Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Inez Hull on March 09, 2008, 07:07:17 PM
-
I've never found the resolution of contested skills satisfactory in Rolemaster. The use of static actions to resolve a situation which is dynamic seems simplistic compared to the elegance of other methods of skill resolution in the system. For example, when contesting a hider versus a searcher (as opposed to passive perceptions) who makes the manuevre roll, the hider or the searcher? I'm curious about how people play or house rule skill vs skill.
-
One way to handle it would be to use the Moving Maneuver Table.
Determine which skill is the active and which is the passive (in the sense that passive is the defending skill).
Then the Passive skill makes a roll on the maneuver Table -- subtract 100 from the result, and that amount is then subtracted from the skill roll for the active skill.
Note: if a result is less then 100, that gives a negative number, so when you subtract a negative number, you actually add its absolute value to the active skill roll. The active skill (with the modifier), needs a result from the table of 100 or greater to succeed.
And to make it better, both skills do NOT need to be of the same difficulty.
for example, A ninja dressed all in black, trying to hide in an empty white room that is brightly lit would be making an Absurd maneuver roll. While somebody trying to find him might only need to make Light maneuver.
reverse that to a ninja in a dark room and the ninja gets an Easy maneuver, while a search with a torch might have a Sheer Folly maneuver to spot him.
BTW, welcome to the forums Inez! ;D
-
Nice, thats the sort of blend of complexity and ease that I would expect to find in the game itself. My plan had been to use two static manuevres and apply a mod to the active skill based on the level of success of the passive skill, but your solution would provide a much smoother progression. Thanks.
I find it a bit unbelievable that a game that does skills so well (the very reason why our group always comes back to Rolemaster) doesn't address this situation in the rules themselves.
-
Inez,
Welcome to the forums.
MDC
-
We have always had BOTH roll, then compair the results with any other modifieres that aply. (Like the Ninja in a dark room above) ;D
-
We have always had BOTH roll, then compair the results with any other modifieres that aply. (Like the Ninja in a dark room above) ;D
Yes but what if both are successful? Does an absolute success in stalk/hide evade a success in Perception?... most likely. But what if both have a near success? GM judgement is probably suitable in most cases, but I find it suprising in a system that handles skill resolution as well as Rolemaster does, that there is no specific mechanic for contested skills.
-
We use a very simple method: both characters roll, with all possible modifications, the one who obtains the higher result "wins". ;D We don't use a table for skill constests, just plain rolls.
-
I think the MM thing might be under "Conflicting skills" using perception and hiding as an example. . .
My only problem there is the double tap of the modifiers. . .like sneaking in a well lit area becomes an absurd task vs a light task which seems to double up the modifier by applying it to both rolls.
Only other method I can think of is using the RR table.
Something like defender ranks in hiding + hiding bonus vs attacker ranks in perception + perception bonus +/- a situational modification for something like lighting.
-
My only problem there is the double tap of the modifiers. . .like sneaking in a well lit area becomes an absurd task vs a light task which seems to double up the modifier by applying it to both rolls.
Yeah, I had the same thought - however most hiding is going to rely on cover rather than "hiding in the shadows". Hiding with no cover or shadows is going to take the combination of a phenmonenal hide skill and inattentive perception. Anyway, I generally wouldn't actually use lighting as a modifier for the hider unless they are specifically trying to hide in the shadows. Cover, appropriate camoflague, time to prepare would all influence the quality of a hiding attempt because they are things the hider can attempt to utilise. I think ambient conditions like light, visibility (rain, fog etc.) and distance from the hider would modify the spotters chances.
-
Wheather you apply a penality to the looker or a bonus to the
hider(-er?) the end result is the same. Someone scores a greater sucesses than the other. A chart wont help if both open-end their rolls or something.
And in our sessions, if two people with opossing skills end up within 10-15 points or so we call it a draw for that round and go on to the next round. i.e. the one hiding is not found, but the looker knows something is up. Maybe giving the looker a +20 the next round.
