Do opposed skill rolls work?

[Sean Waters]

Someone who is far better at maths than I can hopefully point out the flaw in my thinking on this one.

Two people are gambling. They have 11- gambling skill. The game is one of straight chance – each has an equal chance of winning. Someone has to win. I’d assume we use opposed skill rolls.

Say Gambler A rolls, and gets 11. That is a success, with no extra points. He had a 62.5% chance of getting that result.

We take that result, and apply it as a penalty to Gambler B. Gambler B also rolls 11 He had a 62.5% chance of getting that result. He wins. He wins, despite the fact that they rolled the same and had the same skill.

It seems to me that the opposed skill system is biased in favour of whoever goes second.

I appreciate that in this instance you could have just flipped a coin, but that is not the point; it could have been two people arguing and trying to persuade the other to their point of view, and the skill totals may have been different. The example is simplistic but uses the mechanics of the game. Simple numbers are used so that the underlying mechanics are clear. Am I looking at this all wrong?

[Alibear]

Why did the 2nd guy win? :confused:

[jtelson]

Someone who is far better at maths than I can hopefully point out the flaw in my thinking on this one.

Two people are gambling. They have 11- gambling skill. The game is one of straight chance – each has an equal chance of winning. Someone has to win. I’d assume we use opposed skill rolls.

Say Gambler A rolls, and gets 11. That is a success, with no extra points. He had a 62.5% chance of getting that result.

We take that result, and apply it as a penalty to Gambler B. Gambler B also rolls 11 He had a 62.5% chance of getting that result. He wins. He wins, despite the fact that they rolled the same and had the same skill.

It seems to me that the opposed skill system is biased in favour of whoever goes second.

I appreciate that in this instance you could have just flipped a coin, but that is not the point; it could have been two people arguing and trying to persuade the other to their point of view, and the skill totals may have been different. The example is simplistic but uses the mechanics of the game. Simple numbers are used so that the underlying mechanics are clear. Am I looking at this all wrong?

No, you're correct the system's set up to favor whoever's resisting an action (It's 1 skill point easier to defuse a bomb than to 'fuse a bomb, etc). Unfortunately for actions where it isn't as clear who's acting vs resisting it can become a question of who goes first (generally I let the PC's 'resist') although with gambling or other situations where 'push' is a valid outcome, I have both parties roll and ties are a no loss/gain result.

[jtelson]

Why did the 2nd guy win? :confused:

5Re page 44 on Skill vs Skill contests.

[Alibear]

Ah well, I'll be classing that as a draw.

[Sean Waters]

Ah well, I'll be classing that as a draw.

Indeed, but the rules won't :(

[Sean Waters]

No, you're correct the system's set up to favor whoever's resisting an action (It's 1 skill point easier to defuse a bomb than to 'fuse a bomb, etc). Unfortunately for actions where it isn't as clear who's acting vs resisting it can become a question of who goes first (generally I let the PC's 'resist') although with gambling or other situations where 'push' is a valid outcome, I have both parties roll and ties are a no loss/gain result.

Thank goodness I'm not going mad.

Well, not faster than I thought, anyway.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Someone who is far better at maths than I can hopefully point out the flaw in my thinking on this one.Okay. :) The flaw in your thinking is in using Gambling to determine the outcome of a game that you describe as "straight chance" where either "has an equal chance of winning." In that scenario, by definition, Gambling does not apply. You've already determined that each has an equal chance to win, indicating that their Gambling Skills can't affect the outcome. ;)

[Sean Waters]

Okay. :) The flaw in your thinking is in using Gambling to determine the outcome of a game that you describe as "straight chance" where either "has an equal chance of winning." In that scenario, by definition, Gambling does not apply. You've already determined that each has an equal chance to win, indicating that their Gambling Skills can't affect the outcome. ;)


OK, good point. Let me slightly amend that by removing the reference to straight chance, or at least clarifying it. There still remains all other things (including the skill of the gamblers) being the same an equal chance of a win or a loss in relation to each player, and there has to be a win or a loss. Imagine a hand of draw poker where the suits are also ranked, so even on a high card, someone wins. In that case the roll represents how the cards fall, and there is an equal chance of each getting the better hand, but the gambling skill is still relevant because the players are betting and bluff is a vital component of poker.

[Thia Halmades]

OK, good point. Let me slightly amend that by removing the reference to straight chance, or at least clarifying it. There still remains all other things (including the skill of the gamblers) being the same an equal chance of a win or a loss in relation to each player, and there has to be a win or a loss. Imagine a hand of draw poker where the suits are also ranked, so even on a high card, someone wins. In that case the roll represents how the cards fall, and there is an equal chance of each getting the better hand, but the gambling skill is still relevant because the players are betting and bluff is a vital component of poker.

In this case, I would go with the argument that the rolls aren't opposed, until you get into something like Poker, and we'll go ahead and assume the most currently popular of Poker games, Texas Hold'Em, so named for the two cards you 'hold' as the house cards fall. My question would be, "How deep a simulation are you looking for?"

If we have five cats at a table, all with 11- rolls, and they all roll clock work elevens, does the guy who went last, win? Doubtful. In instances where the winner isn't clear, I usually call for a roll off, or I may (being a house ruling nutter) go with using a whole different stat altogether. What I'm driving it as that the skill system (any skill system) will 'break down' when you try to simulate real-world activities; common and dramatic sense need to apply as well.

For example, "gambling" as a skill can mean any number of things depending in part on the GM. Does it account for a high PRE and someone's ability to bluff? Should it? Is it just raw luck in the case of poker? Should they even get a "roll" at all if they're playing, say, roulette? It's really GMO in the more esoteric cases.

[jtelson]

I think perhaps the example is causing some hangups. Replace Gambling with PS:Chess or any other scenario that's opposed but not necessarily resisted and has little or no random element.

[Sean Waters]

I think perhaps the example is causing some hangups. Replace Gambling with PS:Chess or any other scenario that's opposed but not necessarily resisted and has little or no random element.

Good point :thumbup:. The issue here is not supposed to be my inability to think of a good example but the mechanical problem that 'going second yields a substantial advantage'.

[Thia Halmades]

Good point :thumbup:. The issue here is not supposed to be my inability to think of a good example but the mechanical problem that 'going second yields a substantial advantage'.

Not if you're playing black it doesn't. Is there a penalty for that?

[jtelson]

Not if you're playing black it doesn't. Is there a penalty for that?

In the event that this wasn't a joke, It's the mechanic that's being discussed, try not to get hung up on the specifics of any given example.

[Thia Halmades]

In the event that this wasn't a joke, It's the mechanic that's being discussed, try not to get hung up on the specifics of any given example.

Pardon me, I'll go rollst my eyes somewheres.

[ghost-angel]

First - you don't have a 62.5% chance of rolling an 11. You have a 62.5% chance of rolling any number from 3-11.

Second - consider the second roller the House (not just as the example of Gambling, but as the person being rolled Against they gain some inherent favor for simplicity sake) and ties go to the House. Just like in Risk ties go to the Defender. It's just to simplify things.

[Thia Halmades]

First - you don't have a 62.5% chance of rolling an 11. You have a 62.5% chance of rolling any number from 3-11.

Second - consider the second roller the House (not just as the example of Gambling, but as the person being rolled Against they gain some inherent favor for simplicity sake) and ties go to the House. Just like in Risk ties go to the Defender. It's just to simplify things.

Simplifier. This is why no one takes you seriously, GA. You have to make everything steam lined and straight forward. Where's the fun in that?

[Hugh Neilson]

First - you don't have a 62.5% chance of rolling an 11. You have a 62.5% chance of rolling any number from 3-11.

Second - consider the second roller the House (not just as the example of Gambling, but as the person being rolled Against they gain some inherent favor for simplicity sake) and ties go to the House. Just like in Risk ties go to the Defender. It's just to simplify things.

But the second roller may not be the house. I think the poker game example is a good one. Is there some reason that two players with equal skill playing a fair game would not have an equal chance at a victory? Assuming that they should each have the same chance at a victory, how do we make opposed rolls reflect this? Someone has to roll first.

Perhaps a better approach in dealing with opposed skill rolls is to allow the character whose skill roll was the most successful to win, with ties resulting in a tie (chess match stalemated, for example) where this is possible, and a very close match (eg. moving into overtime; a photo finish, etc.) requiring another roll where a tie is not possible, such as Sean's example.

[Outsider]

I use opposed skill rolls when one character is acting in opposition to anotherm where there is a defender and an attacker. When characters are merely in competition with eachother, I use a skill roll off. Whoever makes the roll by the most does better. If they tie, they tie. If you need to produce a single winner, just have the characters who tied roll again.

[Thia Halmades]

But the second roller may not be the house. I think the poker game example is a good one. Is there some reason that two players with equal skill playing a fair game would not have an equal chance at a victory? Assuming that they should each have the same chance at a victory, how do we make opposed rolls reflect this? Someone has to roll first.

Perhaps a better approach in dealing with opposed skill rolls is to allow the character whose skill roll was the most successful to win, with ties resulting in a tie (chess match stalemated, for example) where this is possible, and a very close match (eg. moving into overtime; a photo finish, etc.) requiring another roll where a tie is not possible, such as Sean's example.

Or you can elect a default. It's arbitrary, but you could decide that whomever has the higher skill, i.e., spent more points on it, would win a tie in that case. Not unlike the SPD chart breakdown; if we have DEX 15 and SPD 3, then our INT determines who goes first. This may seem to arbitrary for some, i.e., "Why not let the stat determine it?" but I'm not being specific, per se, as much as I'm saying other options for resolution exist once the dice are cast.

