I suppose the subject says it all, but I'm designing a new game system and I was weighing a few mechanics. I wondered if maybe someone could convince me why I am failing to see the light about opposed rolls.

One of my 'mission statements' I keep in mind when I am designing this game is that players should feel capable and powerful. They shouldn't necessarily run away with a bunch of easy victories, but I want to be sure that they can usually accomplish what they put their mind toward. After all, most of us bang our heads against the wall 40 hours every work week and should get a little satisfaction from our gaming.

So I hate opposed rolls. First of all, they muddy the water and make things more complex than they need to be, but more importantly, they add an element of powerless to the characters: "Made an amazing roll? Oh so sorry, the NPC rolled even better. Come again soon." I'm setting up the game so that the players always, always roll against target numbers. Even if they are armwrestling (the classic example) an NPC, they must just beat the target number (based on the NPC's Strength) to win.

As a matter of fact, I am tempted to have them make defense rolls (against a target number) when attacked to see if they avoid the incoming attack, but this is so counter-intuitive that I dropped the idea. My buddy thinks I am crazy and wishes there were more opposed rolls. What am I missing here?

I forgot to put in my one of my favorite arguments against him. Say you're making an opposed d20 roll. Common, right?

Well, statistically, isn't this the exact same thing as a straight roll vs. DC 10 and a half? And that being said, why complicate the matter with additional unnecessary rolls, while at the same time playing havoc with a player's reasonable expectations.

What is the allure?

For NPCs, I like your thinking. But, what about player vs. player tests? That is, you need to have some way to do opposed rolls even if the probabilities don't make sense and the activity seems clunky because of your proposed idea of removing the feeling of powerlessness in the player. If the issue is simply with using opposed rolls with NPCs, then I would think that would be something the GM would have to decide rather than the game designer. Some GMs (you know who you are) like to see their NPCs as extensions of themselves, so removing the ability to 'fight back' against the players might be seen as undesirable for some potential gamers.

I personally use opposed rolls for simultaneous attack vs. attack, but I believe a roll is not necessary for any overt defensive actions, as you can model defense with perfect accuracy as a passive number.  And if you want counterattacks to be a tactical aspect of your system, you can just base them on degree-of-failure.

Hi Doug,

There's many games out there that successfully use non-opposed rolls for the entire way.  The Pool, Lady Blackbird, Inspectres, & Trollbabe are a few off the top of my head (the first two are free online, so, easy to check out.)

Many games use opposed rolls because they treat NPCs the same way they treat PCs, and use opposing rolls for everything.  You can consider just giving NPCs various Target Numbers/Difficulties both in defense and offense.  For PCs, give them all defensive Target Numbers (D&D does this with Armor Class).  If you want more variation, you could have players and the GM both have some form of hero points to boost said numbers for a conflict.

Also, it sounds like your frustration is a combination of the extra time it takes, plus possibly the emotional letdown and non-usefulness of rolling a die that doesn't do anything in the imaginary events? 

There's a term we use here at the Forge called, "Whiff Factor" which is about mechanics which have you roll a die ("I attack"), which, on failure, doesn't do anything to advance the situation ("I miss.  Uh, I guess I attack again.")  A lot of games now set up specific consequences for failing rolls or have a limited number of rolls in a conflict, so you don't end up with stuff like ("Ok, round 10, hopefully I hit this round...") 

If that is part of the problem, you may want to do some research into Conflict Resolution Mechanics (which are about resolving entire situations and scenes witha  few rolls rather than an indefinite number).

Chris

Hi Doug,

In terms of yourself and your buddy, a question to ask might be - do you actually enjoy rolling at all? Like the gamble of it? Or do you just want some satisfaction, as you put it, at the end of a working week? And the dice rolling isn't in itself part of that, so you just want to get it over and done with as quickly as possible?

Actually, I do think rolling dice can be fun. Like any RPer, when I'm bored at the table I toss a d20 a couple of times. I have never had as much fun playing a diceless game as I have playing D&D.

I think a randomizer is absolutely necessary to a fun RPG. It is the moment of truth. The "You can influence things, give yourself the best shot - but here is your do or die moment" thing.

