Someone ought to make a meme here.


Post on RPG forum
Be surprised people talk about RPGs.

And yes, if my mum rolled under 20, and Iron Chef rolled lower then my mum, then my mum fucking won that competition. End of story.

Quote from: gleichman;521552I didn't say that either, good grief- why do people insist on putting their own conditions on things except to derail any rational disscussion.

Good grief, why would you even mention "Iron Chef" then? What, just a chef wouldn't be good enough? It doesn't matter anyway, the only scenario where it would make any sense at all to use an opposed skill check when cooking would be in some sort of competition or similar stressful situation, but you said that's not what you meant, so you've proven your own example to be wrong. Even if it is a competition, unless the results are unimportant it would be silly to use a simple opposed skill check to resolve it anyway, and even if the results were unimportant and the simple roll were being used, you fail to consider that the pro would get either hefty bonuses or far less severe penalties than the amateur. Stop trying to distract from the fact you're just trolling and it was a very bad example and that your grand pronouncements remain unsupported.

QuoteIt was an example for an opposed skill test (along with a bike race against Lance Armstrong), nothing more, nothing less. Someone always wins- that's the definition of a opposed skill test.

It was a shitty example that did nothing to illustrate your point. No GM I know would relegate either of those examples to simple opposed skill checks unless the shit was completely un-important, in which case who the hell cares if the odds make sense to you or not. It would be retarded to resolve something as complex as a bicycle race with just an opposed skill check unless, once again, the outcome is unimportant, and then your example still falls down. In the future you might be better served by using examples of things you actually know at least a little about.

QuoteMany people are happy with horrid games, they- like you don't know better and couldn't care less if it was pointed out to them.

Even more people, like you, suffer from the delusion that they somehow know more than everyone else about everything, despite being proven wrong over and over. You saying a thing doesn't automatically make it true.

QuotePeople as a rule make bad decisions, because they are lazy, because they are dumb, or because they see a short term gain. I mean really, if a almost 1/5 chance for a 33 against a 94 is what you want out of your games- you can have it.

Do you actually understand the numbers you're using? I don't think you do. I also don't think you understand when it's appropriate to use an opposed skill check and when not to. Then again, maybe you do and this is just you being a dick.

QuoteIt's sloppy, fails even the most basic test of rational expection. And it frankly seems to suit you.

What's sloppy, lazy, and fails even the most basic test of rational expectation is your entire argument, if it could even be called that since it mostly consists of whining, insults, and excuses about why it's beneath you to actually engage in the discussion. Oh, and once again, just because you say it doesn't make it automatically true.

QuoteAnd with that, I'm done. As I said upfront, it was a mistake to even post in this thread.

Then feel free to stop. I was pretty sure you were just trolling anyway, and with every post you provide more evidence to support that hypothesis. If you're wanting to do more than threadcrap and troll, you'll have to actually support and defend your assertions rather than just toss around insults and pronouncements and then whine about how bad us people are who ask you (politely even) to actually prove your points. Until then good riddance.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;521308I guess I don't really have a problem with having ratings over 100% since I see it as a good thing if skills are over 100% for some tasks. IMHO that gives a mechanism for defining what is a routine/easy task that doesn't need a roll, without it being entirely GM fiat (or kludged in somehow, like d20s Take-10 rules).

So

skill > 100 - modifier

is a clear definition, but

skill > DC - 10

is a kludge?

Fascinating.

Quote from: Old One Eye;520959If it is a contest that minimizes stress factors (say the characters are playing a game of snooker for low stakes), requiring 2 or more successes before the outcome is determined drastically moves the odds in favor of the more skilled character without having to resort to more convoluted dice mechanics.

I've begun to think of it as the difference between throwing a dart and playing a game of darts.

If you're just throwing a single dart each, it's pretty easy to see how a guy with 33% skill might luck out and hit a bullseye on one of the rare occasions that the guy with 94% skill doesn't hit the bullseye. But when you play a full game of darts, the odds skew heavily towards the guy with the greater skill.

So when I'm looking to resolve opposed checks like this, I just ask myself: Is it more like throwing a dart? Or is it more like playing a game of darts?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;521608So
 
skill > 100 - modifier
 
is a clear definition, but
 
skill > DC - 10
 
is a kludge?
 
Fascinating.

Yes.
 
"A roll with 100%+ chance of success succeeds automatically" is automatically true, unless extra fumbling rules are tacked on.
 
"Any roll with 50% chance of success succeeds automatically, unless goblins are shooting you" is an kludge to fix PCs not getting enough positive modifiers to regularly accomplish actions that should be routine.
 
It also shuts down a variety of actions I might want to actually put in the game (e.g. the deadly crevasse where a PC is 25% likely to fail their Jump check on, fall into and die is now a deadly crevasse with an 0% chance), and also immediately goes forth and gives birth to exception rules (no take-10 with Use Magic Device, Skill Mastery, and etc.).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;521625Yes.
 
"A roll with 100%+ chance of success succeeds automatically" is automatically true, unless extra fumbling rules are tacked on.
 
