I'm curious how everyone is using opposed checks in their games.

They seem to be one of the stranger aspects of the system. Combining both sides of the roll into one certainly speeds things up, but the text doesn't address what I would consider some of the key questions for doing so.

1. Who is the "main" and who is the "opposing"? Active versus passive would seem to be one way, but what if both are active, such as someone sneaking by someone who is actively hunting for them?

2. The dice mechanic is slightly advantageous to whoever is doing the rolling (i.e. whoever has the "good" dice). This is pushing me towards the players being the ones doing the roll... but that introduces some other issues, such as not wanting them to know that they've been spotted.

So, as mentioned... how is everyone handling this?

I'm curious how everyone is using opposed checks in their games.

They seem to be one of the stranger aspects of the system. Combining both sides of the roll into one certainly speeds things up, but the text doesn't address what I would consider some of the key questions for doing so.

1. Who is the "main" and who is the "opposing"? Active versus passive would seem to be one way, but what if both are active, such as someone sneaking by someone who is actively hunting for them?

2. The dice mechanic is slightly advantageous to whoever is doing the rolling (i.e. whoever has the "good" dice). This is pushing me towards the players being the ones doing the roll... but that introduces some other issues, such as not wanting them to know that they've been spotted.

So, as mentioned... how is everyone handling this?

Player characters should always be actively rolling whenever possible. If it is down to two PCs, choose the one initiating the activity. If it is down to two NPCs, why the hell are you rolling?

Unless it's in a turn system and on the enemy's turn, I would always give preference to the Player being the rolling party. As a GM, I like rolling as little as possible in this system because it helps keep further out of the 'them vs. you' frame of mind and focuses more on building a story with the PCs.

I tend to think of this from the player's point of view. The player makes the roll and the opposing action are the difficulty dice side of the pool, even if that action is technically something 'active'. I think your tending to get too much into semantics defining active - what's "passive action' anyway? It's an oxymoron. Just think of it from the player's perspective.

As for hidden results. Simply roll the difficulty dice (or the GM portion) behind the screen and allow the player to roll their portion of the dice pool. However, I'd caution that in using hidden rolls, even if it's just a portion of the roll, you deprive the player the chance of interpreting the result and helping to provide narrative to the story - even when it's detrimental to their character.

I've generally had the players roll when an opposed check came up.

One, the Ability and Proficiency dice generally favor the character actively rolling, and as the PCs are the stars of show, it makes sense to give them an edge.

Two, the players are bound to be more involved in the result of the roll if they're the one making it. One of the faults of D&D and quite a few other game systems is that the player has little involvement when the GM rolls, especially if they're not the target and it's a non-combat encounter.

It depends on whos turn it is..

player turn--The PC is trying to sneak past a guard... PC's stealth vs NPC's perception..

NPC turn----The NPC is trying to spot a hidden player.... NPC's perception vs PC's stealth

oh and isnt the ''active player'' the one who is taking their turn with maneuvers and actions?

It depends on whos turn it is..

player turn--The PC is trying to sneak past a guard... PC's stealth vs NPC's perception..

NPC turn----The NPC is trying to spot a hidden player.... NPC's perception vs PC's stealth

oh and isnt the ''active player'' the one who is taking their turn with maneuvers and actions?

It depends. In the example of a player looking for stealthed character, you're not even in "turns" - you're generally still playing "narratively".

That's pretty much where I was leaning. Thanks.

On 7/30/2013 at 6:01 AM, mrvander said:

I tend to think of this from the player's point of view. The player makes the roll and the opposing action are the difficulty dice side of the pool, even if that action is technically something 'active'. I think your tending to get too much into semantics defining active - what's "passive action' anyway? It's an oxymoron. Just think of it from the player's perspective.

As for hidden results. Simply roll the difficulty dice (or the GM portion) behind the screen and allow the player to roll their portion of the dice pool. However, I'd caution that in using hidden rolls, even if it's just a portion of the roll, you deprive the player the chance of interpreting the result and helping to provide narrative to the story - even when it's detrimental to their character.

Im wondering about hidden rolls too and i suggest the situation where the PCs are being observed but the GM doesnt want them to know unit they spot the watchers. Rolling an open check gives this info away and kinda spoils the surprise.

4 hours ago, mwknowles said:

Im wondering about hidden rolls too and i suggest the situation where the PCs are being observed but the GM doesnt want them to know unit they spot the watchers. Rolling an open check gives this info away and kinda spoils the surprise.

In that case there is no roll for it. They are simply surprised by the storm troopers on the other side of the door. Then initiative is rolled. Threats and despairs need to be known since the players spend them.

Plus, consider the experience of the players. Are they just watching the GM roll some dice, without any idea what they mean? That's completely uninteresting.

On 7/29/2013 at 2:53 PM, Buhallin said:

I'm curious how everyone is using opposed checks in their games.

They seem to be one of the stranger aspects of the system. Combining both sides of the roll into one certainly speeds things up, but the text doesn't address what I would consider some of the key questions for doing so.

1. Who is the "main" and who is the "opposing"? Active versus passive would seem to be one way, but what if both are active, such as someone sneaking by someone who is actively hunting for them?

2. The dice mechanic is slightly advantageous to whoever is doing the rolling (i.e. whoever has the "good" dice). This is pushing me towards the players being the ones doing the roll... but that introduces some other issues, such as not wanting them to know that they've been spotted.

So, as mentioned... how is everyone handling this?

1. The increased/upgraded Difficulty of an Opposed check simulates the check not just being made versus a nebulous level of Difficulty but rather an Active opponent.

2. Set a higher number of successes required in a given check rather than just 1 and don't spell out how many are required.. Use a Competitive check and con't let them see your results.

6 hours ago, mwknowles said:

Im wondering about hidden rolls too and i suggest the situation where the PCs are being observed but the GM doesnt want them to know unit they spot the watchers. Rolling an open check gives this info away and kinda spoils the surprise.

If you check, Darth Revenant is correct for how stuff like this works in the system.

You don't roll an opposed check to hide, you roll an opposed check to remain hidden, making the person looking for you the active party. If they don't have a reason to search for you, they won't roll in the first place.

When you hide initially, if it's not hard to do so, it just happens with no roll. If it is hard to hide then you would roll against a base difficulty to see if it's even possible to hide.

So, in the case of the players being observed, unless the observer does something to draw attention to themselves the players wouldn't roll, the observer would just remain hidden. So no hidden roll is required.

Now if the observer does something to draw attention to themselves, then there's a check, opposed to the observers Stealth. If the players fail then they don't notice anything, but may feel something is off.

It might also be important whether you are in structured combat or not. If you are in structured combat (or even non combat but in structured time) then it might be good for the NPC to make the check saving the PCs check for something else that they prefer. TBH, I don't have a good example here but if it were something that an NPC wanted to do, and it were during structured combat, then I wouldn't make my PC waste their action just to counter the NPC.

Holy freaking necro.

10 hours ago, mwknowles said:

Im wondering about hidden rolls too and i suggest the situation where the PCs are being observed but the GM doesnt want them to know unit they spot the watchers. Rolling an open check gives this info away and kinda spoils the surprise.

If you feel that way, go ahead and make hidden rolls. It's best to keep them to a minimum, but there's nothing wrong with using the occasional hidden roll and interpreting the results on your own. The game is designed to have fully open rolls, but if it facillitates your style and your story to occasionally make exceptions, that fine. You should ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.

On 10/23/2018 at 10:57 PM, OrbitalVagabond said:

Holy freaking necro.

If Youtube presents you videos, you watched 3-5 years ago, so why can´t the FFG Forum