[ghost-angel]

In the case of equal chances where they aren't directly opposed I would call draws a no win - in Poker (as an example) if both hands have nothing or are equal there are several rules to deal with this, depending. you can High/Low, split the pot, or leave it for the next round.

Skill Vs Skill makes the assumption the situation involves the idea that someone will succeed and someone will fail - in places where it's possible to do neither, you either put Tie To The Defender (in which case the Attacker is the one who initiated the ordeal, by suggesting the game or taking a proactive action) or use a bit of Common Sense and go with a Tie.

Also remember, a Skill Vs Skill may not be a single action, it may represent an entire series of actions or ongoing conflict in which case I would use a Tied Success to go another round until I have a decisive outcome. It doesn't need to be done in one roll.

[Killer Shrike]

There a few things wrong with your example, however lets avoid getting bogged down in the example. I do obsessively have to point out that your 62.5% assumption of 11 is wrong -- its 11 or less; the odds of actually rolling an 11 and no other result are less.

That aside resisted skill rolls work when you use them for what they are intended for, and not as well when you deviate from that. Some questions to think about in general when deciding on if opposed skill rolls are appropriate:

* Who is resisting who? If two (or more) people arent really directly opposing one another with one side initiating and one side reacting then resisted skill rolls are not 100% appropriate. You can use one if you like, but it favors the "defender", or as you put it the person that went second, which is pretty consistent throughout the game.

* Is it a "fair" contest, or does one side or the other have an advantage or disadvantage? If its a truly fair contest, meaning 50% chance for either side to win or lose with no other factors, then a roll off is not going to model that correctly. Try flipping a coin instead.

* Is the outcome essentially random, and not influenced by "skill" or knowledge? If so a rolloff of any sort is probably not appropriate, with the exception of Luck or any extraordinary powers that might be used to influence the results (like IPE TK and Roulette).

* Is the action extended or immediate? If the outcome is decided by a single round of rolls, randomness is going to have more of an impact. If it is an extended action with a target success margin that requires several resisted rolls then the better skill roll should statistically have an advantage. It also removes the attack / defender bias since the involved parties are not rolling against each other, they are rolling against a margin of success.

* Is it really a straight up my skill vs your skill contest, or is it a more complex / multi-faceted competition? Another way to look at this point, is the outcome something that favors dramatic resolution, or abstract (rolling dice) resolution and in both cases to what degree? A single roll, resisted or not, is abstract; it can also be used to measure success over different increments of time and scale; the more abstract you get, the less a bias or even being resisted at all really matters. If the outcome in question is dramatically important on the other hand you might actually be looking at a variety of skill and characteristic rolls both resisted and not for a single atomic outcome; ie a single hand of poker could be handled with many rolls, and not a resisted Gambling roll at all. The means of resolution most appropriate is also likely variable depending on the needs of the story; one poker game might take all night to resolve on one hand, and an entire tournament could be summed up with a single weighted roll to see how a character fared, and anything in between.

There are more nuances, but Im out of time; hopefully some of this made sense.

[casualplayer]

Cheez, what a dry premise. I don't think Sean gambles much. :D

Firstly, no one won. Both players achieved equally meaning they drew, pushed, have to keep playing til a winner is determined or, if the house had a hand in, they both lost! Depends on the game.

Secondly, no complimentary skills. WTF? Which player has Conversation to get the other player to spill some secrets? Which one has Acting to maintain his poker face throughout? Eidetic Memory Only for which cards have been seen? IMNSHO Presence Attacks work wonderfully at the card table. I live for the game against the player who read a lot of books about the subject (has the Gambling skill) but has no other cards up his sleeve.

But let's stray away from the example. The whole point of rolling the dice is to see if the protagonists succeed. The antagonists' rolls are just to determine if there are any proactive modifiers to the protagonists' rolls. Unless you are an adversarial GM :sick: or things devolve to the PCs coming to blows, the skill vs. skill system works ok.

[Sean Waters]

The skill v skill system is supposed to resolve conflicts where one skill is being used against another, and I don't think that it does that as well as it could..

Forget games. 2 people arguing, trying to convicne the other of their point. Say on a message board :)

Now I can see that if they both roll their 'Persuade' skill and get the same result, then that exchange has not resulted in a victory for either. Continue or stop.

That is not what the rules say though, it is a consensus house rule; sensible, but not canon. the rules would have whoever rolled second winning th eexchange.

My biggest gripe though is deciding who is the 'active' participant. Even the example in the book of PER v Stealth seems fraught with difficulty, even if the rules position is clear. I can see a good argument for either participant being 'active'.

There is a real advantage, as far as I can see, to rolling second, so this is important.

[Thia Halmades]

Actually, I've pondered putting together a 'Verbal Martial Arts' article for Digital HERO to address this exact problem. I suppose now is a good a time as any to start writing it.

[archermoo]

The skill v skill system is supposed to resolve conflicts where one skill is being used against another, and I don't think that it does that as well as it could..

Forget games. 2 people arguing, trying to convicne the other of their point. Say on a message board :)

Now I can see that if they both roll their 'Persuade' skill and get the same result, then that exchange has not resulted in a victory for either. Continue or stop.

That is not what the rules say though, it is a consensus house rule; sensible, but not canon. the rules would have whoever rolled second winning th eexchange.

My biggest gripe though is deciding who is the 'active' participant. Even the example in the book of PER v Stealth seems fraught with difficulty, even if the rules position is clear. I can see a good argument for either participant being 'active'.

There is a real advantage, as far as I can see, to rolling second, so this is important.

In the case of two people trying to convince each other of their side, it is simple. You require two sets of rolls. One for person A trying to convince person B, where B would be defending, and one for person B trying to convince person A, where A would be defending. Which leads to the possibility of each convincing the other that they are right, and the two people trading positions. Which I've actually seen happen IRL. :)

[Sean Waters]

In the case of two people trying to convince each other of their side, it is simple. You require two sets of rolls. One for person A trying to convince person B, where B would be defending, and one for person B trying to convince person A, where A would be defending. Which leads to the possibility of each convincing the other that they are right, and the two people trading positions. Which I've actually seen happen IRL. :)

I think that is a sensible and practical sugegstion.

[Killer Shrike]

Actually, I've pondered putting together a 'Verbal Martial Arts' article for Digital HERO to address this exact problem. I suppose now is a good a time as any to start writing it.

You might want to read "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense" as a reference :)

[Thia Halmades]

You might want to read "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense" as a reference :)

Linky? Amazon? Online? Point, wise one, and I shall go.

[jtelson]

Actually, I've pondered putting together a 'Verbal Martial Arts' article for Digital HERO to address this exact problem. I suppose now is a good a time as any to start writing it.

This other uses for Fudge-Fu article may be of some interest towards that.

http://www.fudgefactor.org/2006/01/other-uses-for-fudge-fu.html

[Ockham's Spoon]

Sean has a point about going second, and archermoo has a good solution for addressing such contests. But I think casualplayer makes an excellent point about the use of complimentary skills, which would "break the tie" in many cases and avoid the whole situation. Encouraging the use of complimentary skills like that generally results in players taking more skills for their characters because they are useful, not just colorful. But the colorful makes for better role playing in my experience, so any way to promote it I have to support.

[Utech]

How about just doing the opposed skill roll twice? The first time you have A active and B resisting. The second time B is active and A is resisting.

Compare the two results and create your story around it.

Just a few possible results:
A gets more success than B and wins the exchange.
B gets more success than A and wins the exchange.
A fails by less than B and wins the exchange.
B fails by less than A and wins the exchange.
A and B success or fail equally and another round of rolls is called for.

Naturally, the story one creates might change from situation to situation. I trust the GM and players to work together to ensure it is enjoyable. If you prefer hard and fast rules, they wouldn't be difficult to write up.

[Killer Shrike]

Linky? Amazon? Online? Point, wise one, and I shall go.

Well, I was kind of joking, but:

http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Art-Verbal-Self-Defense/dp/0880292571/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197694445&sr=1-3

[Ragitsu]

Secondly, no complimentary skills. WTF? Which player has Conversation to get the other player to spill some secrets? Which one has Acting to maintain his poker face throughout? Eidetic Memory Only for which cards have been seen? IMNSHO Presence Attacks work wonderfully at the card table. I live for the game against the player who read a lot of books about the subject (has the Gambling skill) but has no other cards up his sleeve.

Issues of game balance COMPLETELY aside, is it realistic to let every possible advantage on the gambler's side stack with the primary Gambling roll? They could have excellent vision, be a great reader of people, and a head for math.

[Kraven Kor]

Just wanted to say this:

The person "going second" does not have an advantage. The defender has the advantage. Order of rolls just so happens to be initiator / offender rolls first, responder / defender rolls second. If there is no clear attacker/defender, I would ignore the "ties go to defender" and re-roll if there is no clear "winner."

[megaplayboy]

I did do an opposed skill comparison at one point, but it's a fairly complicated thing to work out long hand. Suffice to say that a sufficiently high difference in skill levels will result in a fairly lopsided contest(on either side, which is as one would expect). The notable other thing, IIRC, is that even a modest increase in skill over the baseline on the part of the responder/defender can significantly crimp the success of the initiator/offender(e.g., a 12- roll for the defender has a disproportionate impact on a 12-14- roll for the initiator, compared to an 11-)

[Ice9]

Wait, that's how you do opposed rolls? We've been doing them wrong for years - both people make a skill roll, whoever has a greater margin of success is the winner. A tie is a tie (or goes to a second roll).
Although reading this, I'm going to stick with my "wrong" method - I'm puzzled why the actual rules work the way they do.

[megaplayboy]

Wait, that's how you do opposed rolls? We've been doing them wrong for years - both people make a skill roll, whoever has a greater margin of success is the winner. A tie is a tie (or goes to a second roll).
Although reading this, I'm going to stick with my "wrong" method - I'm puzzled why the actual rules work the way they do.