-
Problem isn't applying a mod, it's applying it to both. . .the dueling MM method often seems to result in something like:
Guard rolls perception -20
Spy rolls Stalking +20
Even if this consists of the Guard rolling "Very Hard" while the Spy rolls "Light", since the MM columns are skewed.
I find that you need to be careful using that method not to decide 20 is the logical mod, then by applying it +/- to both rolls, get an actual modifier of 40.
-
LM,
IMO it is up to the GM to aviod "Double Tapping" modifiers. Now I think we all can say as a GM I have made a mistake in the past and hope for rules to aid me or prevent me from making thoes same mistakes in the future. That is unless I invove the Golden Rule that states as a GM I have the right to pick and chose the rules for my game as well as add rules to enhance play or throw out ruels because I do not like them or to aid me in telling the story.
MDC
-
Only other method I can think of is using the RR table.
Something like defender ranks in hiding + hiding bonus vs attacker ranks in perception + perception bonus +/- a situational modification for something like lighting.
HARP uses the RR table for opposed skill rolls, and it works quite well. So in the situation in question, the hider would make their skill roll, with the appropriate modifiers, check the RR table, and that would give the result necessary for the spotter to find him (again with the appropriate modifiers applied).
Hawk
-
HARP uses the RR table for opposed skill rolls, and it works quite well. So in the situation in question, the hider would make their skill roll, with the appropriate modifiers, check the RR table, and that would give the result necessary for the spotter to find him (again with the appropriate modifiers applied).
The RR table in HARP is designed to be used for opposing skills since HARP contains Resistance Skills. Rolemaster's RM table, however isn't designed to do so easily.
There are several ways to possibly do it, but each is relatively convoluted overall.
-
Markc, agreed, wasn't saying the dueling MM thing is a no go, just saying you need to be careful as the GM not to overly skew the results by double tapping the mods.
For skill vs skill, the RR table works easily, with :
ranks vs ranks + "defender" skill bonus - "attacker" skill bonus
except of course when there's no skill to apply. When it comes down to a skill vs stat, or stat vs stat you're in trouble, unless you want to go and make it:
ranks vs Level + "defender" skill bonus - "attacker" Stat bonus.
It all becomes a total mess at that end.
-
Rock, scissors, paper.
Quick, fast, reliable resolution, no different than rolling dice. Just altering the tools used to generate randomness.
lynn
-
Lord Miller,
I agree but I think it is one of those things that could be expressed better in the rules. And multiple examples provided for almost any situation the GM might run into. Sometimes it is tough being the GM and IMO thier is a fair amont of on the job training that takes place.
MDC
-
For skill vs skill, the RR table works easily, with :
ranks vs ranks + "defender" skill bonus - "attacker" skill bonus
The only problem with that is that it does not consider whether or not the individuals actually succeed at individual skills. It is automatically assuming that they do both succeed, and IMO, that shouldn't be a given. It also takes nothing about the conditions of the situation into account. This isn't something there the resistance roll is inherent and automatic like with spells and poisons.
Skills should only be rolled for in stressful and/or important situations. When you are having one character contesting the skill rolls of another, that would have to, again IMO, be where you want skill rolls (for a variety of reasons -- like how it also provides dynamic tension for the game
So, what I think is the best way to handle it would be as follows:
1) Determine which skill is attacker and which is defender (defending skill should likely be more passive in comparison to the attacking skill -- i.e. Perception vs. Stalking, Perception would be the attacker if you are actively looking for target, Stalking would be attacker if you are trying to sneak past guard -- it all depends upon the situation.
2) Attacker rolls his skill on MM table (at proper difficulty and with all applicable modifiers). Get resulting number, subtract 100. This is Modifier A. Textual entries are treated as being equal to the nearest number (high or low).
