Question about opposed tests

Tue, 2009-08-25 09:34

#2

nielsk

Understood now why it is

Understood now why it is solved the way it is -- saves a lot of calculations. Nice little hack :)

Sat, 2009-08-29 06:55

#3

NiallNai

A thought I had that would

A thought I had that would make it consistent is why not just make the MoS begin at zero so that you count up instead of counting down from your skill level. This way you are basically playing The Price Is Right with your skills...trying to come as close to your skill without going over. And it will still reduce the math calculations. For example: my PC has a skill of 50 in Unarmed Combat. He punches someone and rolls a 32. That is a MoS of 32. The opponent attempts to defend himself with a skill of 36 and rolls a 29 for a 29 point MoS so he gets hit both because the PC has a higher skill roll and because the MoS is higher.

Sat, 2009-08-29 20:59

#4

NiallNai

Or maybe another way to

Or maybe another way to determine MoS would be by the difference between the two rolls.

Tue, 2009-09-01 18:22

#5

Malachi

Same Thought

I had the same thought when I read the rules about Opposed Tests. I think I realize now why they higher roll wins: the game is trying to reward the person with the higher skill. So, if you were able to roll higher and still succeed, then you should win the Opposed Test. However, I still don't like the mechanic. I like the dice mechanic to be consistent throughout the game: if rolling low is good, then rolling low should *always* be good. There is also the paradox that if you are attempting an action that requires some MoS, that is also Opposed, you want to roll high *and* low at the same time. The mechanic creates the strange situation where a character could miss their MoS but win the test, or blow away their MoS but lose the Opposed Roll. In my games I think I'll use the higher MoS to determine the winner of an Opposed Test. It just seems to fit better overall.

Thu, 2009-09-03 10:57

#6

The Fnords The Fnords's picture

Similar to Unknown Armies

The Unknown Armies system uses this: You want to roll under or exactly your skill; the lower your roll, the less you succeed, and the higher above your skill, the greater your failure. Wanting low rolls all around except in opposed tests simplifies a lot of things (UA has some very complex rules involving tweaking dice rolls), but still rewards characters who have high skills with a bit more than just "failing less". To expand on UA and EP being similar, UA includes three important stimuli for your character (Noble, Fear and Rage), and whenever a roll clearly involves one of these, you can do similar things to what spending moxie in EP allows for.

—

If you don't see the fnord, it can't eat you.

Thu, 2009-09-10 04:12

#7

RobBoyle

The main reason is because

The main reason is because it's simpler easier to eyeball. You spot the higher number right away, rather than needing to calculate MoS.

—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Thu, 2009-09-10 14:56

#8

Malachi

Thought so, but...

Yeah, I thought that was the reason, and I do understand it from that perspective but... it creates some very strange situations in the rules. I generally don't like it when rolling "good" means "sometimes high and sometimes low." I understand you want to speed up the game by not calculated MoS or MoF, but the rules *already* call for the Margin to be calculated in so many situations anyway, having the Opposed Test mechanic be different than most other tests in the game would actually slow it down more. If you wanted to keep it quick, the rules should just say to use the *lower* roll rather than the higher one, since "lower is better" thanks to the MoS mechanic. It's just an unusual "bubble" in an otherwise awesome, consistent system.

Mon, 2009-09-21 21:09

#9

Decivre

Re: Thought so, but...

Except it's rather easy to remember... high is only valid when comparing dice. That said, there is another nice perk here... the better one player rolls, the more difficult it is for the other player to get a high MoS: if I roll a 40, and your target number is 60, then you can only get a maximum MoS of 19. Sure, you could get the same effect by calculating your MoS from the other roll, but I find this to be much more intuitive.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2009-10-01 17:22

#10

Malachi

Re: Thought so, but...

Decivre wrote:
Except it's rather easy to remember... high is only valid when comparing dice. That said, there is another nice perk here... the better one player rolls, the more difficult it is for the other player to get a high MoS: if I roll a 40, and your target number is 60, then you can only get a maximum MoS of 19. Sure, you could get the same effect by calculating your MoS from the other roll, but I find this to be much more intuitive.

