Topic: Contested skill resolution

[Marc R]

Very true. . .I was merely saying that if you fail your sneak, then they massively fail their perception. . . .you could end up as the winner of the contest despite failing your maneuver, because the other party failed worse on their maneuver. Regardless of if you use MM or RR the methods compare results, not just pass/fail status. . .one just does it in more detail than the other.

[Arioch]

IMHO the RR is too complex: I prefer a more straightforward method. Have each contender make a roll and add their bonuses (with all modifications), the one who obtains the higher result wins (for MM have each roll on the right column on the MM table, the one who obtain the higest number wins). If you want you can also check the appropriate table check for fumbles or absolute successes (applying any result) but otherwise just ignore the table results. This way is very easy to resolve conflicting actions even if there are more than two characters involved and there are no problems with stat-based manuevers.

[Marc R]

How do you tally up multiple participants?

For example, say a tug of war with 5 people on each side.

[Arioch]

For example, say a tug of war with 5 people on each side.

In this case I would sum the bonuses from each side and then make a roll using each side's total bonus as a modifier. I prefer adding over averaging the bonuses of all partecipants because in tug of war (or similar contest) just adding a single person on a side is going to make a lot difference...

[Fidoric]

In such a contest, I agree with Arioch. Add St bonuses together to get a total bonus and maybe determine the difficulty of each side according to total mass of the other side (a pack of Halfling may find it very hard to move even a lone troll even if totalling as much strength as he because of his sheer mass).

[Marc R]

Very good point on the weight issue F. . . .I suspect that situation by situation calls like that end up being why you need a GM around to make these calls, and often a generic rule can't really cover everything.

[gandalf970]

I prefer to compare stalk/hide against relative skill (s/h of 80 vs guards perception of 40). This results in a +/- skill roll.

[jaranka]

I prefer just one roll in the case of active vs passive skill resolution.  No sense in making the resolution of actions take longer than it does already.  In the above examples, just the stalker should roll, modified normally, minus the largest alertness bonus of anyone who could possibly detect him.  Use the static maneuver chart for success, or read a MM result as the all-or-nothing % chance of success.

If the player didn't have an active part in causing the opposed skill check, it's reasonable that they wouldn't roll.  The GM usually rolls players alertness anyway.  You can't ask all your players to roll alertness and then expect them not to start looking around, regardless of how they rolled.

Does anyone give EXP for alertness?

[gandalf970]

I never have given xp for Alertness, but maybe I should.  I haven't used the xp from Rolemaster in years, but was thinking of using it again in my new campaign.  I usually just gave everyone a flat amount, say 3000-5000 depending on how they did as a team.

[Nortti]

This is a good question. You have a valid point in saying that rulebook doesnt necessarily handle this in best possible way.

Hide vs perception: we have first checked if hider/stalker has a success, with modifiers. If sneaker fumbles the result is very clear, unless searcher fumbles too. GM has decided the modifier to the searchers roll. This method has always been case by case and I admit that deciding bonuses to the searchers roll is not always very clear.   

Actually that Ariochs method seemed good to me. Have to consider adopting that.

[JimiSue]

Could this be an older thread that was resurrected?

Regarding the double tapping mods mentioned above - I'm not sure that is the case in that hide and perception example. Taking the one with the ninja in black trying to hide in a white, well lit room. Both ninja and searcher start out at a medium maneuver as their base. Ignoring the ninja for the moment, the searcher is looking in a monochrome room for something. If the target object were an apple rather than a ninja, i.e. not something that is actively trying not to be seen, then there would be justification in adding a bonus to the searcher's roll. In that instance I would say that even a light maneuver is too difficult unless the searcher was just glancing inside the room.

The ninja on the other hand is on a hiding to nothing here. He is much larger than the apple, and contrasts even more starkly with the rest of the room. Trying to hide in that kind of condition is more difficult and Absurd would not be unreasonable.

But, it comes down more to the quality of the search - the ninja could hide in that room without penalty if all he had to do was get out of the corridor. But if someone were to actually come in and look for him, he is bang out of luck, whatever he's wearing. Even a ninja dressed in white (going to a wedding maybe?) would have trouble there.