN as well as static TN(non-combat), group decides which they prefer to use.

QuoteTrivial: 1d4 or 2. You're really only seeing if you botch. Usually not even worth rolling dice for; the Game Host could rule you automatically succeed.
Routine: 2d4 or 3. This is something anyone with even average training can get after a few tries.
Easy: 2d6 or 4. A professional with d6 Career and d6 Skill can do this more than half the time, while anyone else might take a half-dozen tries.
Medium: 2d8 or 5, 3. Most people can do this once, if they're lucky. With two fixed targets, Overwhelming Failure is a possibility.
Hard: 2d10 or 6, 4. A Medium task with complications.
Very Hard: 2d12 or 7, 4. The equivalent of a d12 Career and d12 Skill – only a master should consider something this difficult.
Nigh-Impossible: 3d12 or 8, 5. Even the masters can only pull this off once in a while.

We fluctuate between the two methods.

QuoteBut is it easy and fun for the players?

A large part of gameplay is in finding how to minimize the chance of failure. And even if the Cleric has no clue at all how likely they are to succeed in that Buff, they are still taking that action because it creates a known effect which will make failure less likely in the future.

It would depend on what kind of players of course. Some like codified everything others like seat of your pants stuff and others anywhere in between. So I guess you would tailor to your group.

I hate target numbers. I find they are the single least-innovative and at the same time most common element of modern rpgs. They annoy me in play and simply on an aesthetic level to the point ñow I will give ûp on just about any new game I pick up that uses them. There are exceptions, but its a very hard sell.

I especially hate games where the gm is expected to set the tn for a task randomly, but the game provides no guidance for adjucating this beyond a few meaningless adjectives ...'hard', 'very difficult', 'impossible' (if its impossible why does it need a TN?), etc.

Quote from: TristramEvans;559126I hate target numbers. I find they are the single least-innovative and at the same time most common element of modern rpgs. They annoy me in play and simply on an aesthetic level to the point ñow I will give ûp on just about any new game I pick up that uses them. There are exceptions, but its a very hard sell.

I especially hate games where the gm is expected to set the tn for a task randomly, but the game provides no guidance for adjucating this beyond a few meaningless adjectives ...'hard', 'very difficult', 'impossible' (if its impossible why does it need a TN?), etc.

So opposed rolls for everything then? Which system(s) do you like?

Thanks for the comments!

Quote from: vgunn;559270So opposed rolls for everything then? Which system(s) do you like?

Thanks for the comments!

Honestly, as out of fashion as it is, I like a good chart-based game. FASERIP is one of my favourites. Also, one fixed single TN is fine with me, such as games where "all dice that come up 6 are successes" etc.

Warhammer 3rd's dicepool system is I think the most elegant and fun piece of gaming design in the last two decades.

I also rather like the system of Fable, where the player picks a die based on their relvant Trait and the GM assigns a die based on the difficulty, and the player rolls both, the higher result winning. Technically an opposed roll, but it doesn't have that same sense of rolling vs an opponent for me.