Actually, functionally, I think that is the way they're supposed to be done. If Person A makes their roll by 2, then Person B has to make their roll by 2 or better.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Indeed, skill vs skill rolls are easy to resolve and there should be no ambiguity involved at all. Each person makes their skill roll, the one who succeeds by more wins. If they tie, its a draw and if appropriate the contest continues. There are times when i as a gm designate a winning threshold such as 10 points. The players continue rolling their skills until such a time that one of them accumulates 10 points first.

[casualplayer]

Issues of game balance COMPLETELY aside, is it realistic to let every possible advantage on the gambler's side stack with the primary Gambling roll? They could have excellent vision, be a great reader of people, and a head for math.

Why not? Most gambling houses are designed with distractions to keep you from being able to focus and make good decisions. The "defender" gets complimentary skill bonuses too.

[Christopher]

Actually, I've pondered putting together a 'Verbal Martial Arts' article for Digital HERO to address this exact problem. I suppose now is a good a time as any to start writing it.
Don't know if there is a problem with the rules. I rather think there is a problem with the application.


I think perhaps the example is causing some hangups. Replace Gambling with PS:Chess or any other scenario that's opposed but not necessarily resisted and has little or no random element.


I use opposed skill rolls when one character is acting in opposition to anotherm where there is a defender and an attacker. When characters are merely in competition with eachother, I use a skill roll off. Whoever makes the roll by the most does better. If they tie, they tie. If you need to produce a single winner, just have the characters who tied roll again.
Yes, that is right. In order for oposed Skill rolls to work there HAS to be an order of attacker and Defender. And the solution for Poker is pretty simple:
The attacker (the guy who has to roll first) changes every round!
He does so in real Poker: The card giver changes. Where you sit in relation to the card giver changes your ability to determine the game, but also your ability to react to the actions of the others. So when 5 people sit at the poker table, the one who has to roll first changes every time the card giver changes and they just roll in the order it goes from the card giver. The roll of one, is the target for the next to be beaten. So if all Skills are equall (11-), and all 5 roll 11, the win goes to the guy who rolled last. But the next round, he is the one who goes first.
So it's equally a game of chance, of tactics and opportunity (sitting at the right postion realtive to the giver/being the last to roll).

The same is true for chess:
"White begins, black wins" is not a toally idle saying. The one who has the initative can determine the start of the game. The one who lacks initiative can react to his enemies actions.

When you want to simulate an entire contest, there are two possible solutions (wich you can combine):
- determine who has the "bad luck" of having to roll first randomly. When there is more than one round, move the "roll-starting point" among the players.
- give the one who beginns the chance for an additional roll (opposed by the others), with the only effect of giving him a +1 to the real roll (wich determines who wins). So a player can decide to go first in hopes of getting the +1, but at the risk of being at a disadvantage if he fails his roll (he has to go first with his roll, so the others have easier time beating him).

Opposed Skill rolls are not different from the question "Who can act first?" in normal combat. You get the advantage of determining the battlefield, with the disadvantage of being open to counterattack in that phase (can't abort) and the enemy being able to figure out your plan.

[Hierax]

Do an actual opposed roll (dice roll vs. dice roll) instead:


if the skills are equal roll 3d6 vs. 3d6 (high wins)



if one skill is higher than the other give it a bonus equal to the difference; i.e., 13- vs. 11- = 2 difference = 3d6+2 vs. 3d6.

Simple.

[Christopher]

Do an actual opposed roll (dice roll vs. dice roll) instead:



if the skills are equal roll 3d6 vs. 3d6 (high wins)





if one skill is higher than the other give it a bonus equal to the difference; i.e., 13- vs. 11- = 2 difference = 3d6+2 vs. 3d6.


Simple.
Yes. And totally ignores the problem of what happens when they tie....

[megaplayboy]

Yes. And totally ignores the problem of what happens when they tie....

"In a tie, everybody wins! Yay!" :p

[brionl]

Don't know if there is a problem with the rules. I rather think there is a problem with the application.




Yes, that is right. In order for oposed Skill rolls to work there HAS to be an order of attacker and Defender. And the solution for Poker is pretty simple:
The attacker (the guy who has to roll first) changes every round!
He does so in real Poker: The card giver changes.

In English usage, it's dealer, not card giver.
But otherwise, you're correct.

[casualplayer]

Yes. And totally ignores the problem of what happens when they tie....

In most cases people neglect to define what happens with a tie but ties have different effects depending on the conflict. In a tie versus Systems Op vs. Security Systems you don't advance any further but you don't trigger any alarms either. Conversation vs. Conversation, no significant information is exchanged but the clock keeps ticking and the bomb is about to explode! Gambling vs. Gambling, some chips move back and forth but no significant reallocation or advantage gained.

In some cases ties will go to the house, in some cases ties will go to the runner and in some cases ties will just eat up precious time.

[Christopher]

In English usage, it's dealer, not card giver.
But otherwise, you're correct.
Thanks, so my understanding was not totally flawed.
To give an example:
5 Players. In their order the make rolls and the rsults are:
1: Made by 0
2: Made by 0
3: failed by 2 (-2)
4: Made by 0
5: Made by 0

So the resolving of "who wins" (when player 1 is the first to roll):
2 beats 1; 3 is out; 4 beats 2; 5 beats 4; 5 wins, by favor of being at the right postion.
When the game beginns at 4:
5 beats 4; 1 beats 5; 2 beats 1; 3 is out; 2 Wins by favor of position

Since the dealer/guy who rolls first will change every round nobody has a big favor. And even just archieving a tie is only likely between players with a equal skill and equal complimentary rolls in the firt place.

[brionl]

It also depends on the game. In Blackjack, the dealer has the advantage, because ties go to the dealer.

[Lucius]

Do opposed skill rolls work?
Yes.

Do they work when Sean Waters misapplies them?
Not as well as they do in situations they're actually appropriate for.

Lucius Alexander

Roll vs Palindromedary

[Wizard]

The way I see it is that for there to be a opposed skill roll there has to be a clear initiator of the action, someone who declares I am trying to do something. I refer to the initiator as the attacker in the examples below. There also has to be someone that declares they are going to stop the attacker from doing something, the defender.

A burglar is trying to sneak past a guard. This makes the burglar the attacker and the guard the defender. If the burglar fails his skill roll he automatically gets noticed by the guard.

A guard is trying to find a burglar as he has reason to believe someone is in the building. This makes the guard the attacker and the burglar the defender. If the guard fails his skill roll, he automatically fails to locate the burglar.


The guard and burglar now sit down to a game of chess (yeah, the burglar got caught). Neither the guard (chess skill 11-) or burglar (chess skill 9-) are the initiators so instead of an opposed skill roll they both roll skill rolls. The guard rolls a 14 and the burglar rolls a 10. Both failed their skills and both played terrible games, but as the burglar failed by the least amount, he won the chess game.

In the case of a draw in a chess game, I suppose you declare a stalemate. For actions that need someone to win, then either the win goes to the character with the highest controlling attribute or just re-roll.

Another way to handle the chess game would be by using the Task Difficulty rules on page 23 of the APG. The guard and burglar would just keep rolling until their Task Difficulty reaches zero.


In other words an opposed skill roll does not apply where two or more characters are trying to achieve the same result. If five characters sit down to play poker they are all trying to win for themselves. Their main goal is not to stop someone else from winning, even though by definition that is what would happen, but it is for them to win. Hopefully that makes sense.

[Christopher]

In other words an opposed skill roll does not apply where two or more characters are trying to achieve the same result.
Like I said in my examples above: Just asign one as "the attacker". In any game system with a set of rounds or Initiative Order there will always be one in the postion with slight advantage or one with slight disadvantage. The one with the disadvantage is the Attacker and has a slightly lesser chance of success (because ties go to the other).

And it is really a small chance:
The chance for on person to roll a 10- or 11- is 12.5% The chance two to roll the 10- or 11- right after another is 1.5625 %. When Skilllevel, Complimentary Bonuses or Situational Modifiers are greater than 1 the chance for a Tie becomes even less.

[Ragitsu]

How about when two characters are trying to persuade an NPC to accept their respective point of views?

[Christopher]

How about when two characters are trying to persuade an NPC to accept their respective point of views?
One of the character anounced the action first/started first. As such the enemy can attack his arguments. When in doubt, just roll random.

It's not si differently from one PC trying to convince/sneak by one NPC. One always says "I do X" and somebody else says "I counter with Y" (or does so automatically).

[casualplayer]

How about when two characters are trying to persuade an NPC to accept their respective point of views? Each player rolls their "convince" skill until they accumulate enough successes to reach an arbitrary threshold. Or you can keep track of the gross amount that each player rolls in excess (in recess?) of what they need to succeed and whoever amasses the most in a set number of turns or crosses a threshold wins the argument. You can also have the listener make opposed rolls if they are difficult to convince. Anyone who zeroes out their gross successes or margin of success commits a faux pas that takes them out of the argument.

[Manic Typist]

You should also consider the listener's psychology; maybe he has an inclination to one side over the other.

[Christopher]

You should also consider the listener's psychology; maybe he has an inclination to one side over the other.
"The GM may modify the Charm roll based on the quality of the character’s conduct, the receptivity of the target, the target’s Psychological Complications, and other factors. (Alternately, the GM can modify the EGO Roll instead.)"

Pretty sure something like this is listed with every other Interaction Skill (so it is universal among them)

Edit: Not only has conversation this Rule, it even list Values for how much a Specific level of complication is worth.

[prestidigitator]

If I were you'd I'd be less concerned about the case of a tie, and more concerned with the case where the first character fails the roll, meaning the second character automatically wins.