And I think it is my love of that tension spike, the anxiety of the spinning die, that makes me hate opposed rolls. I want that moment to resolve the issue. I want the player to be confident that if they roll a 15 they hit. I want the suspense and release of the fatal moment.

Here's the deal - in my mind, opposed rolls counteract that feeling. For one, they are cumbersome. Now everyone is not just waiting with bated breath for  the one die, there are multiple die rolls. For two, they add to the volatility of the tests and play havoc with reasonable player expectations. It is hard to have a tense die rolling moment if the outcome of the die doesn't determine the result of the action.

I'm thinking to heck with my buddy. No opposed rolls in my game except for the (hopefully) rare event of player vs. player contests.

What if the thing your rolling against rolls first, thus generating a set number? Then, only after you know that definite number, you roll? Heck, as is you have to wait for the GM to make up a fixed difficulty number anyway (I'm assuming the traditional imagination coupler mechanism of GM makes up any diff # he wants, is being used).

I'm guessing your buddy likes the personalness of a player Vs a players opposed roll as the thrill of trying to beat someone (including beating what roll the GM could produce in the moment), while a fixed difficulty number just seems to come out of no where, is linked to no one at the table really and has no interpersonal thrill like that for him. That's a guess on my part. Might be something to discuss.

Also it'd be worth focusing more on the do or die moment you talk about. For example, even if you have a fixed diff #, if the PC is trying to climb over a five foot wall it's not exactly a do or die moment, is it? To me the fixed diff # doesn't matter as much as what the roll is about. If it's about small fry, mundane tasks, it's not really going to be do or die, whether it's opposed rolls or fixed diff #'s.

Your point about the statistical spread is a good one.  I've never been happy with systems that do away with opposed rolls entirely, for reasons mentioned by an earlier poster (i.e., it forces you to "play favorites" when dealing with player-vs-player contests); but it would be nice if one could arrange for a die-rolling convention for opposed rolls that could produce equivalent statistical results to what the normal mechanics produce.  Some possibilities:

• A die-rolling mechanic that's guaranteed to use an even number of dice could probably split those dice between the two contestants.  For instance: instead of rolling 2d6 + skill and comparing the results to a target number, have each contestant roll 1d6 + skill and compare their results.
• A die-rolling convention that involves a mixed pool of "good stuff" dice and "bad stuff" dice could split that pool into two purely "good stuff" pools, each rolled by a separate contestant.

Mind you, the added complexity of having to decide which die-rolling mechanism to use may outweigh the benefit of having equivalent probability distributions; it also makes it obvious to the player whether or not a given task is being contested, even if his character might have no idea that there's someone on the other end fighting him.  Of course, this is a moot point if you only use opposed rolls when the contestants are both player characters. 

Another advantage of opposed rolls is that they can usually be generalized to handle cases with three or more contestants: in the examples given above, the normal mechanic can only handle having two or more opponents by increasing the difficulty of the task (e.g., by applying modifiers or changing the target number); and the question of how much to increase the difficulty is not trivial.  By contrast, the opposed dice mechanisms mentioned above handle such cases quite trivially: everyone rolls, and he who rolls best wins.  Note that this violates my earlier call for statistical equivalence between the two methods; but in this case, that's a feature: the change in the probability distribution that comes from having to do better than the best of two or more opponents incorporates the added difficulty of facing off against multiple foes without the need for arbitrary modifiers to the roll. 

Hey, Doug, here's an idea: for player vs. player conflict, maybe you compare static numbers and let them bid some kind of points, one at a time?

But, this begs the question: What sort of relationship between players do you envision? Do they work together, directly compete, or...?

I'm designing the game that, first and foremost, I want to play. I have played in a lot of games where the players work at cross purposes and sometimes directly oppose one another and I have never liked it. I think a lot of times it comes from weak GMing and bored players trying to make something - anything - happen.