I guess "intuitive" is a relative thing; I thought it decidedly UN-intuitive that for all other areas of the game, lower is better thus giving you a better MoS. Then, just for Opposed Test, you actually want a SMALLER MoS.

Fri, 2009-10-02 00:54

#11

Decivre

Re: Thought so, but...

Malachi wrote:
I guess "intuitive" is a relative thing; I thought it decidedly UN-intuitive that for all other areas of the game, lower is better thus giving you a better MoS. Then, just for Opposed Test, you actually want a SMALLER MoS.

Wrong. A bigger MoS is still better, and MoS is [i]still[/i] calculated from your target number. However, when both people succeed, the highest roll between the two wins. This is irrelevant to MoS: if my skill is 80 and your skill is 10, and you roll a 2 (granting you an MoS of 8 ), I will win with a 3 or better (MoS of 77).

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2009-10-02 11:03

#12

Malachi

Re: Thought so, but...

Decivre wrote:
Wrong. A bigger MoS is still better, and MoS is [i]still[/i] calculated from your target number. However, when both people succeed, the highest roll between the two wins. This is irrelevant to MoS: if my skill is 80 and your skill is 10, and you roll a 2 (granting you an MoS of 8 ), I will win with a 3 or better (MoS of 77).

Or if both of our skills are 60, and we engage in an opposed test and my roll is 2 (MoS 58) and your roll is 58 (MoS 2) then YOU win with a SMALLER MoS. Because if both people succeed then the winner is determined the the HIGHER ROLL. This was my point above... most of the time you want a low roll and high MoS, but for Opposed Test you actually want to roll high and as close to your skill as possible (but not over), giving you a lower MoS. If rolling low is "good" (because you beat your skill and get a great MoS), then rolling low should always be "good" for the system to be internally consistent. I know exactly why they did it this way (Rob admitted as much): to speed up the game. By giving the higher roll the winner, they are favoring someone with a higher skill (because they can succeed with a higher number) while keeping the game fast by not having to have the player calculate MoS. But my point was: MoS is already being calculated all over the place (and should ideally be calculated every test in order to determine if an Excellent Success was achieved @ MoS 30+) so it isn't really speeding the game up that much, and it creates an odd "bubble" in the rules were MOST of the time you want to roll LOW but SOMETIMES you want to roll HIGH.

Fri, 2009-10-02 14:30

#13

Decivre

Re: Thought so, but...

Malachi wrote:
Or if both of our skills are 60, and we engage in an opposed test and my roll is 2 (MoS 58) and your roll is 58 (MoS 2) then YOU win with a SMALLER MoS. Because if both people succeed then the winner is determined the the HIGHER ROLL. This was my point above... most of the time you want a low roll and high MoS, but for Opposed Test you actually want to roll high and as close to your skill as possible (but not over), giving you a lower MoS. If rolling low is "good" (because you beat your skill and get a great MoS), then rolling low should always be "good" for the system to be internally consistent. I know exactly why they did it this way (Rob admitted as much): to speed up the game. By giving the higher roll the winner, they are favoring someone with a higher skill (because they can succeed with a higher number) while keeping the game fast by not having to have the player calculate MoS. But my point was: MoS is already being calculated all over the place (and should ideally be calculated every test in order to determine if an Excellent Success was achieved @ MoS 30+) so it isn't really speeding the game up that much, and it creates an odd "bubble" in the rules were MOST of the time you want to roll LOW but SOMETIMES you want to roll HIGH.

The part you are missing is that [i]rolling low is still good when doing an opposed test[/i]. Getting an excellent success during an oppose combat check increases your damage by 5, and further by 10 if your MoS is 60+ (I'd presume it would be +15 on an MoS 90+). The only difference being that your opponent's roll (if successful) dictates your window of success and vice versa. So in effect, you still want to roll low. In opposed tests, your opponent's roll dictates [i]how low you can roll while still succeeding[/i], but you still want your roll to be as low as possible.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2009-10-02 16:09

#14

Malachi

Re: Thought so, but...