I generally use a roll-high method where you roll 3d6 and add a modifier. Normally you try to beat a target number, but in most opposed skill contest you simply try to get the highest number. If there's also the notion of failure in such a contest, then either or both characters might also fail, and the notion of failure can be decoupled from the notion of who beat the other. Whether ties can be ties or must be resolved through a second roll of some sort (either a re-roll or a Complimentary roll of some sort) depends highly on the context.

So yeah, I'm not extremely fond of the opposed skill roll rules as written, but I've also never been afraid of ripping things apart where it makes sense, so i don't really care.

[Sean Waters]

Do opposed skill rolls work?
Yes.

Do they work when Sean Waters misapplies them?
Not as well as they do in situations they're actually appropriate for.

Lucius Alexander

Roll vs Palindromedary

Quite right: I'll take an example from the book then. 6.1.77: If two or more characters try to use Gambling at once, it becomes a Skill Versus Skill contest.

Actually it is wose than I thought. The skill v skill rules say that if the person who rolls first fails, the second next person does not even need to roll.

I'm not saying I think this is how it should be, I'm saying this is how it is. The Ultimate Skill probably has lots of alternative methods of skil v skill resolution. I'd say that the best way of resolving skill v skill contests in most cases is by rolling, and comparing results, with margins.

What I mean is that you could say that, for a game of chance and skill, like poker, you both roll gambling (and any complementary skills) until one character has a 6 point advantage: say one character has 11- and the second has 12-. They roll 9/12, which is +2/+0 or +2 to player one, so you go onto a second round, when they roll 14/10, which will be -3/+2 for a cumulative total of +3 to player two. You keep going until one player has 6 points more than the other.

For a game like chess you might split it into opening, middle game and endgame: same principle, but you need (say) 5 points to win each stage, but if you do win a stage you get +1 on your skill for the rest of the game.

For contests like Stealth v Perception you could set unequal totals: the sneaker needs to get +4 to get by unnoticed, but the guard only needs +2 to spot him.

There's lots of good ways of doing it: what I'm saying is that the Skill Versus Skill rules are not one of them.

At least I assume that is what I'm saying; this all started a long time ago...

[Christopher]

Quite right: I'll take an example from the book then. 6.1.77: If two or more characters try to use Gambling at once, it becomes a Skill Versus Skill contest.

Actually it is wose than I thought. The skill v skill rules say that if the person who rolls first fails, the second next person does not even need to roll.
The Rules also say: "If characters engage in games of skill, ordinarily the GM should determine the winner randomly."
When there were only two players: Yes, one player not making his roll means the other wins. Obviously, it's a two player game after all!
More than two players, only one makes the Roll: He's obviously the best!
None making the Roll: The one who failed by the least wins, but his winning is totally worthless (nobody even bet much).
More than one player making their rolls: All those who made it, have to to check aginst each other in a Skill vs Skill contest.

[bigbywolfe]

Can you site the page that says games of skill are to be chosen randomly? Or did you mean to say games of chance?

[Alcamtar]

Gambling: If it is really pure chance, there is no skill involved and you should just be flipping a coin. If skill comes into play in a game of chance, that means someone is trying to cheat. Therefore, Gambler A attempts to cheat. Gambler B wins, meaning that gambler A failed to cheat, and the game is fair (so flip a coin). Had gambler A succeeded, then the win is automatic and no coin flip is necessary. If BOTH are trying to cheat, then presumably two sets of opposed rolls would be needed, one for each attempt.

Persuasion: Again, person A is trying to persuade person B, who wants to not be persuaded. If B wins, it just means that nobody was convinced was made. And if both are trying to persuade the other simultaneously, well... if the internet has taught us anything it's that neither will succeed! :D

[Sean Waters]

Can you site the page that says games of skill are to be chosen randomly? Or did you mean to say games of chance?

Same page reference as I gave: 6.1.77, and it does say games of skill - but that assumes that neither player has any particular skill - if they do then you use a Skill Versus Skill contest.

[Sean Waters]

The Rules also say: "If characters engage in games of skill, ordinarily the GM should determine the winner randomly."
When there were only two players: Yes, one player not making his roll means the other wins. Obviously, it's a two player game after all!
More than two players, only one makes the Roll: He's obviously the best!
None making the Roll: The one who failed by the least wins, but his winning is totally worthless (nobody even bet much).
More than one player making their rolls: All those who made it, have to to check aginst each other in a Skill vs Skill contest.

1. Yes, but that assumes neither player HAS any particular skill. If they both do, the rules are very clear that you use a skill versus skill contest.
2. I don't think that is a good rule. Why should one failure (by the first to go - further rejudice inherent in the system!) mean the second participant can not blow it too? Player one makes a stupid move, doesn't mean player two is going to make a good one - player two could be over-eager and make a stupid move too and they are back to level pegging. To take a Stealth versus Perception competition, you COULD assume that is Stealth fails if the character has made some noise but does that AUTOMATICALLY mean that Perception hears? Not unless it is massively obvious. Ther should at least have to succeed in a Perception roll: maybe when Stealth stood on a stick, so did Perception, and the failures cancelled out.
3. The point is that one failing does not mean the other is better - they could both be useless!
4. Not a bad rule, but not one in the core rules.
5. That's the problem, isn't it? First off, Skill Versus Skill is prejudicial against the active character: all else being equal including skill and chance within the game, the person going first will lose mor than the person going second. Second, Skill Versus Skill - as defined in the core rule book - does not work well for situations where there are multiple participants. Who do you compare your skill roll to? The first person to roll? What if you are the third person to roll? DO you compare to the first AND second? However you do it, the last person to roll, using the rules as written has a clearly better chance of winning than any of the others.

[Sean Waters]

Gambling: If it is really pure chance, there is no skill involved and you should just be flipping a coin. If skill comes into play in a game of chance, that means someone is trying to cheat. Therefore, Gambler A attempts to cheat. Gambler B wins, meaning that gambler A failed to cheat, and the game is fair (so flip a coin). Had gambler A succeeded, then the win is automatic and no coin flip is necessary. If BOTH are trying to cheat, then presumably two sets of opposed rolls would be needed, one for each attempt.

Not that someone is trying to cheat necessarily - although that is a possibility. Gambling can be used with, say, Poker to determine whether your betting strategy is sound even though you have no control over the cards you receive (but even then skill is involved in determining the chances of your hand winning and the chances of the oponet's hands winning). That is perfectly valid - skill - Gambling Skill - clearly plays a legitimate part in not just who wins a hand and how much they win.


Persuasion: Again, person A is trying to persuade person B, who wants to not be persuaded. If B wins, it just means that nobody was convinced was made. And if both are trying to persuade the other simultaneously, well... if the internet has taught us anything it's that neither will succeed! :D

I agree, but I do not think that the mechanic the system uses is the best one to model the various situations that could occur.

If, instead, both roll and the actual results were compared, based on margin of success or failure, you would get a decent system. This assumes we are modelling results rather than processes. Poker, for instance, could involve three rolls per hand (with the provison that you can withdraw at any beting point and 'stick' with your current margin/loss). Record your results for each round of betting. After everyone has finished rolling, the highest scorer is the winner, and each opponent has to pay 10 credits to him for each point of difference between their score and his (or the dfference at the point they withdrew from the competition). If two people finish on the same total, they split the pot. This DOES NOT model how poker works - it models the flavour and result: generally more skillful players will do better over time, and lose less when they do lose.

If you want to model how poker works a bit more accurately, everyone makes a secret 3d6 roll, and keeps it hidden. Then everyone goes through 3 rounds of betting (gambling skill rolls), and they can withdraw at any point. The gambling skill rolls accumulate for each player (both positive and negative rolls). At the end of the three rounds of betting, everyone reveals their hidden roll and highest hidden roll wins 10 credits per accumulated gambling roll margin of success per round per player. Everyone participating has to contribute 10 credits to the pot.

So, four players, player one has the best hidden roll, and rolls Gambling skill 3 times, getting +2, +0, +1, for a final total of +3. There are four other players, but Player two dropped out before making any gambing rolls so has to pay 10 credits for the ante. Player three droped out after the second round of betting so has to pay (2x3x10) = 60 credits to teh winner, plus 10 for the ante, and player four went right through to the final round so pays (3x3x10)=90 credits plus 10 for the ante to the winner.

That STILL isn't poker, but feels about right.

Generally the more rolls you have to make in a sequence, the more skill matters. Games of pure chance should involve a non-skill roll, highest wins or roll again on a draw. Games of near-chance should involve a single roll. Games of pure skill should involve a lot of rolls to get a final result.

Similarly, tasks in the real world that are pure chance should be a non-skill roll, tasks that rely on a lot of luck (sneaking across an open space - you have to make sure you do not draw attention, but it largely turns on whether the guard turns round, so chance plays a large part), whereas doing a forensic analysis of a computer system where you have adequate time and resources is a matter where chance plays only a relatively minor part, and skill is vital, so it should involve a lot more rolls.

I'm not suggesting a SVS system - except in very broad terms - I am saying the one we have does not work well.

[Manic Typist]

[QUOTE=Sean Waters;2217169
For contests like Stealth v Perception you could set unequal totals: the sneaker needs to get +4 to get by unnoticed, but the guard only needs +2 to spot him.

[/QUOTE]

....why would you do this? Stealth vs. Perception is much more clear cut and doesn't fall victim to the issues you describe. Also, this seems inconsistent with your next post.

Aside: Is Perception technically a skill?

[megaplayboy]

Question: if you're using an interaction skill on someone who lacks that skill, is that a "straight" roll, or do they still get an opposed roll(say, a straight PRE or EGO roll to resist)? The reason why I'm asking is because some of the penalties for some tasks are pretty harsh, and if you have to beat an opposed roll on top of that, a "basic" level of the skill may be almost useless(or, at least, not really worth the 3 points you paid for it).

