Quote from: gleichman;520887Success = 50 + Active Players Skill - Passive Players Skill

The original Mekton did this too.

I don't like systems that assume an active and a passive character for two reasons:

1) each player likes to roll for himself
2) it doesn't allow for dice roll results of more than two characters to be compared at a time

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;520894I don't like systems that assume an active and a passive character for two reasons:

1) each player likes to roll for himself
2) it doesn't allow for dice roll results of more than two characters to be compared at a time

For point #1, I don't much care for games where the players are rolling against each other- so it wasn't a concern for me.

Generally players make the roll (they can by default always be considered active if that's the taste of the group) as it doesn't change the odds.


For point #2, Age of Heroes accounts for multiple characters on each side of the roll, and all the normal conditional modifiers as well.

But I'd be quoting whole sections of the rules to explain it, so you'll have to take my word for it.

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

Comparing margins of success, looking for the lowest roll or the "blackjack method" are all easy ways of doing this.

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

If I understand you correctly, you'll allowing each player to make a roll.

While that's common and understandable (each player wants to roll), it causes serious problems.

For example, consider 5 players vs. a NPC with a greatly superior skill. The odds start to favor the players because the chances of someone rolling *really* low increases greatly. The NPC will be overwhelmed by lesser skill due to the dice which is hardly how the contest would go in reality.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;5206902. Blackjack success is counter-intuitive. Higher is sometimes better and sometimes worse.

I can understand someone not liking the blackjack method, but there ain't a damn thing counter-intuitive about it.  It is simple as dirt that everyone instantly understands.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;520894I don't like systems that assume an active and a passive character for two reasons:

1) each player likes to roll for himself
2) it doesn't allow for dice roll results of more than two characters to be compared at a time

passive characters usually have their stats as some form of difficulty threshold which is effective at least in removing the possibility of tied results from the game.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;520882Hang on, I'm confused now.
Sorry, FM, by "lowest roll wins" I was assuming you meant actual roll....not the difference between the low roll and the skill score...since you said no subtraction was involved...?
 
There's actually two methods here. For example:
1. roll under with d20, opponent A has skill 10 and B has skill 18.
Say A rolls 6 and B rolls 7.
 
You could determine who wins by either
-highest margin of success, so B wins because he won by (18-7=11 points), while A only won by [10-6=4 points]. Requires subtraction.
-lowest roll wins, so A wins because 6 is less than 7. The inverse of the blackjack method. (AD&D speed factors worked, I think, something like this).
 
My bitching in the prior post was about the second version, whereas The Butcher said he liked "lowest roll wins" (I understood FM to be using the second method here, since he said there was no subtraction) and then goes on to talk about the difference in rolls (the first method) ??
 
?

My bad, BSJ, I'm the cause of your confusion.

"Lowest roll wins" is indeed not the same as "skill level - roll = margin of success". I usually prefer the latter.

Quote from: gleichman;520899If I understand you correctly, you'll allowing each player to make a roll.

While that's common and understandable (each player wants to roll), it causes serious problems.

For example, consider 5 players vs. a NPC with a greatly superior skill. The odds start to favor the players because the chances of someone rolling *really* low increases greatly. The NPC will be overwhelmed by lesser skill due to the dice which is hardly how the contest would go in reality.

In a spitting contest it's each man for himself so no. The NPC will probably win. But yeah, a multiple person group effort requires some other kind of mechanic.

Quote from: Old One Eye;520915I can understand someone not liking the blackjack method, but there ain't a damn thing counter-intuitive about it. It is simple as dirt that everyone instantly understands.

Well, I wouldn't say it is hard to understand. Maybe I have the wrong word, but the rule just rubs me the wrong way in a hard to define fashion. Maybe "illogical" is a better fit. I guess I think of the dice roll as normally representing how well circumstances happen to come together for the character. Just doesn't make sense to me that the same roll is a disaster for one character and a triumph for another with a skill 1 higher.
 

Quote from: The Butcher;520943My bad, BSJ, I'm the cause of your confusion.
 
"Lowest roll wins" is indeed not the same as "skill level - roll = margin of success". I usually prefer the latter.

No probs. I think the former is rarely used enough that I missed thinking of it in FM's initial post too.

Quote from: Old One Eye;520915I can understand someone not liking the blackjack method, but there ain't a damn thing counter-intuitive about it.  It is simple as dirt that everyone instantly understands.

Chance-wise it's the same as comparing margin of success, but without having to perform subtraction. In other words, using margins of success is just making things more difficult than they are, intuitiveness aside.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;520922passive characters usually have their stats as some form of difficulty threshold which is effective at least in removing the possibility of tied results from the game.

I dunno, there's plenty of examples where ties make perfect sense to me.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;520944In a spitting contest it's each man for himself so no. The NPC will probably win. But yeah, a multiple person group effort requires some other kind of mechanic.

It's not that easy. Here, let me you give you an example.

Let's see we have an expert spitting NPC, with a skill level of 94 against six PCs who think they are big shots each with a skill level of only 33. The odds for the NPC are not as good as you think. There's something like a one in three chance that he'll lose as I roughly eyeball the odds.

Let's use an extreme example of the possible outcomes to illustrate this.

The NPC rolls a rather mediocre roll of 63, making his skill by 31 points. Any of the foes now need an 01 or 02 to beat him.

Low chance? Not really. The odds here for all the PCs are .1- 98^6 or a 11.41% chance that one of them will beat him, even needing an 02 or less.

The closer the NPC rolls to this skill level, the greater this effect becomes.

That's the impact of rolling against so many others.


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

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;520946Chance-wise it's the same as comparing margin of success, but without having to perform subtraction. In other words, using margins of success is just making things more difficult than they are, intuitiveness aside.

Wait a sec.

*does math on his head*

Fuck me, you're right. I feel like an idiot.

I'll probably be using it from now on.

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

Using blackjack or margin of success, the character with a skill 94 will have ~80% chance of victory and the character with a skill 33 will have ~20% chance of victory when the contest only requires one roll each.

This feels good to me for a contest whereby luck, the vagaries of combat, the pressure of time constraints, or other stress factors can play a significant part in the outcome.

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

Quote from: The Butcher;520956Wait a sec.

*does math on his head*

Fuck me, you're right. I feel like an idiot.

I'll probably be using it from now on.

Yep.  Not having to do the substraction step is what I feel makes the blackjack method superior to margin of success.