Decivre wrote:
The part you are missing is that [i]rolling low is still good when doing an opposed test[/i]. Getting an excellent success during an oppose combat check increases your damage by 5, and further by 10 if your MoS is 60+ (I'd presume it would be +15 on an MoS 90+). The only difference being that your opponent's roll (if successful) dictates your window of success and vice versa. So in effect, you still want to roll low. In opposed tests, your opponent's roll dictates [i]how low you can roll while still succeeding[/i], but you still want your roll to be as low as possible.

Yeah, I get what you are saying. I just think that it would be more internally consistent if an Opposed Test was resolved by MoS rather than who rolled higher. That's how I'm going to be playing it in my games.

Fri, 2009-10-02 17:10

#15

Decivre

Re: Thought so, but...

Malachi wrote:
Yeah, I get what you are saying. I just think that it would be more internally consistent if an Opposed Test was resolved by MoS rather than who rolled higher. That's how I'm going to be playing it in my games.

The big problem with your system is that it now creates scenarios where the opponent's roll is negligible in affecting your roll. This doesn't equate well to such situations where that should be relevant, like dodging bullets (where your target's dodging should affect how accurately you hit them). The only way that comparing MoS would work in the same way would be if the smaller MoS were subtracted from the greater MoS in order to get the successful player's final MoS. The end result would be the same as the current mechanic with more complication (the current one being compare dice and determine MoS of highest roll; versus determine MoS of both rolls, compare and subtract to determine final MoS). Less is more with such systems.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Fri, 2009-10-02 17:20

#16

Malachi

Re: Question about opposed tests

I suppose in that situation the opponent's roll doesn't [b]directly[/b] affect your roll, but it does determine whether you succeed or not. I guess your point is that the it reduces the system to a binary result: either you hit or you don't, rather than the opponents roll affecting how [b]well[/b] you can hit in a variable way. *shrug* I've seen different systems do it both ways. The old Star Wars D6 system was binary when it came to Opposed tests like an attack: if you rolled better (higher in that system's case) than your opponent, then you hit. Shadowrun 4th edition, uses the variable system where the defender's hits directly subtract from the attacker's hits, creating a situation where the defender has some "stake" in how well their attacker can possibly hit them. However, the common thread in both of the above is that they are consistent with all other test. In Star Wars D6, rolling higher was [b]always[/b] better. In SR4, getting more hits is [b]always[/b] better.

Fri, 2009-10-02 17:53

#17

Decivre

Re: Question about opposed tests

Malachi wrote:
I suppose in that situation the opponent's roll doesn't [b]directly[/b] affect your roll, but it does determine whether you succeed or not. I guess your point is that the it reduces the system to a binary result: either you hit or you don't, rather than the opponents roll affecting how [b]well[/b] you can hit in a variable way. *shrug* I've seen different systems do it both ways. The old Star Wars D6 system was binary when it came to Opposed tests like an attack: if you rolled better (higher in that system's case) than your opponent, then you hit. Shadowrun 4th edition, uses the variable system where the defender's hits directly subtract from the attacker's hits, creating a situation where the defender has some "stake" in how well their attacker can possibly hit them. However, the common thread in both of the above is that they are consistent with all other test. In Star Wars D6, rolling higher was [b]always[/b] better. In SR4, getting more hits is [b]always[/b] better.

As are these. Rolling low continues to be better, difference being that your opponent's roll determines how much better you can get. It is somewhat akin to blackjack... you need to have the highest score to win, but you also need to make it below 21 or you lose. You have a window of success, and that's what Eclipse Phase does. Non-opposed checks work the same way as opposed checks, under the assumption that your "opponent" already failed its check. The mechanic is fine.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2009-12-23 03:35

#18

750

Re: Question about opposed tests

i am reminded of that scene in dune, where young paul is being trained in knife fighting and at first appearance have gotten the upper hand on gurney hallec, only to find a knife point at his neither regions. that is, going all out (lowest possible roll) may be a bad choice, as while it may result in massive gains on victory, it may also drop your defense at the worst possible moment.