I am designing a game where it is intended that the players will work together to overcome their obstacles. That, in itself, is nothing new. The overwhelming majority of RPGs are intended to be played that way. And I don't plan to build in any overt mechanism to force people to play nice with each other if they don't want to. So I'm thinking mostly static target numbers, but leave in the option for oppsed rolls for Player vs. Player stuff.

As far as Rolling defense first, that happens in WoD and I find it extremely counterintuitive.

I bet it's probably not popular to say, but I think Dungeons and Dragons has set the gold standard for non-opposed tests. I believe that there is a solid mathmatical foundation for the defense numbers, check DCs and the like that is probably not found in any other game. I obviously have serious problems with D&D, though, or I wouldn't be throwing together a homebrew. I'll start a different thread, but I really want a system that does a lot of complex math, but hides it in the mechanics.

I want it to be able to meet reasonable player expectations all the time, which I feel like an opposed roll type system won't accomplish.

Its sounds to me like you should work towards omitting opposed rolls all together.
But you did ask for someone to change your mind.
I am sure that this at best only  marginally helpful but here is why I went with opposed rolls in my fantasy RPG [A Time of Steel & Staves]

I had decided that I wanted 2 lines of defense for physical combat. First you have your ability to disable the attack coming at you. (Dodge or Parry)
if you are unable to disable the attack by dodging or parrying, then your 2nd line of defense can save you. This line of defense is your armor.
this is a static number based on what you have equipped and not a separate roll.
Combat works like this in my system. (in a nut shell)
attacker readies a weapon and rolls for a slashing attack. (well go with longsword-- which is a slashing/piercing weapon)
the defender decides whether to dodge or parry.
They both roll.
If the attackers d20 roll +bonuses is higher than the defenders d20 roll=bonuses a hit is scored. leaving a "ding" in the defenders armor (after so many of these, the armor value goes down - based on the armor in use) the same number that the attacker rolled is compared to the armor value VS. Slashing attacks - if it is higher, the attack is successful and the attacker rolls longsword damage (1d10) and the GM subtracts the damage from the defenders Health pool.

a note on bonuses. My game is a game the makes use of large bonuses. you add this large bonus to a d20 roll thus making the huge variable of the d20 lessened. it is not uncommon in my game for a fighter class to have a 17 or so bonus. bonuses of 17 or so for dodge and parry isn't unreasonable either.

so if you have a high bonuses in what you are doing (in this case - Melee bonus) you have a better chance of success and you don't depend so much on the d20 so rolling pretty low against a weak opponent is still fairly easy.

Using this method i found that it takes a while to cause much damage to opponents. getting through both lines of defense. so as a result players have small health pools (low HP) and weapon damage is bumped up (form D&D) making hits really satisfying (and scary)
being all-powerful and feeling like nothing can kill you is much less satisfying than nearly dying but defeating a matched opponent.
[sub]that is unless you are one of several thousands of World of Warcaft Players who are into "Pawning N00bs" or "shooting fish in a barrell" ;)
which I just don't get.[/sub]

Like I said. Probably not gonna help but figured I'd share.

Good luck to you and success with your game.

Brent

I'll be careful, because I don't want to hijack my own thread, but I like your thoughts, Necromantis.

My attack/ defense system is almost exactly like yours. Roll to hit vs. Dodge or Parry, Resist - the active defenses. Which defense just depends on the type of attack, melee attacks always use the Melee skill and are vs. Parry (even if they are normally ranged attacks, like guns). Ranged attacks are vs. Dodge and Psychic/ Magic/ Persuasion attacks are vs. Resist. If a character or enemy is "hit" they will take an amount of Fatigue damage (D&D's Hit Points) and may further suffer a wound depending on the hit location + Damage vs. Armor in that location. It's not as clunky as it sounds. A single "Attack Roll" gives all the information necessary for that level of detail, no charts or excessive math necessary.

Here's the thing, though. I have the three defense numbers as static. In your game, you imply they are opposed rolls.

Admittedly, your way makes more logical sense. An active defense is ACTIVE. I think it is my disdain for opposed rolls that made me calculate static numbers. It doesn't mean I think I should change my method, but it is a reasonable argument.

I'll think about this one a bit.