RELEASE: +Check System / Average Rolls

As we design specific rulesets for Storytellers and Players to use in judging scenes, it's helpful to know our system. The system we use has 11 difficulties (like a 12-speed bike, but missing a speed), and 8 failure/success levels.

Difficulties: laughable, very easy, easy, simple, average, difficult, very difficult, challenging, impossible, insane, legendary

Success levels: Horrible monstrous botch, serious failure, failure, marginal success, solid success, major success, epic success, and legendary success.

Here are some sample tables to give you an idea of how the system is shaped. When it refers to "levels of skill focus," it refers to the number of times you've taken a class which focuses on the skill in question primarily.

DIFFICULTY: LAUGHABLE	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Major Success (75%)
5 levels of skill focus	Major Success (78%)
10 levels of skill focus	Major Success (80%)
20 levels of skill focus	Epic Success (85%)
30 levels of skill focus	Epic Success (88%)
Maximized skill focus	Epic Success (90%)

DIFFICULTY: EASY	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Solid Success (67%)
5 levels of skill focus	Solid Success (72%)
10 levels of skill focus	Major Success (77%)
20 levels of skill focus	Major Success (82%)
30 levels of skill focus	Epic Success (85%)
Maximized skill focus	Epic Success (88%)

DIFFICULTY: AVERAGE	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Failure/Marginal Success (50%)
5 levels of skill focus	Marginal Success (60%)
10 levels of skill focus	Solid Success (67%)
20 levels of skill focus	Major Success (78%)
30 levels of skill focus	Major Success (82%)
Maximized skill focus	Epic Success (86%)

DIFFICULTY: VERY DIFFICULT	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Failure (33%)
5 levels of skill focus	Failure (45%)
10 levels of skill focus	Marginal Success (53%)
20 levels of skill focus	Solid Success (70%)
30 levels of skill focus	Major Success (79%)
Maximized skill focus	Major Success (83%)

DIFFICULTY: IMPOSSIBLE	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Serious Failure (25%)
5 levels of skill focus	Failure (30%)
10 levels of skill focus	Failure (38%)
20 levels of skill focus	Marginal Success (58%)
30 levels of skill focus	Solid Success (73%)
Maximized skill focus	Major Success (80%)

DIFFICULTY: LEGENDARY	AVERAGE ROLL
0 levels of skill focus	Serious Failure (20%)
5 levels of skill focus	Serious Failure (23%)
10 levels of skill focus	Failure (28%)
20 levels of skill focus	Failure (40%)
30 levels of skill focus	Marginal Success (62%)
Maximized skill focus	Major Success (75%)

Using this information, it would be pretty easy to create proposed rulesets for various situations. There will also be an "opposed check" which checks AGAINST some other person's ability (the same ability or a different one) at an added difficulty; opposed checks will always be more challenging than unopposed ones.

But suppose we just want a simple rule for catching the train on time (we won't; it would be stupid to have one; but it makes a fairly clear example).

Under normal circumstances, that's an easy Streetwise operation. Even with absolutely no streetwise skills, you're going to catch the train most of the time (averaging a Solid Success).

We might say that the base check for catching a train is Streetwise at Easy. That difficulty might increase. For example, someone is PURSUING you to the station -- raise the difficulty by one. It's a huge public holiday -- raise the difficulty by one. You are arriving early to make damn sure you get a ticket -- lower the difficulty by one.

• Failure: Duh.
  
• Marginal Success: You just make the train as it pulls out of the station and have to buy a ticket onboard.
  
• Solid Success: You get your ticket from the kiosk and board on time.
  
• Major Success: You get a discount. Woo!
  
• Epic Success: You get the nicest seat in the train and the ticket-puncher forgets to clip your ticket.
  
• Legendary Success: You are ushered into the secret private VIP car, where you glimpse the Sith Lord who murdered your father. 'You do not need tickets, sir,' the conductor says deferentially. You've been mistaken for a VIP.
  

Well, not having seriously playtested, I don't know if this is a fluke or not, but my experience has been thus far that I've had better luck with +check ability on abilities I haven't invested a lot in than on abilities I have. I like those tables, so hopefully it's just a fluke.

Suggestion: code in an opposed checks feature. If you are ever rolling against a person, you want to be able to oppose your checks easily--opposed athletics checks, or a stealth check opposed by a tracking check, or a forgery check opposed by a legal check, etc.

