In the core rule book on page 24 under Opposed Tests it is written that should both parties fail [an opposed test], then one of two things occurs: either the test ends in a stalemate and nothing happens, or both parties re-roll until there is a clear winner .

Now in case of an Opposed Stealth vs Awareness - test, if both sides fail their test, would you rather have them re-roll until there is a clear winner (and the sneaky action is successful or the character is spotted) or would you go for the stalemate option (although, what would be a stalemate in such a situation?)

I know the very next sentence in the book says that it is left to the GM's discretion.

Nevertheless I'm interested in how other GMs handle this in their game.

*Stealth-guy accidentally kicks a can, stops in his tracks and winces to himself, convinced he's given himself away*

Awareness-guy : "What was that?" *Looks around, sees nothing* "Huh, must have been a rat" *goes back on patrol*

Temporary stalemate. Stealth guy can choose to continue (re-roll), back-out (re-roll, escapes unseen if successful) or bolt (gets out of dodge, but almost certainly detected). Or, you know, he could say "to hell with it" and open fire. His choice, of course!

Again, thanks for the colourful example, Jolly P.

In your example I would consider the outcome (Awareness-guy goes back on patrol) as a success for the Stealth-guy, because he was not detected. Maybe I should have differentiated if the Stealth-test was to stay hidden from a passing guard or to sneak past a standing guard? This would make a difference here, right?

I was imagining a scenario where stealth-guy is trying to get from points A-to-B, but only gets so far before having to make that choice to re-roll or bug-out; not a success for stealth-guy (he hasn't got to point B) and not a success for awareness-guy (he didn't detect stealth-guy). Stealth-guy has committed to the action, so has to make the choice and may not enjoy the benefits he had on the first attempt. In this case, moving the action along a little and altering the stakes and parameters is more fun than simply re-rolling the same test.

In the case of staying hidden; the onus is on the looker to find, not the hider to stay hidden. Advantage should probably go to the guy hiding and be accounted for in their respective modifiers. In the case of a mutual failure, I'd say re-roll until a result is delivered; this isn't a case of actual failures and success and more tests=more time elapsed, but rather of simply determining the outcome; there's no real "stalemate" situation and either the looker will find or he won't; you just need a result.

In the case of a standing guard; here the onus is on the stealther to sneak and the advantage should probably be with the Guard in most circumstances. In the case of mutual failure, I'd rule the same as for getting from A-to-B; change the parameters slightly, reduce any advantages the sneaker might have had for now being committed, but grant that at least he has a second shot at success because the other guy failed too.

For any opposed test involving mutual failure, I think that letting the dice fall and moving the action from there (what I call the "temporary stalemate") is always preferable to "re-rolling for result", but sometimes there's no other choice than simply getting that result. Giving the players more choice, heightening tension and advancing the story, is always preferable to mindlessly throwing dice at the table until you get a result.

Thank you very much for your in-depth explanation. I think this is a good guideline to go with!