"Any roll with 50% chance of success succeeds automatically, unless goblins are shooting you" is an kludge to fix PCs not getting enough positive modifiers to regularly accomplish actions that should be routine.
 
It also shuts down a variety of actions I might want to actually put in the game (e.g. the deadly crevasse where a PC is 25% likely to fail their Jump check on, fall into and die is now a deadly crevasse with an 0% chance), and also immediately goes forth and gives birth to exception rules (no take-10 with Use Magic Device, Skill Mastery, and etc.).

My question is, how could you possibly ever play any RPG without "kludging" sometimes or having task resolution constantly bog down the game? Should I roll to see if characters successfully open doors, eat sandwiches without choking, or successfully hit the john while peeing? A large variety of stuff gets "kludged" or ignored in RPGs. I see nothing wrong with not requiring a roll when a character is doing something routine, and there is nothing preventing the characters from taking their time or adjusting their actions to ensure success. I also see nothing wrong, in a percentile task resolution system, for characters that might suffer fairly hefty penalties to have skills over 100%. That simulates the characters ability to deal with the previously mentioned penalties.

As for your crevasse, if a player has taken the time to build their character's jumping skill up to where the crevasse is not dangerous, I see no reason to not allow them that. They sacrificed skill in other areas to ensure their character was highly skilled in jumping. So if you want to challenge that character use obstacles that don't involve jumping. Or, you can force them to jump the crevasse while being shot at from the air during a wind/rain/snow storm. I know it's not for everyone, but I'm personally not seeing the problem with it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;521609I've begun to think of it as the difference between throwing a dart and playing a game of darts.

If you're just throwing a single dart each, it's pretty easy to see how a guy with 33% skill might luck out and hit a bullseye on one of the rare occasions that the guy with 94% skill doesn't hit the bullseye. But when you play a full game of darts, the odds skew heavily towards the guy with the greater skill.

So when I'm looking to resolve opposed checks like this, I just ask myself: Is it more like throwing a dart? Or is it more like playing a game of darts?

Yes, that single dart throw by the 33 is going to hit a bullseye nearly 7% of the time.

Does anyone actually know or care to about determining the odds for what they are saying? Clearly not.

You rock, Chris!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;521688You rock, Chris!

-clash

Thanks bro

Quote from: Sigmund;521641My question is, how could you possibly ever play any RPG without "kludging" sometimes or having task resolution constantly bog down the game? Should I roll to see if characters successfully open doors, eat sandwiches without choking, or successfully hit the john while peeing? A large variety of stuff gets "kludged" or ignored in RPGs. I see nothing wrong with not requiring a roll when a character is doing something routine, and there is nothing preventing the characters from taking their time or adjusting their actions to ensure success. I also see nothing wrong, in a percentile task resolution system, for characters that might suffer fairly hefty penalties to have skills over 100%. That simulates the characters ability to deal with the previously mentioned penalties.
As for your crevasse, if a player has taken the time to build their character's jumping skill up to where the crevasse is not dangerous, I see no reason to not allow them that. They sacrificed skill in other areas to ensure their character was highly skilled in jumping. So if you want to challenge that character use obstacles that don't involve jumping. Or, you can force them to jump the crevasse while being shot at from the air during a wind/rain/snow storm. I know it's not for everyone, but I'm personally not seeing the problem with it.

Nah, its not feasible to roll for everything. If the random outcome doesn't matter (on the john), if they can just try again (opening a door), or the chance of failure is just ridiculously small (choking on the sandwich), its not worth bothering with. I can't imagine players putting up with that sort of thing either.
 
On the crevasse: "using obstacles that don't involve jumping isn't a fix... take-10 can be used with (almost) any skill. The problem is that, if I want to challenge a character with something out of combat, they have to have less than a 50% chance of success, or its automatic. That applies equally to climbing, jumping, searching, balancing, reading runes, or whatever.
 
I'd be fine with characters who get to 100% not having to roll.  But 50%...? is weird. Someone pulls out their magical Climber's Kit (+2 Climb) and a task suddenly goes from hard to automatic.
 
In other words:
*there is no such thing as a magical rune with a 70% chance of being deciphered in 3.5. 50%+ or nothing.
*there is no such thing as a slightly difficult surface to balance on in 3.5, with a 15% chance of slipping. .
*there's no such thing as a deadly crevasse...we did that one..
*a character without a Wisdom penalty can automatically pass the DC 10 Survival check to find food in the wilderness.
*Swim checks seem to be designed taking the take-10 rules into account (a player who doesn't take-10 on swimming will go underwater fairly quickly).
 
You may not have big problems with this in your games. I don't like it or consider it a good rule, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;521720Nah, its not feasible to roll for everything. If the random outcome doesn't matter (on the john), if they can just try again (opening a door), or the chance of failure is just ridiculously small (choking on the sandwich), its not worth bothering with. I can't imagine players putting up with that sort of thing either.
 
On the crevasse: "using obstacles that don't involve jumping isn't a fix... take-10 can be used with (almost) any skill. The problem is that, if I want to challenge a character with something out of combat, they have to have less than a 50% chance of success, or its automatic. That applies equally to climbing, jumping, searching, balancing, reading runes, or whatever.
 