[Christopher]

Aside: Is Perception technically a skill?
Nope (rules to make it are in the APG II). But also...


Question: if you're using an interaction skill on someone who lacks that skill, is that a "straight" roll, or do they still get an opposed roll(say, a straight PRE or EGO roll to resist)?
...you always use EGO to resist interaction atempts. And the same way Perception is no Skill, it's still marked as "Skill vs. Skill Contest".

[megaplayboy]

Nope (rules to make it are in the APG II). But also...


...you always use EGO to resist interaction atempts. And the same way Perception is no Skill, it's still marked as "Skill vs. Skill Contest".

Well, it appears to be easier to succeed with interaction skills in the real world than in the Hero system, which is kinda the opposite of the way things should be, imo. People get lied to, seduced, conned out of money, and so forth all the time, and it's not because the guy doing it was one of the best in the world at doing so.

[Christopher]

In the below I always say "has the skill", when I mean "has the skill, or one that functions as substitute-skill for that roll, and is using it".

To elaborate the chess example:
If neither side has the Skill, the game will go 50% of the time to one and 50% to the other.
If one has the skill, he makes the Skill Roll. If he makes it he wins. If not, he looses and the otehr guy wins (so he should only to it when his chances are greater than 50% with the Skill, so 11- or better).
If both have the Skill, one will beginn. He is the attacker of the PS:Chess vs PS:Chess contest.

To elaborate the Poker example:
None of the five has the skill, each has a chance of 20% chance to win.
One has the Skill and he uses his superior knowledge/tactic to come out first: If he makes his roll he wins, if not determine who among the remaining 4 players has won randomly (25% for each now).
Two have the Skill: The two players Roll. If only one made it, he wins. If both make it, compare the rolls (Skill vs. Skill contest*). If neither makes it, determine who wins randomly among the remaning three (33% each, so just roll 1d6).
Three, four or all have the Skill: If only one makes the roll, he wins. If more than one makes the roll, compare the Rolls*. If neither makes it either the two remaing have a chance of 50% to get the money, the remaning one wins automatically or nobody get's a lot of money (depending on the number of not skilled players).

*The only questions is: Who is the attacker. But we alreadyy determined that the postion realtive to the dealer determines that. Just determine who get's to be the "Old Maid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_maid_%28card_game%29)" first randomly. Then just move it that point along as the rounds pass.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, it appears to be easier to succeed with interaction skills in the real world than in the Hero system, which is kinda the opposite of the way things should be, imo. People get lied to, seduced, conned out of money, and so forth all the time, and it's not because the guy doing it was one of the best in the world at doing so.

Those guys are all NPC's! ;)

[Sean Waters]

Well, it appears to be easier to succeed with interaction skills in the real world than in the Hero system, which is kinda the opposite of the way things should be, imo. People get lied to, seduced, conned out of money, and so forth all the time, and it's not because the guy doing it was one of the best in the world at doing so.

Well what the system assumes is that you are TRYING to resist an interaction attempt. If someone emails you with an offer: would you like a $2,000,000 cut of funds someone important is trying to smuggle out of Nigeria entirely legitimately, just send us your bank details!' you might decide you WANT the money and that nothing could possibly go wrong. They you are not trying to resist so the attempt automatically succeeds.

That is why I think that we need a different way to address Interaction Skill use: if you so not make an INT roll to realise that the whole thing is incredibly dodgy then you won;t make an EGO roll to resist the attemt. PCs of course do not need to make the INT roll if the player decides they want nothing to do with it - they go straight to the EGO roll, or simply click 'delete on the email and don't even risk that.

As Hugh says - all those getting scammed are NPCs - but, but, but what if the scam is less obvious? What if the approach is in person and the story is not so well worn, you might go for it. You might not even TRY to resist.

We don't need rules for the blindingly obvious cases, that SHOULD be down to role playing, but I do think that there is and should be a separation between character and player and the character will not always do what the charcter wants them to, so there should be some rules, even if they are all about perception rather than prescriptive. The charcter might THINK the offer is genuine if they do not make some sort of SVS perception type roll, so their reaction to whether they would go with it should be based on that rather than the player simply saying 'that has to be a scam.

I mean in the physical world, if the character beleives they have seen something, the decent player acts ont hat information: why should it be different in social interaction?

[Sean Waters]

In the below I always say "has the skill", when I mean "has the skill, or one that functions as substitute-skill for that roll, and is using it".

To elaborate the chess example:
If neither side has the Skill, the game will go 50% of the time to one and 50% to the other.
If one has the skill, he makes the Skill Roll. If he makes it he wins. If not, he looses and the otehr guy wins (so he should only to it when his chances are greater than 50% with the Skill, so 11- or better).
If both have the Skill, one will beginn. He is the attacker of the PS:Chess vs PS:Chess contest.

That would mean that someone with Familiarity Chess is worse than someone with no skill. What I'd do if one had the skill and one did not is rill and, if they succeed then they win and if they fail then it comes down to a straight 50/50 chance.

RAW Skill v Skill does not work well because it means the black player will win more often than an equally skilled white player. That is plain wrong.


To elaborate the Poker example:
None of the five has the skill, each has a chance of 20% chance to win.
One has the Skill and he uses his superior knowledge/tactic to come out first: If he makes his roll he wins, if not determine who among the remaining 4 players has won randomly (25% for each now).
Two have the Skill: The two players Roll. If only one made it, he wins. If both make it, compare the rolls (Skill vs. Skill contest*). If neither makes it, determine who wins randomly among the remaning three (33% each, so just roll 1d6).
Three, four or all have the Skill: If only one makes the roll, he wins. If more than one makes the roll, compare the Rolls*. If neither makes it either the two remaing have a chance of 50% to get the money, the remaning one wins automatically or nobody get's a lot of money (depending on the number of not skilled players).

*The only questions is: Who is the attacker. But we alreadyy determined that the postion realtive to the dealer determines that. Just determine who get's to be the "Old Maid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_maid_%28card_game%29)" first randomly. Then just move it that point along as the rounds pass.

Same comments apply: Familiarity (Poker) is a completely wasted point. I know a little knowledge can be dangerous but you should not be penalised for knowing something about the game.

Similarly the issue of who goes first is important: no one will want to. It may all balance out if you play a hand (make rolls) for each player at the table going round in order, but by then the last player may already have cleaned up.

The RAW SVS system is simlpy not a good one for the majority of 'contest' situations.

[megaplayboy]

Well what the system assumes is that you are TRYING to resist an interaction attempt. If someone emails you with an offer: would you like a $2,000,000 cut of funds someone important is trying to smuggle out of Nigeria entirely legitimately, just send us your bank details!' you might decide you WANT the money and that nothing could possibly go wrong. They you are not trying to resist so the attempt automatically succeeds.

That is why I think that we need a different way to address Interaction Skill use: if you so not make an INT roll to realise that the whole thing is incredibly dodgy then you won;t make an EGO roll to resist the attemt. PCs of course do not need to make the INT roll if the player decides they want nothing to do with it - they go straight to the EGO roll, or simply click 'delete on the email and don't even risk that.

As Hugh says - all those getting scammed are NPCs - but, but, but what if the scam is less obvious? What if the approach is in person and the story is not so well worn, you might go for it. You might not even TRY to resist.

We don't need rules for the blindingly obvious cases, that SHOULD be down to role playing, but I do think that there is and should be a separation between character and player and the character will not always do what the charcter wants them to, so there should be some rules, even if they are all about perception rather than prescriptive. The charcter might THINK the offer is genuine if they do not make some sort of SVS perception type roll, so their reaction to whether they would go with it should be based on that rather than the player simply saying 'that has to be a scam.

I mean in the physical world, if the character beleives they have seen something, the decent player acts ont hat information: why should it be different in social interaction?

Think about the set-up for the 3 card monte con: You have the dealer, who may or may not be using sleight of hand; and two assistants, who pretend to be players and "win" a few times. If the casual observer has never heard of the scam, they may be tricked into thinking it's a pure game of skill/chance and on the level, play a few times and win, and then plunk down a bunch of money, just when they get good and hooked in, and then the dealer reels in the "fish". Only after the player walks away from the stand a few minutes later and thinks about it, do they realize they just got ripped off.
How would we simulate that in Hero? The assistants give the dealer a +2 bonus? Letting the player "win" a few times gives them a penalty when it comes time to decide whether to play for bigger stakes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_card_monte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks

[Sean Waters]

There are a number of issues. The first is the fact that the player can just decide to have his character walk away: cool.

The second is the shill or shills. They are trying to convince the character of something, so that sounds like a persuasion roll. I'd oppose that with an INT/PER roll, because it is not a matter of a contest of wills. It is all about whether you spot that you are being deliberately mislead.

The third is the TCM operator. Assuming he is using sleight, that is something that the PC could spot. Perception, or their own Slight of Hand skill would work there.

If you use the scam where the shill bets higher, well that is down to the player reaction. I would not allow a skill roll except (perhaps) Deduction. I say perhaps because I rarely allow Deduction as a skill for PCs.

There are other possible skill rolls, including Gambling or Streetwise or an appropriate KS that would allow you to identify this as a scam before you ever got involved.

Here is an interesting twist. For a $100 stake you win $100 if you pick the queen from 3 cards. You have no idea which is which. Here is the interesting bit. Once you pick a card, the operator turns over one of the other cards, revealing a 'non-queen'. You then give the 'player' the option to change their choice. Once they have decided, you reveal the queen and , if your final qpick is a queen, you win $100 and your orignial stake.

What does the player do?

