Do opposed skill rolls work?

[Christopher]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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

[Christopher]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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

[Christopher]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

Gambling: If it is really pure chance' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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' date=' person A is trying to persuade person B, who wants to [i']not[/i] 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!

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

[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.

 

 

....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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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' date=' is that a "straight" roll, or do they still get an opposed roll(say, a straight PRE or EGO roll to resist)? [/quote']

...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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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" first randomly. Then just move it that point along as the rounds pass.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

Well' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Those guys are all NPC's!

[Sean Waters]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

Well' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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" 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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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]

Re: Do opposed skill rolls work?

 

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).