Tue, 2010-01-12 03:25

#19

Bloodwork

Re: Question about opposed tests

In regards to the required MoS when making a test, I like the "sweet spot" method, even though it looks confusing at first. To use the example from the book. Kicking the grenade into the hatch requires a MoS of 30. Unarmed skill is 66. So he needs to roll at least the MoS (30) but still less than the target number (66). This creates a middle band (31-66) which you are aiming for. The benefit is you are skipping one calculation (what is 66-30?) and you are still trying to roll as high as possible without going over your target number. This makes it consistent with Opposed tests where you are trying to roll as high as possible without going over your target number. Maths are not my strongest point but this tends to make a lot more sense to me.

—

That which doesn't kill you usually succeeds on the second attempt.

Tue, 2010-06-15 13:47

#20

trechriron trechriron's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

Bloodwork wrote:
... To use the example from the book. ...

I don't get it. If you need a MoS of 30, the you would have to roll under 36. What is the band of 31 - 66? If you rolled higher than the 36 you would have succeeded, but you didn't get a MoS of 30, so you still fail, correct?

—

Trentin C Bergeron (TreChriron)
Bard, Dreamer, Computer Nerd, & RPG Enthusiast
October Northwest

@-rep: 0 | c-rep 0 | e-rep

Wed, 2010-06-16 08:22

#21

nick012000 nick012000's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

He's proposing a house rule where your required MoS is the minimum to the roll (need MoS 30 = need more than 30 to succeed). This leads to funkiness, however, with opposed tests since the winner will have a higher MoS than in the current rules, and the calculation benefit is negligible.

—

+1 r-Rep , +1 @-rep

Wed, 2010-06-16 13:26

#22

trechriron trechriron's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

The more I think on this, the more I realize the wonkiness. In opposed rolls it could work, but in standard success tests, it won't. With the "roll high" method If I have a Skill of 20 and roll a 10, I get a MoS of 10. Which is also true if I have a skill of 60. With the RAW, in the first case I have the same MoS of 10, but in the second case I would have a MoS of 50! With the RAW the character with a higher skill has a chance of getting better results. That makes more sense to me. The RAW work for me. The roll high method only breaks ties for opposed rolls. It's a very smart way of doing things.

—

Trentin C Bergeron (TreChriron)
Bard, Dreamer, Computer Nerd, & RPG Enthusiast
October Northwest

@-rep: 0 | c-rep 0 | e-rep

Wed, 2010-08-25 16:28

#23

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

trechriron wrote:
The more I think on this, the more I realize the wonkiness. In opposed rolls it could work, but in standard success tests, it won't. With the "roll high" method If I have a Skill of 20 and roll a 10, I get a MoS of 10. Which is also true if I have a skill of 60. With the RAW, in the first case I have the same MoS of 10, but in the second case I would have a MoS of 50! With the RAW the character with a higher skill has a chance of getting better results. That makes more sense to me. The RAW work for me. The roll high method only breaks ties for opposed rolls. It's a very smart way of doing things.

In the proposed house rule, though, you can still get a MoS of 50. You'd just need to roll a 50. It's not a difference in terms of how much benefit you get from higher skills, but a difference in where you start counting from. In both the RAW or the "roll high without going over" house rule, you get the exact same range for possible MoS values (zero to your skill level). The advantage to calculating MoS this way is that EVERY roll in the game would be consistent: You would always want to roll as high as possible, without exceeding your skill (barring critical rolls). The disadvantage, however, is that it probably screws up damage calculations in the RAW for opposed tests in combat, as you would end up with way higher MoS values (unless you changed it so MoS on an opposed test had to subtract the opponent's roll or something). ... Or am I missing something? I'm totally new to this game and have yet to run it, but the rule for rolling opposed tests confused me so much that I felt I needed to come to the forum to figure it out before putting a campaign together.