I intend to code in an opposed checks feature, BUT

You may often be simply rolling and comparing rolls. Functionally, that's the same as an opposed checks feature. Psychologically, if you lose, it's a lot less demoralizing to type the command yourself and know you had a shot.

Make it a handshake?

+challenge Gulp=athletics,politics would ask you to check my athletics against your politics skill. (maybe you are coaching me or something). Then you could +accept rcrantz

Or something like that.

You type: +challenge Gulp=Politics
I type: +challenge rcrantz=Athletics

An opposed challenge automatically proceeds.

That could work.

Primary concern would be making sure both parties agree to the skills being checked. Would either have the chance to +reject the challenge on those grounds?

For instance, if I +challenge Gulp=politics, and you +challenge rcrantz=politics in return, and I think it makes much more sense for me to counter your speech by doing bench presses, I can +reject gulp and then say you should challenge me to athletics. Otherwise I can +accept gulp

You would also have a chance to +reject rcrantz if you feel I should instead be challenging your wealth, obviously.

(Apparently, I am trying to haul a bag of your gold coins around.)

Or you just type:

+check politics=average

and then gulp types:

+check athletics=average

Or we agree that gulp's check should be easy. Highest success wins?

Why code something new? That's my only question.

"Or we agree that gulp's check should be easy. Highest success wins?"

Because that's ambiguous. Why should Gulp's check be easy? What happens if both of us fail? What does it mean if we both fail? Supposing we both get a 'major success!' Is it a tie? Do we re-roll?

An opposed check implies that it is skill against skill alone. Your success is not opposed by a difficulty but by your opponent's skill. It can tell you the degree by which someone won--Gulp loses marginally to rcrantz! Gulp soundly defeats rcrantz! Gulp achieves a LEGENDARY VICTORY over rcrantz!

You can also easily build in advantages as appropriate for the situation. +challenge/advantage gulp=politics,marginal would challenge Gulp's politics skill, and give him a marginal advantage. It requires much less calculation and thus doesn't disrupt the flow as much.

Okay, I said it could be easy because of RPed situation...

What if you're checking athletics to kick through a door and I'm using streetwise to use a second entrance I saw. Or whatever.

The point is, you can say "Well breaking down a door is "difficult" but spotting the exit is only "average" and we'd STATE that OOCly before we made the checks. If you want it to also be difficult, and I don't agree, we'd have to call a judge in. But probably if you made the argument, it'd be okay. I mean, we want players to agree with each other.

As for "who wins in a tie" is easier.

We're going to show some numbers on the check. So the check would be like:

Gulp tries a difficult athletics feat and... Marginal Success (54)
Firehawk tries an average streetwise feat and... Marginal Success (51)

Gulp wins.

The code is in already. With numbers and everything. The +challenge isn't... I just don't see a HUGE advantage to having a +challenge command vs just using +check?

Especially since a +challenge code is going to just roll exactly like I showed. You know?

I think you may have a misunderstanding about what an opposed check is. An opposed check isn't two people making a check at the same time; it's two people making checks that directly oppose one another.

For instance, arm-wrestling. You aren't both checking at average or whatever; you're opposing your respective strengths.

Or, the most obvious, stealth vs. tracking. If the stealth character beats the perception character, he does not get seen.

Opposed checks are a lot less obfuscated than rolling two checks and comparing the results. It also, as I said, provides the possibility of providing the degree of victory for you, in word level form. It requires a lot less deciding who has to check at what difficulty--if I have an advantage, should you check at a level higher or should I check at a level lower? It's easier to just type a command which says 'all right, you are opposing my stealth with your tracking, and you have a slight/moderate/significant/huge advantage', instead of forcing the players to figure out how much of an advantage someone has and then how best to represent that.

The players have to do much less adjudicating with opposed checks, which is ideal, because opposed checks imply conflict, and players should be adjudicating themselves as seldom as possible during conflict.

No, I know what an opposed check COULD be. But I also know how Gulp is going to code it.

The backend code will probably look like this:

Gulp challenges Firehawk's Athletics with his Athletics (arm wrestling)

Behind the scenes:
Gulp +check athletics=average -- Result 60
Firehawk +check athletics=difficult -- Result 45.

Gulp wins.

The reason why it's more difficult for me is because Gulp succeeded 10 above the default success (which is 50) and he won because I rolled a 45 which is below 50 (which is a pass) had I rolled a 51, I'd have beaten Gulp, marginally.

