Contests (Opposed Rolls)

[JohnPaulB]

There may be times when you want both of them to win.


Human Joe (IQ 10) is trying to tell Goblin Iknar (IQ 14) that it is dangerous to touch that button. They do not share the same language.

Human Joe uses words, hand signals, body language and loud sounds to explain it.
Goblin Iknar listens intently, not understanding the words, but trying to grasp the rest of it.

These guys are co-operating with each other. The end result that is wanted is that Iknar understands the communication.

1) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 8 or 2 points; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 13 or 1 point. Joe wins by 1

2) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 9 or 1 point; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 10 or 4 point. Iknar wins by 3

3) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 12 or -2 points; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 10 or 4 point. Joe fails the roll; Iknar wins by 4

4) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 8 or 2 points; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 15 or -1 point. Joe wins by 2; Iknar fails his roll

5) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 8 or 2 points; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 12 or 2 points. Joe wins by 2; Iknar wins by 2 = Nothing changes, Roll Again next turn

6) Joe rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 12 or -2 points; Iknar rolls 3d6 vs IQ and gets 15 or -1 point. Joe fails the roll; Iknar fails the roll

There is an assumption on my part that if you fail your roll, you lose. If you crit fail, you lose and something bad happens. If you crit win, you win and something else good happens.

So on
1) Joe Wins contest
2) Iknar Wins contest
3) Iknar Wins contest; Joe fails roll
4) Joe Wins contest; Iknar fails roll
5) Challenge contested
6) No one Wins contest; both fail rolls

So in 1), if Joe wins the contest does that mean he got Iknar to understand?

So in 2), if Iknar wins the contest does that mean he understood Joe’s message?

So in 3), if Iknar wins the contest does that mean he still understood Joe’s bungled message?

So in 4), if Joe wins the contest does that mean Iknar still fails to understood Joe’s message?

So in 5), if Joe wins the contest and Iknar also wins the contest does that mean both need to go another round for Joe’s message to be understood?

So in 6), if Joe fails and Iknar fails the contest does that mean Iknar fails to understand Joes message?


Also, should the spread of victory points have a gradient benefit for the winner?

[larsdangly]

I interpret this to be something closer to the way opposed rolls work in Pendragon. You can't win a contest if you fail your roll; at best, two failed rolls means no change in the situation - the contest rolls over into the next turn without any other consequences (other than some special case, like both parties are under water and start drowning or something).

My favorite opposed roll mechanics are those from Pendragon; I adapt them to lots of other games. In this system, the winner is the one who has the highest raw rolled value that is still equal to or less than their target number, and if you succeed but 'lose' the contest, there is some mitigating condition that lessens the effect of your loss. This system cooks in a nuanced set of outcomes, but plays very quickly because there is no math involved - you just compare rolls to each other and to your target numbers (in the case of TFT, the adjusted stat)

[JLV]

I'm with Lars on this one too -- something simple, easily scalable, and easy to implement is exactly what we need. Overly complex and confusing rules are not only difficult to implement in the middle of play, but clearly not in keeping with TFT's implicit KISS principle! ;-)

(Which is not to say that JohnPaulB's write up is that in any way -- and he does raise a valid point on the "both need to win" issue; but in that case, to my mind, it's not a "contested" roll at all -- it's simply a roll to determine if Joe was successful in explaining the situation or not.)

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by JLV

I'm with Lars on this one too -- something simple, easily scalable, and easy to implement is exactly what we need. Overly complex and confusing rules are not only difficult to implement in the middle of play, but clearly not in keeping with TFT's implicit KISS principle! ;-)

(Which is not to say that JohnPaulB's write up is that in any way -- and he does raise a valid point on the "both need to win" issue; but in that case, to my mind, it's not a "contested" roll at all -- it's simply a roll to determine if Joe was successful in explaining the situation or not.)

So, it should strictly be an IQ roll on Joe's part?

OK, I can have that.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

So, it should strictly be an IQ roll on Joe's part?

OK, I can have that.

Well, the situation as you originally described it certainly inclines me to think that way. But perhaps there's some other reason why it would be contested? Maybe the Goblin is actively AVOIDING trying to understand for some reason? In a case like that, I could see "contested."

I guess it all depends on what you're trying to simulate there.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by JLV

Well, the situation as you originally described it certainly inclines me to think that way. But perhaps there's some other reason why it would be contested? Maybe the Goblin is actively AVOIDING trying to understand for some reason? In a case like that, I could see "contested."

I guess it all depends on what you're trying to simulate there.

I was just overthinking the situation.

The original concept was Joe has average intelligence, the goblin was very bright. If Joe failed on his end, the Goblin still might be able to figure it out because he's bright. Way too much doodling on the rules that don't really justify the results. The original RAW are most streamline, giving a quicker result.

If Joe failed that turn, he just tries again next turn.

[JLV]

I understand that completely -- I do it all the time, and have to step away for a few minutes to see the situation clearly again. And even then... ;-)

[zot]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I was just overthinking the situation.

The original concept was Joe has average intelligence, the goblin was very bright. If Joe failed on his end, the Goblin still might be able to figure it out because he's bright. Way too much doodling on the rules that don't really justify the results. The original RAW are most streamline, giving a quicker result.

If Joe failed that turn, he just tries again next turn.

For something like figuring out a communication, I'd allow only one roll for the entire communication. If the PC can establish a rapport, there's no need to keep rolling. If the PC fails, they can't establish one. The roll doesn't have to represent a single turn of activity, of course -- it can represent a decent amount of effort. The rules give an example of one roll for an entire arm wrestling match, for instance.

I try to specify the contest structure, choosing single-round, multi-player, multi-round, etc. like the rules specify, before any rolls start. I find that avoiding do-overs keeps the stakes higher.

In cases like lock picking where the rules explicitly allow multiple attempts, I still try to make failures meaningful, endangering the PCs with noise, etc.