(OK, that is a complete aside, but interesting enough you should answer anyway. Please do not explain HOW it works, just tell me what you would do)

Point is, I like to teach the actual players something.

[megaplayboy]

Depending on the skill of the TCM dealer, you may never win. If it's a SOH trick, though, you just lightly place a finger on top of each card and make your decision. Dealer can flip the cards but trying to shift them out from under your finger is too risky. Of course, this is exactly why they'd never let you rest a hand or finger on a card(or flip the card over yourself, for that matter).

[Christopher]

Well what the system assumes is that you are TRYING to resist an interaction attempt. If someone emails you with an offer: would you like a $2,000,000 cut of funds someone important is trying to smuggle out of Nigeria entirely legitimately, just send us your bank details!' you might decide you WANT the money and that nothing could possibly go wrong. They you are not trying to resist so the attempt automatically succeeds.
Nope, it depends on the Skill. The 2 Million $ is really old. Everbody who knows of Spam wil likely recieve a Bonus. It's basically a 8- Atempt at Persausion: Give me your Bank Number. You only fall for it when you do not know of it or want the money so bad (penalties to your roll).


That is why I think that we need a different way to address Interaction Skill use: if you so not make an INT roll to realise that the whole thing is incredibly dodgy then you won;t make an EGO roll to resist the attemt. PCs of course do not need to make the INT roll if the player decides they want nothing to do with it - they go straight to the EGO roll, or simply click 'delete on the email and don't even risk that.

As Hugh says - all those getting scammed are NPCs - but, but, but what if the scam is less obvious? What if the approach is in person and the story is not so well worn, you might go for it. You might not even TRY to resist.
That the thing: You always resist an atempt. You have a certain standpoint on anything. When a foreign person ask you for your banknumber on the street, you won't answer. The same thing with a well formulated e-mail and without knowledge of those scams: Totally other story. He sucessfully convinced you/you failed your ego roll. If it is because of his skill/good story or because of your phsychological vulnerability to the specif scam used is just detail.
The only time you can't resist is when your EGO is 0 (se 6E1 for this), you just execute what is said to you.


That would mean that someone with Familiarity Chess is worse than someone with no skill. What I'd do if one had the skill and one did not is rill and, if they succeed then they win and if they fail then it comes down to a straight 50/50 chance.
I know the rules of Chess. The entire. I have a PS: Chess of at least 8-. Can't play this game for my life.


Same comments apply: Familiarity (Poker) is a completely wasted point. I know a little knowledge can be dangerous but you should not be penalised for knowing something about the game.
Familarity give you a 25,93% chance of Success. 25.93 > 20%. Familarity cost one CP. For a second point you either get Proficiency Gambling (10- for ever game; 50% chance) or Skill Base PS: Poker (11- or better; 62.50, more likely 13- = 83.8 %)

The question if you want to be the guy who rolls first is irrelevant. You are at your point in the row, like you are at your SPD and Dex in Combat. It's fair because everyone else will be in that same postion within the next four rounds..


Think about the set-up for the 3 card monte con: You have the dealer, who may or may not be using sleight of hand; and two assistants, who pretend to be players and "win" a few times. If the casual observer has never heard of the scam, they may be tricked into thinking it's a pure game of skill/chance and on the level, play a few times and win, and then plunk down a bunch of money, just when they get good and hooked in, and then the dealer reels in the "fish". Only after the player walks away from the stand a few minutes later and thinks about it, do they realize they just got ripped off.
How would we simulate that in Hero? The assistants give the dealer a +2 bonus? Letting the player "win" a few times gives them a penalty when it comes time to decide whether to play for bigger stakes?
There are some ideas on the duration of an roll in the APG.

[megaplayboy]

Well, I included the link for the wiki list of confidence tricks, because in the real world, a lot of these tricks work, and work quite well. People of all backgrounds, educational and intelligence levels have fallen for one or more of them readily. I suspect a majority of the population has gotten "conned" out of money at least once in their lives.

[Manic Typist]

Here is an interesting twist. For a $100 stake you win $100 if you pick the queen from 3 cards. You have no idea which is which. Here is the interesting bit. Once you pick a card, the operator turns over one of the other cards, revealing a 'non-queen'. You then give the 'player' the option to change their choice. Once they have decided, you reveal the queen and , if your final qpick is a queen, you win $100 and your orignial stake.

What does the player do?

(OK, that is a complete aside, but interesting enough you should answer anyway. Please do not explain HOW it works, just tell me what you would do)

Point is, I like to teach the actual players something.

Well, I'd obviously switch cards.

[Sean Waters]

Well, I'd obviously switch cards.

...and double your chance of being a winner, but it is astonishing how many people - including many who should know better - will argue that it makes no difference: you are chosing from 2 options and so it is 50/50. :)

[Christopher]

Well, I included the link for the wiki list of confidence tricks, because in the real world, a lot of these tricks work, and work quite well. People of all backgrounds, educational and intelligence levels have fallen for one or more of them readily. I suspect a majority of the population has gotten "conned" out of money at least once in their lives.
They often work because we like to think that we are to smart to be conned.

[Sean Waters]

Nope, it depends on the Skill. The 2 Million $ is really old. Everbody who knows of Spam wil likely recieve a Bonus. It's basically a 8- Atempt at Persausion: Give me your Bank Number. You only fall for it when you do not know of it or want the money so bad (penalties to your roll).

I might argue it is bribery , but persuasion works too.

I think we are going to fundamentally disagree here, given a comment of your below...



That the thing: You always resist an atempt. You have a certain standpoint on anything. When a foreign person ask you for your banknumber on the street, you won't answer. The same thing with a well formulated e-mail and without knowledge of those scams: Totally other story. He sucessfully convinced you/you failed your ego roll. If it is because of his skill/good story or because of your phsychological vulnerability to the specif scam used is just detail.
The only time you can't resist is when your EGO is 0 (se 6E1 for this), you just execute what is said to you.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

(That was the bit where we fundamentally disagree)

You never have to resist an interaction attempt. You can use 'resistsnce rolls' with NPCs to randomise their response a bit, but an NPC and most escpecially a PC should never be required to make a roll to resist an attempt at social influence.

A hetrosexual male walks into a bar and sits having a drink. He is not currently in a relationship and has no believs that would prevent him from having casual sex. He is approached by a woman who is just his sort and they get on really well and she suggests they go back to her place and have sex. He has to roll to resist? COME ON!

By that logic the guys with the high EGOs would never get any. There's a whole bunch of people out there with massives egos and boules bleues? Really?



I know the rules of Chess. The entire. I have a PS: Chess of at least 8-. Can't play this game for my life.

Not the point. You know knights move one and two or two and one and can jump over other pieces, so you have an advantage over people who don't know that, to take a very simple example. You should be doing better than someone who does not know how to play at all.

The current SVS system says if you have skill in Chess and are going first, and the other party does not have skill, roll and if youmake the roll you win, if you do not, you lose. That makes playing with Familiarity (Chess) a disadvantage as the chance of getting 8 or less on 3d6 is under 50%. Obviously that is not a good way to model someone with a bit of skill in something.

[Sean Waters]

Familarity give you a 25,93% chance of Success. 25.93 > 20%. Familarity cost one CP. For a second point you either get Proficiency Gambling (10- for ever game; 50% chance) or Skill Base PS: Poker (11- or better; 62.50, more likely 13- = 83.8 %)

The question if you want to be the guy who rolls first is irrelevant. You are at your point in the row, like you are at your SPD and Dex in Combat. It's fair because everyone else will be in that same postion within the next four rounds..


Yes 20% is your chance if there are 4 other unskilled players. What if there are only 2? Why should you have a worse chance against 2 unskilled opponents? The RAW simlpy does not work the way it should.

As to the rounds thing, I'm going to play 3 then sit the next one out. I'm not an idiot.

All of this could be easily avoided if the rule was that everyone with skill rolls their skill. The highest success wins. If no one with skill wins then randomly decide the winner. Then it would not matter who went first and you'd get a bonus for even a bit of skill over someone comletely unskilled: you'd certainly never be in a worse position than if you knew nothing at all.

[Manic Typist]

...and double your chance of being a winner, but it is astonishing how many people - including many who should know better - will argue that it makes no difference: you are chosing from 2 options and so it is 50/50. :)

Well, more like increase it 17%. I only knew that so certainly because my last and most interesting math class was one I took in college that was all about puzzles, riddles, and mathematical games. Like how to prove that there are more numbers between 0 and 1 than there are on the rest of the number line, or how to move an infinite number of people into a hotel with infinite rooms that are already full.

Wish I could remember more of it.

[casualplayer]

Maybe a successful opposition skill roll should provide nothing more than insight into the aggressor's intentions? In mutually aggressive situations, multiple successful rollers can meant that I know that you know that I know and you know that too.

In a vacuum with tabula rasa participants, it's raw skill versus raw skill. Most situations don't pan out that way. I'm on a winning streak (+1,) but Jabba wants his money (-2,) also I'm cocky (-1,) but lucky at cards, unlucky at love (+2.) The house is keeping me supplied with free drinks (+1) delivered by a girl who is just my type (+1) who arrives just as I'm about to decide to raise or call (+1.) If I don't make an EGO Roll to pace myself or oppose the waitress' Seduction/Charm roll, the House is pretty likely to clean me out as the odds are likely in their favor as they are operating at a +3 to Skill while my modifiers push. Unless I'm such a good gambler that I can be 3 in the hole and still have the advantage.

I have a slightly different perspective of Skills than most HERO gamers, I believe. Most think 14> is highly competent and it is if you aren't in a stressful situation and can use the time chart leisurely. If you are relying on a 14> Acrobatics roll to make the jump off a rain-slick building cornice (-2) while under fire from Two-Face's goons (-2) then I hope you know a good recipe for street pizza. Most of my PCs who want to be considered skilled have skills in the high teens-low twentys, because they know they are going to need them most in the worst possible situations. They bolster their skills with supplementary skills to retain and maximize their potential. I realize that this is not how most characters are created in published stuff but whatever. If I see one more mage with 14> magic skill roll trying to scorch off a 60 AP spell.....