Wed, 2010-08-25 19:19

#24

crizh

Re: Question about opposed tests

I recently had it pointed out to me that in many situations that you're making an opposed check like this you still have to calculate MoS. Combat for example where high MoS improves damage this 'highest roll' methodology doesn't reduce the amount of calculation you have to do but makes the whole system seem counter-intuitive. I also saw another system proposed which fixed it quite neatly. Turn the whole system on it's head. All skill checks are d100+skill with a target of 100 for success. Opposed checks are easy to eyeball and MoS is very easy to determine. It requires a major change to the system but I think that's what I would do if I were running EP. I reeeeaaaaalllllyyyy don't like the 'highest roll' mechanic in opposed checks. It makes my teeth itch. [closes door three times on way out....]

—

Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

Thu, 2010-08-26 10:14

#25

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

I noticed there's another thread on this that I missed that addresses similar issues. One person describes what I had in mind succinctly and explains why the odds work out just like the rules as written, but then concludes that this is untenable. The person's complaint is that it's too complex because in order for Opposed Tests to work, you would need to subtract the defeated opponent's roll from the successful opponent's roll. My question, having never played the game, is this: Are opposed rolls that much more common that this is such an issue? The way I see it, in the rules as written, I need to do some subtraction in my head for every roll to check on MoS or MoF (even if just checking for excellent successes). In the "blackjack" or "Price is Right" house rule of trying to roll as high as possible without exceeding the target number, you only ever need to subtract in your head for MoF (subtract target number from roll) and for MoS in opposed tests where both opponents roll beneath their target number (subtract defeated roll from successful roll). I prefer fewer calculations in my head, but people keep saying this is too complex for some reason. What am I missing?

Thu, 2010-08-26 10:29

#26

Decivre

Re: Question about opposed tests

crizh wrote:
I recently had it pointed out to me that in many situations that you're making an opposed check like this you still have to calculate MoS. Combat for example where high MoS improves damage this 'highest roll' methodology doesn't reduce the amount of calculation you have to do but makes the whole system seem counter-intuitive. I also saw another system proposed which fixed it quite neatly. Turn the whole system on it's head. All skill checks are d100+skill with a target of 100 for success. Opposed checks are easy to eyeball and MoS is very easy to determine. It requires a major change to the system but I think that's what I would do if I were running EP. I reeeeaaaaalllllyyyy don't like the 'highest roll' mechanic in opposed checks. It makes my teeth itch. [closes door three times on way out....]

The current system still does simplify mechanics, by way of reducing the total amount of math you have to do during any roll. Most things can be eyeballed, while the only mechanic that requires any real math is MoS or MoF. This actually makes the mechanics fairly beginner-friendly... I can eschew the MoS mechanics and make the game virtually mathless (except perhaps the modifiers). But I know how it feels to have mechanics that just bother you. I've personally changed the core mechanic in this game to "true roll under" at my tables (if your target is 40, then you have to roll 39... 40 is a "barely fail"), just because it bothered me that the final point in any skill was just about worthless (never take a skill higher than 98 when using the standard system of play, because the 99th point doesn't improve your chance to succeed unless you have penalties). Plus, it made statistics easier to calculate: a target of 50 is an exact 50% chance to succeed (00 to 49 are successes, 50-99 are failures), rather than a 51% chance. Was it necessary? No. Did it make it so I can finally sleep? Yes.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Thu, 2010-08-26 10:54

#27

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

Decivre wrote:
The current system still does simplify mechanics, by way of reducing the total amount of math you have to do during any roll. Most things can be eyeballed, while the only mechanic that requires any real math is MoS or MoF. This actually makes the mechanics fairly beginner-friendly... I can eschew the MoS mechanics and make the game virtually mathless (except perhaps the modifiers).

