During my last session a PC tried to play a card game vs another PC. They both wanted to cheat each other, so I ruled an opposed check between PCs.

Since they both had same stats, it became evident that in any PCvsPC check, the one who initiates the test has the advantage. It didn't really seem fair to me, so I gave another check where the other player had initiative. The result was that the first time player A won, next time player B won. Net result: 0.

Which was the best way to resolve it? I hate house rules. I am a by-the-book player and prefer playing a game as per RAW (even though I can't justify why I do this. I guess it's OCD or something)

1. Have them made two checks, each check being initiated by a different PC and check who had more success? This looks like the best option

2. Use the progrees bar, each player making checks in turn and the winner would be the one who reached an event space first? This seems time consuming

I guess it depends what they are doing. If they are doing the same thing then competitive checks are in the RAW. Both of your solutions are competitive checks. If the situation is complex and there needs to be several stages of completion or success then using a pre-defined number of event spaces on a tracker would work, but more often just counting the number of successes from a single roll each would work fine.

If they're doing different stuff (ie if the situation isn't symmetrical) then I don't think there's anything wrong with a single check. The fact that the check initiator has the advantage or that probabilities don't break down evenly for a given contest shouldn't be an issue, imo. The notion that, say, a character with X sneaking competence must have an exactly even chance of sneaking past a guard with X observation competence is a bizarre one outside of gaming.

No, they are doing the same thing. For instance tug of war. Since they start at the same time, nobody should have an advantage. And considering they have the same str characteristic, it would probably be a tied.

However, in the opposed check case, the 'initiator' would have the advantage as his difficulty is 'easy (1d)'

plutonick said:

An opposed check with the same characteristics would be Average (2d) for both parties. P.43 corebook.

A tug of war would be squarely under the rules for competitive checks. But if you want to go into detail and play up the to-ing and fro-ing, then a track with the start square in the middle and say three squares either side would work to emulate that. Each success moves the tracker one square, but to win you have to get to the final end square, ie win by three. That might take a while if they're very evenly matched, of course, but it can work well for vital head-to-head struggles, especially when the penalty for bailing out is less than the penalty for losing outright.

Pretty much just agree with Monkeylite. You can have them make a single opposed roll and whoever has more successes wins. If a tie, you can either rule that they are too evenly matched or have them roll again and continue to do so as necessary until there is a clear winner. Or you can set a target number of successes needed and the first to reach the target number wins. If they manage to reach the target number in the same round you again have them make successive rolls until there is a clear winner.

For Arm Wrestling, I set up a progress track with a token starting in the middle and 3 spaces to either side. I had both contestants make an opposed roll and any net successes moved the token that number of spaces. So if one contestant had 3 successes and the other had two, the token would move 1 space in the direction of the contestant that rolled 3 successes. First one to reach their end of the track, pinned the other. Again, if the opponents are fairly evenly matched, this could result in a lot of rolls as they go back and forth. Depending on how long you want/are willing to let this go on, you adjust the length of the track accordingly making it two or four spaces per side to shorten or lengthen the contest accordingly.

Before even reading their replies, I had the exact same thought for handling this as monkeylite and mac40k.

Arm wrestling is a specific example in rules of a non-opposed check, it is a competitive check (page 43).

Rob

In 'contests' between PCs I always opt for a competitive check, eg let one pc roll their stealth roll, then let the other roll their observation. The one with the most successes wins.

Otherwise I find you run the risk of one PC taking a passive roll in the event and can threaten to drop them out of a part of the story they should be taking an active part in.

And the dice rolls and how the pools are read can lead to some great roleplay opportunities between PCs.