"Roll 8> for success, please."
"Wait, what?!"

Many a gamer uses skills as flavor text, background liner notes, grudgingly spending the campaign mandated minimum. That's not the perspective I'm coming from.

[Christopher]

A hetrosexual male walks into a bar and sits having a drink. He is not currently in a relationship and has no believs that would prevent him from having casual sex. He is approached by a woman who is just his sort and they get on really well and she suggests they go back to her place and have sex. He has to roll to resist? COME ON!
What sort of conflict took place, that required her to even Roll Charm?


By that logic the guys with the high EGOs would never get any. There's a whole bunch of people out there with massives egos and boules bleues? Really?
Nope, they just can't be convinced to it. They aren't slaves to a set of sexy clothing, like you average is vs. Talisman or Saphire.




The current SVS system says if you have skill in Chess and are going first, and the other party does not have skill, roll and if youmake the roll you win, if you do not, you lose. That makes playing with Familiarity (Chess) a disadvantage as the chance of getting 8 or less on 3d6 is under 50%. Obviously that is not a good way to model someone with a bit of skill in something.
Then don't use your skill :)
Many RPG's have a system that you can decide to roll against a interaction atempt and if you are unskilled you get out worse than the result he had in the first place. And such a mechanic is also sometimes used in combat with dodging.
When you are lousy at a skill, you should not use it.


Yes 20% is your chance if there are 4 other unskilled players. What if there are only 2? Why should you have a worse chance against 2 unskilled opponents? The RAW simlpy does not work the way it should.

As to the rounds thing, I'm going to play 3 then sit the next one out. I'm not an idiot.
"You want to do what? Listen, either you stay at the table and play every round or you go. We don't like gutless guys who can't deal with playing at [position with highest disadvantage]". And let's not talk about what hapens at a tournament...

[Christopher]

Forget the above. Have to explain it in more detail. If a social interaction roll and Resistance Roll has to take palce depends on:
If any of the targets/the target has some complication that makes him/her distrustfull.
Or if the target is dishonest.

Let's take the example with the women and the man:
If both really want it and nobody has any thoughts beyond fun tonight, then no roll and have fun.
If one side only uses it as "means to an end", then it is time for an interaction roll. If the attacker fails or the defender beats the roll he is not lulled in by the eloquence and notices the atempt and that the "attacker" is dishonest. What the target does with it is anothr matter (when the man is the attacker/dishonest one, the women would most likely suffer a "goes acording to existing moods" penalties).
If one has a complication that would negatively affect the Interaction roll*, you have to roll that too. Let's say the man has a complciation that says "Thinks he is not worthy of womens atention" or "Thinks women only care for him, when they want something from him". Even if he went there on his own, in the back of his head he still has this thought. You have to roll for Interaciton and aply the penalty. If she does not makes it or his ego roll succeds he thinks (unrightfully) she is only playing with him/does means it that way. When he confronts her she might give him a chance to overcome his complicaiton, or just go on to the next. Or he can just go with it.

Let's take the example with the priest and the group:
When he is absolutely honest and the heroes are in "plot hook search mode", then the thing is obvious for both sides.
When he holds back anything or they are not really inclined to search remote, abandoned places full of gold (say they aren't wilderness types) it becomes an Interaction atempt.
If one has a complication that would negatively affect the Interaction roll* ("Distrustfull of the church") or they just had some bad experience (goes against esiting mood), the priest has to convince them that he is not interested in screwing them over.

*More precisely: Take any modifiers (complications, curent mood, etc.) that would affect a roll and take the sum of them. Is the result worser than a +1 to the Inteaction roll or -1 to his Ego Roll there has to be a roll.
It's similar to perception Rolls. Seeing a gigantic being (+8 Perception) on 64 meters (-6) or less: No Problem (overall a +2). Seing that same being on 65-125 meters or more (-8) requires a roll. Of course there are things like contrast to keep in mind, but that is the basic logic: If the modifeiers would be +/-0 or worse, there has to be a roll.

[Sean Waters]

Forget the above. Have to explain it in more detail. If a social interaction roll and Resistance Roll has to take palce depends on:
If any of the targets/the target has some complication that makes him/her distrustfull.
Or if the target is dishonest.

Let's take the example with the women and the man:
If both really want it and nobody has any thoughts beyond fun tonight, then no roll and have fun.
If one side only uses it as "means to an end", then it is time for an interaction roll. If the attacker fails or the defender beats the roll he is not lulled in by the eloquence and notices the atempt and that the "attacker" is dishonest. What the target does with it is anothr matter (when the man is the attacker/dishonest one, the women would most likely suffer a "goes acording to existing moods" penalties).
If one has a complication that would negatively affect the Interaction roll*, you have to roll that too. Let's say the man has a complciation that says "Thinks he is not worthy of womens atention" or "Thinks women only care for him, when they want something from him". Even if he went there on his own, in the back of his head he still has this thought. You have to roll for Interaciton and aply the penalty. If she does not makes it or his ego roll succeds he thinks (unrightfully) she is only playing with him/does means it that way. When he confronts her she might give him a chance to overcome his complicaiton, or just go on to the next. Or he can just go with it./quote]

Agreed, absolutely. We may have been arguing the same viewpoint all along. See how complicated social interaction can get?

[QUOTE=Christopher;2218906]Let's take the example with the priest and the group:
When he is absolutely honest and the heroes are in "plot hook search mode", then the thing is obvious for both sides.
When he holds back anything or they are not really inclined to search remote, abandoned places full of gold (say they aren't wilderness types) it becomes an Interaction atempt.
If one has a complication that would negatively affect the Interaction roll* ("Distrustfull of the church") or they just had some bad experience (goes against esiting mood), the priest has to convince them that he is not interested in screwing them over.

*More precisely: Take any modifiers (complications, curent mood, etc.) that would affect a roll and take the sum of them. Is the result worser than a +1 to the Inteaction roll or -1 to his Ego Roll there has to be a roll.
It's similar to perception Rolls. Seeing a gigantic being (+8 Perception) on 64 meters (-6) or less: No Problem (overall a +2). Seing that same being on 65-125 meters or more (-8) requires a roll. Of course there are things like contrast to keep in mind, but that is the basic logic: If the modifeiers would be +/-0 or worse, there has to be a roll.

Again, agreed. I think we see this the same way, although my concern is perhaps more about whether the Hero System Skill Versus Skill system works. I think it does, int hat you can get a result, but not well, in that it does not yield a 50/50 chance where everything is equal and both parties are equally skilled. A game of chess is perhaps the best example because skill should really be everything: over a reasonable number of games, the number of wins for each party should be roughly the same.

The current Hero System SVS system does not accomplish that.

Two people play chess. The first rolls his 11- skill and has a 37.5% chance of losing the game. The opponent has no chance of losing at this time and the person making the roll can not automatically win. Assuming that they roll 11, an average roll, the opponent has a 62.5% chance of winning with their next roll. If I've done the calculation right that gives the first player a 23.4% chance of winning.

If you roll 10 (also an average result) the opponent has to roll 10 or less to win, so the chance of you winning is 31.25%.

Now say both players are of the same skill but both are MORE skilled, and have 14- skill.

Average roll 11: 9.25% chance of initial failure and 62.5% chance of failure on opponent's roll: total chance of winning: about 34%
Average roll 10: total chance of winning about 45%.

So as BOTH players get more skilled (but the relative skill level does not change) the prejudice for going first lessens but never quite goes away.

That is daft: if two people are equally skilled, and are playing a fair game, they should each have an equal chance of winning AND absolute skill levels should make no real difference if relative skill level does not change.

That is why I say opposed skill rolls, at least the way Hero does it, do not work.

[Lucius]

A hetrosexual male walks into a bar and sits having a drink. He is not currently in a relationship and has no believs that would prevent him from having casual sex. He is approached by a woman who is just his sort and they get on really well and she suggests they go back to her place and have sex. He has to roll to resist? COME ON!

Then he makes an INT roll to remember a number of inconvenient possibilities.

"Wait a minute. There's no cure for AIDS. Or Herpes. And there's a number of other things that are curable but not pleasant. Sure I'll be using precautions but.....oh no. What if she gets pregnant? I want a kid about like I want a terminal disease! etc."


By that logic the guys with the high EGOs would never get any. There's a whole bunch of people out there with massives egos and boules bleues? Really?


Yeah, really, I don't think it's that unreasonable to think that men with good impulse control and high self discinpline would be less likely to indulge in acts of spontaneous sensual gratification that risk serious negative consequences.


Or maybe not. I have to admit that if you counter that most men, after all, think of sex as something worth dying for, I have no real rebuttal to that; my experience and observations suggest that it's true.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is thinking of Pendragon

[Ragitsu]

Language is a funny thing. I see "male" and then "woman", and in some cases I see "man" and "female", but not "male" and female" or "man" and "woman" as often.

Is there something demeaning about the terms "male" and "female"? Some have suggested that they are dehumanizing (in a negative way).

[Sean Waters]

Then he makes an INT roll to remember a number of inconvenient possibilities.

"Wait a minute. There's no cure for AIDS. Or Herpes. And there's a number of other things that are curable but not pleasant. Sure I'll be using precautions but.....oh no. What if she gets pregnant? I want a kid about like I want a terminal disease! etc."

...then makes another INT roll to remember prophylactics...