How does the current system reduce the amount of math? (Sorry to be a pain!) Seeing as how the rules seem to suggest that you are always calculating MoS (for excellent successes), the way I'm seeing the distinction is this.... RULES AS WRITTEN Unopposed Test (up to 3 calculations)

Add skill to aptitude (if applicable)
Subtract modifiers from sum to determine target number
Subtract roll from target number to determine MoS (or vice versa to determine MoF)

Opposed Test (up to 3 calculations for each opponent, and 1 comparison between them)

Add skill to aptitude (if applicable)
Subtract modifiers from sum to determine target number
Compare opponents' rolls to see which is larger but still beneath respective target numbers
If both are beneath target number, subtract higher roll from its target number to determine MoS

BLACKJACK RULE (roll high without going over target number) Unopposed Test (up to 2 calculations for successes, up to 3 for failures)

Add skill to aptitude (if applicable)
Subtract modifiers from sum to determine target number
MoS is roll result for successes; for failures, subtract target number from roll to determine MoF

Opposed Test (up to 3 calculations for each opponent, and 1 comparison between them)

Add skill to aptitude (if applicable)
Subtract modifiers from sum to determine target number
Compare opponents' rolls to see which is larger but still beneath respective target numbers
If both are beneath target number, subtract lower roll from higher roll to determine MoS

... In summary, as I'm reading it, it's the exact same amount of math in most cases, but one less calculation on unopposed test successes. Admittedly, though, I've never run this before. Am I missing something obvious here?

Mon, 2011-05-09 08:13

#28

Angry_Ghost Angry_Ghost's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

I think the idea behind it is not that there's necessarily less maths involved as much as it's a lot more intuitive now. I for one am so happy with the blackjack rule as it really brings in Unopposed Tests with Opposed Tests.

—

The Force will be with you. Sometimes.

Mon, 2011-05-09 11:10

#29

Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

Ditto. I like the new rule, just because it's simpler and 'seamless' with other tests.

Mon, 2011-05-09 11:44

#30

Angry_Ghost Angry_Ghost's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

The really odd thing is that I was originally against opposed tests because they were "against the norm" in that they differed from normal MoS tests. It never occurred to me to think of changing the actual MoS for normal tests to be more like the opposed tests. All is right with the world now though, I love this and well, basically all the changes they have implemented. The only thing now is to (im)patiently wait for the book to be dead-tree available in the UK in it's new iteration.

—

The Force will be with you. Sometimes.

Mon, 2011-05-09 15:46

#31

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

Angry_Ghost wrote:
All is right with the world now though, I love this and well, basically all the changes they have implemented. The only thing now is to (im)patiently wait for the book to be dead-tree available in the UK in it's new iteration.

Did the designers actually change this for a later edition of the game? I thought we were just talking about a house rule.

Mon, 2011-05-09 16:42

#32

Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture

Re: Question about opposed tests

No-and-yes. As I mentioned, it's a 'new' rule (so yes, a for-real official change). No, it's not a new edition; it's the 3rd printing of the 1st edition. :D

Mon, 2011-05-09 16:59

#33

750

Re: Question about opposed tests

They made the MOS to be based on the dice roll, rather then the difference between the dice roll and the difficulty. So if you roll a 20, it is a MOS of 20, roll 42, and it is 42.

Mon, 2011-05-09 17:05

#34

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

Oh, lovely. (Now I feel kind of primitive owning the print edition rather than the more-easily-retconned digital version, but the big pages are so pretty!) EDIT to add: Is this in a new version of the PDF already, or is there a due date on that being updated?

Mon, 2011-05-09 17:29

#35

Tyrnis

Re: Question about opposed tests

Jason, The PDF was updated to reflect the current rules a few days ago. Easiest way to tell the difference without looking at the PDF itself is that the most recent PDF with the latest rules/errata is only 27MB as opposed to 40. If you've bought the PDF off of Drivethru, then you can just go and download the new version. Oddly, though, Drivethru didn't send out email notification that there'd been an update, so I only knew because I watch the forums.

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:25

#36

Jason

Re: Question about opposed tests

Ah, thanks! I hadn't bought the PDF, just the print book, but I figure it might be wise to have the newest revision on hand when I run my first game this summer.

Wed, 2011-05-11 12:28

#37

750

Re: Question about opposed tests

There is also a updated errata in the resources section.