Games with opposed dice rolls - are they better, worse or no different?
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Um, no. Halving the time of play would be faster. Halving speed means it is slower.
Unless you think 25 mph will get you there faster than 50 mph...
I know that, and you know that, but some people here use "speed" in place of "duration" when talking about combat lengths. Halving the "duration" of a combat, would mean combat is going faster. I was simply seeking clarification from the Jester on how they were using it...
However, I am glad I now know what it means for you.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I think there are three ways to handle this using opposed rolls. Well, probably more, I can think of three.
1. Add a modifier to the die roll based on the difficulty. A tree might roll 1d20-5, and a slick, mossy masonry wall 1d20+10.
2. If there's only one actor with agency, don't roll. Either you succeed or you can't.
3. You can grant the environment with agency. This is a more... mythic? way to do things. The wall doesn't want to be climbed; it's a wall, it's purpose is to block. When you climb it, it tries to make you fall - that handhold is much more slippery than it appeared, the stone crumbles when you grab at it, that sort of thing.
kitsune9
Adventurer
My basic feel on opposed rolls is that it adds to the time of play instead of speeding it up. The basic formula is going to be Dice Roll + Modifiers vs. Opposed Dice Roll + Modifiers. This is different than Dice Roll + Modifiers vs. Static Target Number. However, if I was to play in such a system, I'd want the modifiers to be as minimal as possible.
Living Legend
First Post
Extra dice rolls can slow things down, but combat moving slower isn't always a bad thing. This game sounds like it's in it's infancy, so if you write it from the ground up assuming slower combat because of extra dice rolls then you can embrace that fact and make it part of the game. It doesn't matter if each turn takes a little longer if most combats only last a round or two, a deadly game where every roll really counts could be exciting, and you already said you wanted description to be impotant, so less rounds per combat works with that. The trick would be to make sure a few bad rolls don't ruin the players experience: he may only get one turn in a combat so a few bad rolls would suck. I would think an action point type mechanic could help with that, maybe allowing rerolls or acting outside one's turn, or extra actions.
Yes, well, they'd be, you know... wrong.
I'm all for allowing for leeway in lingo, and allowing for variation in interpretation, but "speed" is a pretty simple word. We gotta have some standards, or we'll never communicate.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
It depends on the system, really.
In a "bucket of dice" system like Shadowrun or in a system with a more gaussian distribution (like 3d6), it overall works out okay, I think. But in a system where you only roll d20, it is very swingy and unpredictable. A good roll doesn't mean you'll likely succeed, a bad roll doesn't mean you are likely to fail, and the variance is much higher. In situations where it's very important to not fail even a single die roll - say, stealth vs perception - having a lot of opposed rolls will reduce your chance to succeed.
In a "bucket of dice" system like Shadowrun or in a system with a more gaussian distribution (like 3d6), it overall works out okay, I think. But in a system where you only roll d20, it is very swingy and unpredictable. A good roll doesn't mean you'll likely succeed, a bad roll doesn't mean you are likely to fail, and the variance is much higher. In situations where it's very important to not fail even a single die roll - say, stealth vs perception - having a lot of opposed rolls will reduce your chance to succeed.
We have made our own system from what we have considered the best from a variety of games including, 3.5, 4e, Pathfinder, Conan, and Trailblazer. In our approach, we have implemented opposed dice rolls on virtually all attacks. We use armor as DR, Dodge, Parry etc and it works well. We do not see it slowing down play much if at all. The one big thing that it does do is keep people engaged when it is easy to not pay attention due to the long waits for turns to circle back. Everyone has to pay attention and with combat reactions, immediate actions etc, it has made a huge difference especially in high level play. Given a choice, I would not go back to a static defense unless I had to. I was even one of the one's in my group opposed to even trying it and now I am sold and enjoy it.
Sure, it is a little bit quicker with a static defense but at least for us, it has worked. IMO, it isn't the extra dice that bog it down. We are now playing at 15th level with 8th level spells flying and it moves along quite well. Our straight 3.5 campaigns bogged down at this point and this has been enjoyable play for everyone including the DM. However, the biggest change that we have implemented which I know everyone would most likely hate is in combat healing. The yo yo effect is not present in our game. The only means to gain some HP's is with a false life, bears endurance or some other spell that can add temp hp's. We do use armor as DR and our spell durations are either controlled, encounter or ritual so no tracking of durations. A clerics or wizards Resist Energy spells are very important and key to keeping you up in a fight. We also use action points from Trailblazer and have a Fate point system that we get about 1 every 5 levels that can be used to alter a swing, change destiny etc. You have to watch as the BBEG's also have these. This system also allows clerics to take part and not have to heal nor are there healing surges which have never made sense to me. Our melee guys and casters all have a purpose and we have found that everyone has a job even at the high levels. Wizards don't win it automatically and fighters can throw down the damage. Not for everyone, but opposed rolls can work and be a lot of fun. You just need to have everyone on board at least to give it a try. May not work for you but it has for us.