3) Defender rolls his skill on MM table (at proper difficulty and with all applicable modifiers). Get resulting number, subtract 100. This is Modifier B. Textual entries are treated as being equal to the nearest number (high or low).
4) Cross-reference # of ranks in attacking skill versus # of ranks in defending skill on RR Table. Resulting number is RR Base.
5) Defender then makes Skill vs. Skill Roll. He has to meet or beat the target number. Target number is equal to RR Base + Modifier A - Modifier B. Defender is allowed to add his stat bonus (only) from the defending skill to this roll.
Note: Yes, this means that, depending upon the situation, one skill could be Sheer Folly while the other is Light or Easy. Such situations can occur because we are talking about skills, and skills have difficulty levels, so they must be accounted for.
-
I do see the point about making the roll, but I think a double failure could still be a result, so it's not actually all that key to nail down a success before you determine result.
A guard is perceiving, a thief is sneaking. . . .even with both rolling, there are 4 results:
Guard makes perception, thief fails to sneak. . Guard sees thief (fairly obvious)
Guard fails perception, thief makes sneak. . .Guard doesn't see thief (also fairly obvious)
The two iffy situations are the other two:
Guard makes perception, thief makes sneak . . .this is where either the MM vs MM mod or a RR comes into play to see who did better.
But Guard fails perception, thief fails to sneak. . .I don't think this defaults to guard sees thief. . . .I could make a pathetic effort to sneak past a desk guard, at the moment the guard happens to turn aside to talk to someone else or tie his shoe, completely failing to notice me failing to sneak by. . .comparing the degree of failure here may actually be just as appropriate as comparing the degrees of success.
The Thief could pull a mr Bean (Or Mr Magoo) and stumble right past the guard at exactly the right moment of distraction and get past. . . .or the thief could blow it but surprise the guard (Target A aware, target B not = surprise in 1st round of combat). . .or the guard could fail to notice as the thief trips and stabs themself in the eye with a lockpick, the dead body only being noticed hours later at shift change. . .
I've seen some funny results of "Lets everyone fumble the MM table at the same time" that looked like slapstick comedy. . .and since fail/succeed isn't as important as the difference in the level of success or failure between the two parties, it doesn't seem to make any one method more valid or less valid.
The biggest argument I've actually seen against the RR method in favor of the MM method is "What's good for PCs is good for NPCs". . .if two PCs contest in this manner. . . . .most times both will want to be the defender on the RR and get to roll. . .it's silly, but real, the psychological desire to feel like you made the difference in the result by rolling the dice. . .the major benefit of the MM method there is that both get to roll, so nobody complains they didn't get to roll. . (and so, if PCs get to roll, it pays to make that the standard method.)
if you're actually going to make both go to the MM table, the detail of the results are a benefit . .the RR method would seem to be "one roll resolution" speedy method. . .I'm not sure how I feel about MM derived modifiers fed into a RR, if it combines the benefits of both methods, the flaws or both.
-
Another thing is the MM of Stat vs Stat but I seem to recall when I asked about this ages ago they said in RMSS thier is not stat vs stat. You find the most approperate skill and do a skill vs skill.
LM,
As to the options above in spotter vs hider IMO that hider/sneeker in general has to make sucessful rolls or the guard IMO would get a bonus to his MM. Now the problem comes to be who goes first and does the second person get a MM bonus based on the first person's roll. IMO this is where the GM has to step in and make a decision.
[Note, from what I remember of RM2 you cant do this as easily because it has fewer skills but you could have a default skill for each stat that is some avarage of the relevent skills or an average of a few skills to get the number for stat vs stat MM's]
MDC
-
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.
-
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.
-
How do you tally up multiple participants?
For example, say a tug of war with 5 people on each side.
-
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...
-
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).
-
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.
-
I prefer to compare stalk/hide against relative skill (s/h of 80 vs guards perception of 40). This results in a +/- skill roll.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.