"Opposed Dice Rolls" Topic

Well, maybe not that opposed, but do you like games where players on different sides of an engagement both roll dice and the interaction between the rolls determines the outcome?

I prefer them.

It's what QILS is designed around. The two players rolling thing, not the one player rolling while the other player tries to brain him with a chair thing.

I like infinity which does that.

Works great in DBA!

TSATF In melee. AK47.
So, yeah.

I don't see any problems with the mechanism in DB(x) games that I've played; you could probably resolve combats with a percentile roll by the phasing player, but I don't see that it would be any simpler or quicker.

The opposed die rolls keeps both players involved (ie, gives the non-moving player something to do). But it tends to slow the game down a bit compared to a straight die roll by one side.

Smacking your opponents over the head with a chair tends to bring the game to halt, so the die roll thing is preferred.

I like simultaneous opposed dice rolls..but I'm not a big fan of I roll to hit, you roll to save.

If you REALLY want to oppose their rolls, just take all their dice.

yes

Just like a Fop to bring a chair to a gunfight.

I get the opposed rolls for some things, like close combat, etc..

However, I have an issue with "saving rolls" when people are being fired at by guns, lasers, etc..

Sure, the mechanic works, but in anything other than fantasy fiction, dodging bullets and laser beams just seems wrong to me.

Of course, you can rationalize anything, so I can see how people justify that, but not sure I really like it in those cases, unless it's a saving roll for body armor, protective cover afforded by terrain, etc..

I'm not a big fan of I roll to hit, you roll to save.

I can take that or leave it. I do consider it to be a different thing than an opposed roll where success is not determined without the other roll.

Just like a Fop to bring a chair to a gunfight.

I looked really hard for an Old West or a 20's Gangster picture with people playing craps and someone pulling a gun.

Dice rolling does seem to be to some to be an irrational event. Throw one die. Who cares who trows it, If it mattered then it would not be a truly random event. To me the game is playing, that is either moving figures or working out where to move. The rest is a necessary evil that costs playing time so should be kept to a minimum, One die is quicker than 2. 1 D20 can do more than 1 D6 so sometimes eliminate rolls. Sryderg fastest resolution is the key, why do it in two when you can do it in one.

I like opposed rolls for close combat but I don't really like the notion of saving throws per se as a game concept but appreciate that sometimes it's the best mechanic, to get the right spread of possible results.

Sometimes I think systems could do with streamlining. I hate it when you keep having to roll loads of dice in a game only there to be no effect 80% of the time.

I think that it keeps both sides engaged throughout the turn and gives a sense of some control over one's own fate.

I think the opposed roll mechanic works well in StarGrunt and Dirtside. It's used as much as possible, for spotting, direct fire, close combat, etc. I like it, and I like dice rolling.

Yes, it's a good mechanism

It's a great mechanic due to the psychology of player involvement. Often there's added entertainment from brinkmanship, bragging and whatnot.
But the fact the player being shot at feels like they have some active part in the process is huge.
And yes, it's better than saving throws because it's at the same time.

Also offers extra depth of results from doubling etc.

Way Back in 1981 we included a comparison die roll system for hand to hand combat.
After adding weapon (sword-spear), skill (wounded, green, veteran) to a base number. Then each player would add a number rolled by each player using a d10 or 2 x d6.
A later version for fantasy games of different races used different types of dice.

The rule set was called GLORY and covered skirmish combat from 1750 until 1913 (Balkan Wars).
While we used mainly 25mm at that time, we also played games using 15mm castings. A revised version used a hex grid and played very fast.

+1 Andy.

B

Yes, I like the opposed die rolls resolution method. It keeps both players involved and has an intensity level all its own.

I don't really mind saving rolls either, for the same reason. I understand that some people dislike saving rolls, but just go with it and roll your dice. It's all part of the fun.

While it is entirely true that it doesn't really matter who rolls the dice (opposed or not), I concur with the psychological value of it. Heck, does it really matter to the results in a casino if the player tosses the dice down the table or if a croupier does? Of course not. But it matters to the player. Ditto for a wargame. So opposed rolls give the appearance of involvement by the defender, even though dice are dice and might just as well be dropped by the attacker, or even by a neutral bystander or for that matter, a device.

Parzival, actually it can be a pain, some folk take ages to throw the die wasting time and showing more attachment to the die than the game. Mind you I play them only once, over reliance on die makes them poor players and no fun to play.

I really don't buy the speed argument.

some folk take ages to throw the die wasting time

So, this has nothing to do with opposed rolls.

1 D20 can do more than 1 D6 so sometimes eliminate rolls.

I have no idea what "more" means here. 1d20 can't replicate the 1d6 rolls, unless you make some choice to arbitrarily distort the probabilities. Then you need to list them on a chart, where different people use different distortions (round all up, round <=.5 up, round <.5 up, round down are the most popular). So you're rolling, then looking up on a chart.

But, 1d6 is not an opposed die roll. Again, not sure what "more" means WRT 1d20 and 2d6. The granularity of 1d20 is less and the step functions do not align, so again, you're making up a table and changing the odds. Of course, you could just use that d36 over there … except, you're still looking the result up on a table.

So, for 3d6, that is 2d6 v 1d6 or 1d6 v 2d6, now we need our d216 (or we could lose accuracy and go down to a %.0 roll with 3d10, big improvement over 3d6). Since we move to an outcome space of (2, 1, 0) from (1, 0), we also add inconsistencies in representation with the order of the table. Unless our opposed roll is something like dAttacker – dDefender, in which case our table starts out with an outcome space of 13 segments.

… sorry, tableS because with only 3d6, now we need two different tables and to make sure we are looking at the right one. And on and on geometrically as we add more potential dice for the rolls.

So basically, we start by saying we are throwing away the granularity of the original (unless you have a d36, d216, and d1296 handy), and replace a quick roll and compare and math with numbers less than 10 with finding the right asymmetric chart and comparing back and forth.

Even though it is accurate that it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, having two sides in an opposed roll makes it easier and faster to roll d6 v d6 than to roll d% (two dice), figure out is that "24%" or "42%" (do we have to go about standardizing our die colours and styles again, or get specialty dice?) and still look up the answer on a chart.

Then, let's go and add extra tables for all the possible modifier conditions.

What oberlinde said.