>>44031445

Yeah, some of them do. It's irrational and dumb, but some people think they're great. I'm with you, though, they're a big waste of time.

It sounds like you've got a guy who's going to sperg about it, though. If you want to irritate him, do a coin flip and if it's heads, add +5 to the NPC's defense.

It does allow for a (very rare) chance for success/failure in cases where there is a large powergap and there otherwise would not be such a chance.

For example your PC has a +4 in stealth, while this high level guard has a +15 in perception. Were you to just use a passive perception, the PC couldn't beat the guard, since the guards passive would be 25, and even if the PC nat 20'd he would fail with a 24 nat 20 auto-succeeding skill rolls is a common misconception/house rule, but not RAW in any D&D.

However, if you both rolled, the guard could roll low, and the PC could roll high, allowing the PC a chance to succeed where they otherwise could not.

>>44031445
>outright threatening to leave the game because I wanted to handle a certain PC vs. NPC roll as "PC rolls against static NPC defense

You're better off without them if they're this prissy, honestly.

That said I don't think a few more rolls takes up much time. They roll, you roll, you compare. Vs, They roll, you look up the stat, you compare.

>>44031926
Contested rolls add up over time.

>>44031445
>In non-dice-pool-based systems, do opposed rolls actually do anything other than clutter up the game with more and more rolls?

You can work out the flat averages from dice pools you know. So I don't know why it should be any different.

>>44031445
>Do players have some weird illusion that opposed rolls are "more random
He's right, just look at the increased variance
http://anydice.com/program/72c0
>and exciting"?
eh, I guess that's one interpretation.
Im not sure on the math, how tie-breaking works, but I think opposed rolls favors winning side even more than versus passive.

I think it slows down game pace. My house rule is making the player always roll. This way he's "active" even when attacked (monsters use an attack rating that is just 10 + attack bonus).

Less is more.

>>44037666
The opposed roll introduces a curve, but the overall probabilities stay the same.

>>44031445
Depends on the system. In a d% roll under system like the Warhammer systems, it means your character won't succeed on everything forever for once. I'd much rather have a contested WS versus Dodge test to see if you hit, than rolling first a WS test with a 90% chance of succes to see if you hit, then a Dodge test with a 90% chance for the opponent to dodge.

Basically, it's less shit than simply rolling against your own stat. But I guess that doesn't say much.

>>44031445
Well, it depends on context.
From a design perspective, contested rolls can work in cases where the system wants symmetry - both sides having access to the exact same set of modifiers and influencers to the roll. It doesn't really change anything if the game is dice-pool or straight rolls (I mean, it changes probability distribution, but not the core assumption).
Now, this is not a value judgment. As you say in the OP, there might well be other factors in play, namely the desire to reduce rolls as much as possible. And in the specific case you are telling us, I would side with you. That said, opposed rolls might serve some sort of function, assuming that they are used with a reason.

>>44038467
Why not have the opponent's stat modify your roll?