Yeah, really, I don't think it's that unreasonable to think that men with good impulse control and high self discinpline would be less likely to indulge in acts of spontaneous sensual gratification that risk serious negative consequences.


Or maybe not. I have to admit that if you counter that most men, after all, think of sex as something worth dying for, I have no real rebuttal to that; my experience and observations suggest that it's true.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary is thinking of Pendragon

The argument could run that someone with low EGO is more likely to not believe themselves worthy of the attention and so somehow sabotage the whole thing. You can argue any POV you like, but I think EGO is only relevant to resist in such a situation where you actually want to resist. That in itself means you have to realise that there is something you want to resist.

You could want sex because of high self-esteem or low self esteem: actually not 'because of' but 'in spite of'. Willpower is irrelevant unless you are trying to deny yourself something that you want.

[Sean Waters]

Language is a funny thing. I see "male" and then "woman", and in some cases I see "man" and "female", but not "male" and female" or "man" and "woman" as often.

Is there something demeaning about the terms "male" and "female"? Some have suggested that they are dehumanizing (in a negative way).

No, we are just grammonsters.

[Lucius]

...then makes another INT roll to remember prophylactics...

That's what I meant by "precautions." Sorry I didn't express myself more precisely.

As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Lucius Alexander

talk to the palindromedary, I've got a commemorative to compose

[bigbywolfe]

That's what I meant by "precautions." Sorry I didn't express myself more precisely.

As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Lucius Alexander

talk to the palindromedary, I've got a commemorative to compose

I disagree. I two people go to a trashy bar both looking for a hookup, what difference does it make who makes the first move? EGO doesn't enter into that situation, yet trying to be smooth (Charm roll) or just strike up a conversation to see if they are interested (Conversation), by your standards automatically becomes a test with a win/lose solution. That just seems odd, which is Sean's point, I think.

[casualplayer]

If she makes the Charm roll by enough and you fail to oppose, she gets what she wants and if you are lucky it is something that you were willing to provide. If she makes her Charm roll and you succeed in opposing, you see what she's after and you still might be willing to work out a compromising position. If she botches her Charm roll and you succeed in opposing you still have the option of allowing things to proceed but with you in control. Or you can move along.

[Sean Waters]

I disagree. I two people go to a trashy bar both looking for a hookup, what difference does it make who makes the first move? EGO doesn't enter into that situation, yet trying to be smooth (Charm roll) or just strike up a conversation to see if they are interested (Conversation), by your standards automatically becomes a test with a win/lose solution. That just seems odd, which is Sean's point, I think.

Yes it is, but it sounds a lot better coming from you :)

[Sean Waters]

That's what I meant by "precautions." Sorry I didn't express myself more precisely.

As for the rest, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Lucius Alexander

talk to the palindromedary, I've got a commemorative to compose

What I'm actually arguing (or was, when we started) was that opposed rolls, as the system presents them, are not a good way of modelling most 'competitions' between two or more participants in a situation. We seem to have moved on to something else entirely.

Still I'll argue about anything so...


If she makes the Charm roll by enough and you fail to oppose, she gets what she wants and if you are lucky it is something that you were willing to provide. If she makes her Charm roll and you succeed in opposing, you see what she's after and you still might be willing to work out a compromising position. If she botches her Charm roll and you succeed in opposing you still have the option of allowing things to proceed but with you in control. Or you can move along.

The difficulty is THEN that the rules say you make an EGO roll in a Skill Versus Skill contest. That would then mean that high EGO characters tend to find a lot of otherwise attractive people boring or vulgar. A lot of egotistical characters might, but that is a very different thing, and makes no sense to me.

In fact, unless there is some ulterior motive, why make any sort of opposed roll? If someone comes up and says I like you, if you like me, let us make the beast with two backs, well, that is entirely down to personality, isn't it? Well, personality and alcohol consumption. You're either going to find her attractive (or him attractive), or you are not, and you are going to be up for that sort of thing or you are not. The thing is that Hero does not model personality exceptwith the broadest of strokes. We have characteristics and complications, but not much nuance when it comes down to that sort of thing. The rules for social interaction could do with a nice long look at. I underrstand that may have been done in AGPII. I will buy it when it is in print, and have a look.

As we are derailed anyway and heading across country, can I also point out the madness in the Charm skill that suggests that a PRE roll might be complementary to a Charm roll?

Can anyone else see a problem there?

[casualplayer]

The difficulty is THEN that the rules say you make an EGO roll in a Skill Versus Skill contest. That would then mean that high EGO characters tend to find a lot of otherwise attractive people boring or vulgar. A lot of egotistical characters might, but that is a very different thing, and makes no sense to me.


That's just it. Success in resisting doesn't mandate refusal or rejection or epic fail; it just means that the resistor is wise to the aggressor's intentions. The aggressor attempted a social pseudo-Mind Control, wanting the target to think it was their idea, and didn't quite pull it off. Still might have been a tempting offer but the resistor is not compelled to sacrifice more than they are willing. I'm not going to give you the keys to the city or even the keys to my car but I might still give you the keys to my hotel room. The resistor could move to endgame or could keep the game alive, potentially letting the aggressor another chance.

[Christopher]

The argument could run that someone with low EGO is more likely to not believe themselves worthy of the attention and so somehow sabotage the whole thing. You can argue any POV you like, but I think EGO is only relevant to resist in such a situation where you actually want to resist. That in itself means you have to realise that there is something you want to resist.

You could want sex because of high self-esteem or low self esteem: actually not 'because of' but 'in spite of'. Willpower is irrelevant unless you are trying to deny yourself something that you want.
No. Low ego means he is easy to manipulate - both by others and his own complications. He will more likely follow any sugestions and never even realise he is being played.


I disagree. I two people go to a trashy bar both looking for a hookup, what difference does it make who makes the first move? EGO doesn't enter into that situation, yet trying to be smooth (Charm roll) or just strike up a conversation to see if they are interested (Conversation), by your standards automatically becomes a test with a win/lose solution. That just seems odd, which is Sean's point, I think.
We already established: No Conflict of interests, no hidden agenda and no complication that dictates others = No Conflict = No Roll


What I'm actually arguing (or was, when we started) was that opposed rolls, as the system presents them, are not a good way of modelling most 'competitions' between two or more participants in a situation. We seem to have moved on to something else entirely.
This is the question if there even IS a contest or not. That is apparently not as clear in social interactions as it is with Concealment.

You calculation of the chances above was wrong, btw. When both have 11-, the chance for both rolling exaclty 11 is 12.5% * 12.5% = 1,5625 %
10/10 = 1,5625%
9/9 = 1,3456 %
8/8 = 0,9409 %
7/7 = 0,4489 %
6/6 = 0,2116 %
5/5 = 0,0784 %
4/4 = 0,0196 %
3/3 = 0,002116 %
The summed chance for the attacker to loose because of the rule regarding ties: 4,609616 %
The chance to roll any specific number between 6 and 15 is higher
The Chance to roll any number from the ranges 3-5 and 16-18 is higher.
It lower than the difference in success chance between 5/6 and 14/15 respectively.


The difficulty is THEN that the rules say you make an EGO roll in a Skill Versus Skill contest. That would then mean that high EGO characters tend to find a lot of otherwise attractive people boring or vulgar. A lot of egotistical characters might, but that is a very different thing, and makes no sense to me.
So what woudl a character attacked by a Mental Power with "IPE: To the target" defened with?
What should BE the value to defend with when you are not aware?

I still argue that EGO includes your "Social Perception", in the form of your ability to be not fooled directly.


As we are derailed anyway and heading across country, can I also point out the madness in the Charm skill that suggests that a PRE roll might be complementary to a Charm roll?

Can anyone else see a problem there?
A good question, let's ask the right person and we might recieve answer:
http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/87016-PRE-Complimentary-to-Charm

[Sean Waters]

Christopher, please re-read how opposed (Skill Versus Skill) rolls work.

The first rolls successfully, then the second had to match their roll to win.

The first fails a roll and they lose the contest.

The second person in the contest wins more than they lose, but there is no good reason that should be so.

It is perfectly possible I have the maths wrong (although I'm not sure what you mean by: When both have 11-, the chance for both rolling exaclty 11 is 12.5% * 12.5% = 1,5625 %), but the underling principle remains - go first = bad. That makes no sense.

[Christopher]

The first fails a roll and they lose the contest.

The second person in the contest wins more than they lose, but there is no good reason that should be so.
That is why you switch who rolls first between every round in two player games. If you have two players, equal skill and both have to be Nr. 1 once they have both exactly the same chance to have 0 Wins, 1 Win or 2 Wins.
If a clear winner has to be decided, repeat until one has 2 wins more than his enemy. Voila, both had equal chance to go out as winner. In fact each had a chance to win of exaclty 50%.

If you have 5 players play multiples of 5 rounds and move the roll first around - no problem here either.
Just so the players don't skew the odds in their favor through metagaming, let them be Nr. 1 in the first round of the game and/or let the NPC-players have a "[number of players] rounds minimum, before you can walk away with your winnings"-table rule. Voila, everyone has the same chances and nobody was disadvantaged through the entire 5 round cycle.

For social interaction it's just the chance to bust it up so totally that the target does not even considers whatever you wanted him to do. You tried to manipulate him and it totally failed. That gives the question if you apply modifiers to Ego Roll or Skill Roll a greater meaning, but overall it will turn out equal too.

When it is Concealment vs. Perception: You either made a noise or ran right into his field of vision when you where so certain he was looking the other direction again (that's why people with a 11- concealment should not try to run silently).

[Lucius]

I disagree.

Have it your way then.

Men(*) with good impulse control and high self discinpline are just as likely as anyone else to indulge in acts of spontaneous sensual gratification that risk serious negative consequences.


Lucius Alexander

(*) And women, and palindromedaries, etc