I'd be fine with characters who get to 100% not having to roll.  But 50%...? is weird. Someone pulls out their magical Climber's Kit (+2 Climb) and a task suddenly goes from hard to automatic.
 
In other words:
*there is no such thing as a magical rune with a 70% chance of being deciphered in 3.5. 50%+ or nothing.
*there is no such thing as a slightly difficult surface to balance on in 3.5, with a 15% chance of slipping. .
*there's no such thing as a deadly crevasse...we did that one..
*a character without a Wisdom penalty can automatically pass the DC 10 Survival check to find food in the wilderness.
*Swim checks seem to be designed taking the take-10 rules into account (a player who doesn't take-10 on swimming will go underwater fairly quickly).
 
You may not have big problems with this in your games. I don't like it or consider it a good rule, though.

If we're talking 3.5 then I would say that while on paper it might seem the way you describe, I never actually gained that perception while playing it. This is the first in any form I've encountered this specific complaint. Especially with climbing, which by it's very nature almost never allows a take-10 or take-20 roll because it almost always involves potential for disaster in the event of a failure. For adventurers in a pseudo-medieval setting, finding food for someone with even moderate training in a non-barren wilderness is not an issue for me, no. I'm not RPGing to play out finding supper in a forest. Now a desert, on the other hand, would be a different story, but then even a cleric might end up with a neg wis modifier due to the penalties that would be sensible to impose for finding food in a desert.

I guess we never needed that granular a system for these kinds of challenges. it was either dangerous, or it wasn't. We weren't interested in a slightly dangerous surface to balance on. It never came up. If it did for you, then obviously 3.5 was not the game most suitable for how you wanted to play. In that case I still wouldn't call them bad rules. Just bad rules for you.

Quote from: Sigmund;522424If we're talking 3.5 then I would say that while on paper it might seem the way you describe, I never actually gained that perception while playing it. This is the first in any form I've encountered this specific complaint. Especially with climbing, which by it's very nature almost never allows a take-10 or take-20 roll because it almost always involves potential for disaster in the event of a failure. For adventurers in a pseudo-medieval setting, finding food for someone with even moderate training in a non-barren wilderness is not an issue for me, no. I'm not RPGing to play out finding supper in a forest. Now a desert, on the other hand, would be a different story, but then even a cleric might end up with a neg wis modifier due to the penalties that would be sensible to impose for finding food in a desert.
 
I guess we never needed that granular a system for these kinds of challenges. it was either dangerous, or it wasn't. We weren't interested in a slightly dangerous surface to balance on. It never came up. If it did for you, then obviously 3.5 was not the game most suitable for how you wanted to play. In that case I still wouldn't call them bad rules. Just bad rules for you.

I've bolded the part I did because it indicates that you're not playing it by the book. I think few people do, which is why this complaint isn't heard more often. Basically, "consequences for failing" don't prohibit Take10 - only Take20. A character can take-10 on a Climb or any other roll where failure is damaging or lethal; the example of take-10 (in the take-20 section on p.65) is of Krusk doing a Climb check.  
I think alot of GMs interpret "when your character is not being threatened or distracted..." very liberally, to include "threats" as being consequence of the skill check, which is not correct.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;522441I've bolded the part I did because it indicates that you're not playing it by the book. I think few people do, which is why this complaint isn't heard more often. Basically, "consequences for failing" don't prohibit Take10 - only Take20. A character can take-10 on a Climb or any other roll where failure is damaging or lethal; the example of take-10 (in the take-20 section on p.65) is of Krusk doing a Climb check.  
I think alot of GMs interpret "when your character is not being threatened or distracted..." very liberally, to include "threats" as being consequence of the skill check, which is not correct.

Ah that's right. I think I'll get over it. Especially since I don't really play 3.5 anymore. I enjoyed it while I did though. By all means, consider it bad or broken. I've lost interest in debating it further. Whether you consider it "broken", or "bad" or whatever, it never stopped me, or apparently many others, from enjoying the game. I guess it pays to be less intelligent and discerning.

Also, to be honest, I have seen plenty of games run where Take 10 or 20 were hardly used at all. We used skills and rolled and failed and succeeded and had loads of fun doing it. Guess we weren't doing it right, or were cheating, or sucked at math or something. I'm glad too. I mostly mess with BRP, GenreDiversion, BASH, and SwN now. Hopefully if they are bad I keep playing them wrong too.

Quote from: gleichman;520952Now I don't know about you, but I think the idea of any number of skill 33 beating a skill 94 in a fair individual vs. individual contest an unacceptable simulation under any conditions.

Quote from: gleichman;521683Yes, that single dart throw by the 33 is going to hit a bullseye nearly 7% of the time.

Does anyone actually know or care to about determining the odds for what they are saying? Clearly not.

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;520898If a group of, say, 4 characters, including both PCs and NPCs, decide to have, say, a spitting contest, it shouldn't be complicated to compare the dice roll results. If it is, the system is just weird.

It 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.