Sure, it is a little bit quicker with a static defense but at least for us, it has worked. IMO, it isn't the extra dice that bog it down. We are now playing at 15th level with 8th level spells flying and it moves along quite well. Our straight 3.5 campaigns bogged down at this point and this has been enjoyable play for everyone including the DM. However, the biggest change that we have implemented which I know everyone would most likely hate is in combat healing. The yo yo effect is not present in our game. The only means to gain some HP's is with a false life, bears endurance or some other spell that can add temp hp's. We do use armor as DR and our spell durations are either controlled, encounter or ritual so no tracking of durations. A clerics or wizards Resist Energy spells are very important and key to keeping you up in a fight. We also use action points from Trailblazer and have a Fate point system that we get about 1 every 5 levels that can be used to alter a swing, change destiny etc. You have to watch as the BBEG's also have these. This system also allows clerics to take part and not have to heal nor are there healing surges which have never made sense to me. Our melee guys and casters all have a purpose and we have found that everyone has a job even at the high levels. Wizards don't win it automatically and fighters can throw down the damage. Not for everyone, but opposed rolls can work and be a lot of fun. You just need to have everyone on board at least to give it a try. May not work for you but it has for us.
Opposed rolls may slow game down significantly if there is a lot of rolling. In such cases, I'd strongly prefer only players rolling. But if there is only a moderate number of rolls in a scene, the increase in handling time is negligible.
Opposed rolls are nice in many cases, because they prevent the defender from feeling that they are passive - and in my experience, it is often more important to how a conflict "feels" than tactical options that are available. I am trying to dodge, counter his arguments, stop him from hacking into our system; not just waiting to see if he succeeds. Of course, even with no defense rolls, the scene may be described this way, but what happens at the table (who rolls) create a strong bias in people's minds.
Because of this, I wouldn't use opposed rolls for opposition that is passive (like in the climbing example), unless the situation is framed as a part of bigger conflict and handled as such by game mechanics (eg. "Will we get to the villain's lair before he sacrifices paladin's sister in his summoning ritual? If not, will we get there before the whole ritual is finished?" - in this case, we are climbing, but it's the race against the villain that is important, not the climb itself).
Opposed rolls are good if there are choices to be made while rolling (eg. how much resources to spend on defense, how much on offense, or what kind of maneuver to use), or when the roll decides more than a success of a single, simple action (eg. the result of whole combat, or negotiation, with the details of roll results deciding how serious combatants' wounds are or how far they had to compromise).
As I prefer games where there are a few rolls, but each roll is meaningful and describes more than just success/failure, I like opposed rolls, in general.
If a conflict consists of a big number of simple actions, there is not much to be gained by introducing opposed rolls, and more to lose in speed - in this case, rolls against static difficulty are enough.
Opposed rolls are nice in many cases, because they prevent the defender from feeling that they are passive - and in my experience, it is often more important to how a conflict "feels" than tactical options that are available. I am trying to dodge, counter his arguments, stop him from hacking into our system; not just waiting to see if he succeeds. Of course, even with no defense rolls, the scene may be described this way, but what happens at the table (who rolls) create a strong bias in people's minds.
Because of this, I wouldn't use opposed rolls for opposition that is passive (like in the climbing example), unless the situation is framed as a part of bigger conflict and handled as such by game mechanics (eg. "Will we get to the villain's lair before he sacrifices paladin's sister in his summoning ritual? If not, will we get there before the whole ritual is finished?" - in this case, we are climbing, but it's the race against the villain that is important, not the climb itself).
Opposed rolls are good if there are choices to be made while rolling (eg. how much resources to spend on defense, how much on offense, or what kind of maneuver to use), or when the roll decides more than a success of a single, simple action (eg. the result of whole combat, or negotiation, with the details of roll results deciding how serious combatants' wounds are or how far they had to compromise).
As I prefer games where there are a few rolls, but each roll is meaningful and describes more than just success/failure, I like opposed rolls, in general.
If a conflict consists of a big number of simple actions, there is not much to be gained by introducing opposed rolls, and more to lose in speed - in this case, rolls against static difficulty are enough.
Similar Threads