I am not yet convinced that an opposed check is actually better than just using +check.

Stealth vs Tracking. Okay. Which has the advantage? You have to determine that through the scene. As soon as you decide "okay, the hider has the advantage because it's midnight with no lights" you already know it's easier than the tracker. So here's the two commands:

+check stealth=easy
+check tracking=average

OR... +check stealth=average
+check tracking=very difficult

Using an opposed check?

+challenge gulp/stealth=tracking/harder?

Something like that? Player/skill=yourskill/Easy->hardest?

And the target has to accept it, right?

Do they wait for your challenge, then type:

+accept (or just +challenge, wahtever)?

Or is it:

+challenge gulp=track/harder

and gulp types:

+accept firehawk=stealth/average?

What if gulp typed /easy?

Like I said, I personally have not heard a really compelling reason to have a specific +challenge command vs a system of using +check

Does 'just typing opposed +checks makes it really unnecessarily obfuscated and puts an undue burden on the players who are running the opposed checks, forcing them to make more decisions about the scene and providing them with less information, thus making it vastly more likely that there will be an OOC conflict over the outcome of the rolls' not count as a compelling reason? Because I think that's pretty compelling.

I know it's basicly just repeating what was said, but I think the problem in this would come in, when the attacker or defender goes to make the call on the difficulty. I mean how do they know what the weather is like. I mean if you go buy the scene set than the attacker or defender will think the other had scene set to give themself a better advantage. If staff is prepared for jreq's to resolve these issues that's one thing but might be better just to nip it, just my oppinion though.

The reason why I keep saying I'm not convinced is because the same issues you're bringing up apply to opposed checks. Unless you want to remove the ability to set a difficulty for one side.

Like:

+challenge gulp=Stealth
+accept firehawk=Track

RESULT: Gulp's stealth is slightly better than Firehawk's Track!

Okay, that is simpler. But what about if the scene dictates that Stealth needs to be checked at an easier difficulty, or harder?

Isn't that situation exactly the same as having to determine what about the scene should factor in, deciding back and forth which is better? OOC conflict could come from that just as good, yes?

That's why I'm not convinced that a +challenge command is going to remove OOC conflict, or remove some burden on a player. It honestly seems like a "same difference" to me.

Already proposed a mechanism for granting the advantage, which doesn't require random adjudication of difficulty levels to each player. An opposed check also makes it easier to interpret the outcome of the checks, rather than relying on player adjudication.

Indeed, an opposed check has precisely two areas where the players need to adjudicate: what skills to use, and who, if anyone, gets the advantage--with a default assumption of "no one does," which means for most non-judged scenes it probably never needs to come up.

It doesn't add confusion when both parties fail, and require further adjudication to decide what that means; it also doesn't present the untidy scenario where both parties achieve a Legendary Success!!! but one of them still fails, because it was opposed.

It makes it less obfuscated and requires less adjudication on the players' part. What part of that does not make it better?

Well, all checks will have a number besides a wordlevel -- a percentage value between 0 and 100. A pair of opposed normal rolls would be uncomplicated unless they got the exact same number.

Yeah, the only real advantage to a +challenge command is in the case of ties.

Which would require a re-roll.

A challenge would simply make the challenged person roll at a higher difficulty if the first one succeeded. Which means there will ALWAYS be a winner. But it actually won't be "who did the task better"

To get "who did this task better" you need to make two normal rolls. At the same difficulty.

I'm not worried about the numbers but the interpretation of the output and the decisions to be made on the input.

And yes, the entire point of opposed checks is there will always be a winner. That is what opposed checks are about. They are about one person winning, and another person losing. They are about direct opposition. I am not interested in 'who did this task better,' but 'who won when these two people put their skills against one another directly?'

Opposed checks, in other words, are checks which are opposed.

So if gulp codes this... which he certainly can, but explains that it's just two regular +checks with the numbers compared (and re-rolled if tied) that'd be good?

Um. I believe that was understood when this entire conversation started. I have explained, repeatedly, that is is the input and output I am concerned with, and the interpretation and adjudication thereof, with which I am concerned. At no point have I expressed an issue with the mechanics of the command, only with its interpretation and application.

Well that's all I was ever saying. Guess it's just talking on different wavelengths. Sorry!

Oh, human communications.

Yeah, I'm not big into quibbling over the mechanics of something so much as how it's interpreted/handled after that is over.

Glad we got that cleared up.