How does the Playground handle opposed roll double-failures?

[VoxRationis]

In a system wherein certain tasks (the most typical being stealth versus perception or an attempt at a lie) involve the opposed parties both rolling, each with an independent chance of failure (as with d100 systems), how do you, fellow Playgrounder, adjudicate situations where both independently fail (sometimes by a high margin)?

[Anonymouswizard]

Better result wins. Unless it is reasonable for both failing to have an interesting outcome whoever failed the least wins.

It was just the natural thing to turn to the first time it came up.

[Duff]

The person who fails by less succeeds by accident rather than skill. The failed stealth roll works because the sentry was asleep. Loud snore makes the thief jump. The looser of the tug of war stumbles over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle

[Mastikator]

Depends on what they're actually doing to be honest. If it's a car race and they both fail then they both crash, if it's an opposed perception vs stealth then it's just a matter of difference. Doesn't really make sense that stealth can be independently failed. Opposed rolls are creature vs creature, static DC rolls are creature vs environment.

[False God]

Both parties are in a state that is neither success nor failure, essentially, the turn is wasted.

Bob failing to stealth does not mean Bob makes noise and becomes noticeable. He is essentially in the same state he was before attempting to stealth.

The Guard failing to notice Bob simply leaves The Guard in the same state they were before.

[Saint-Just]

A system should say exactly what happens in such cases.

There are two options: either initiator of the contest fails and suffer the usual consequences for failure, or the opposed roll is just generating modifiers for the contest and the person with the best adjusted result wins. First case is usual when there is a roll which can be failed on its' lonesome (E.g. roll to cast a spell) and then the result of this roll is used for opposed resistance check. For lies and tug-of-war it's definitely the second case, sneaking should be a second case in most systems but beware of specific interactions.

[Spore]

The person who fails by less succeeds by accident rather than skill. The failed stealth roll works because the sentry was asleep. Loud snore makes the thief jump. The looser of the tug of war stumbles over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle

Don't make their characters ridiculous if the game does not ask for it. A bit of comedy on the side is fun, but ridiculing a character constantly that is supposed to be cool and calm and stealthy is a bit bad form.

[KillianHawkeye]

How can both parties both fail in an opposed roll? Isn't it by definition a roll off between the two where one must succeed and the other must fail? Or is there some other definition of "opposed" that we're using here?

Seriously, please provide an example of how this could ever happen.

[Socksy]

How can both parties both fail in an opposed roll? Isn't it by definition a roll off between the two where one must succeed and the other must fail? Or is there some other definition of "opposed" that we're using here?

Seriously, please provide an example of how this could ever happen.

Player A and Player B are in a drinking contest and making opposed Constitution saving throws. After drinking steadily for three hours, the DC for each is now 18. Player A rolls a 7. Player B rolls a 12. Both pass out.

Alternatively, as this could be seen as two sets of non-opposed rolls, make it a climbing contest. They have to beat each other and the difficulty of the climb to get up there first.

[Eldan]

The person who fails by less succeeds by accident rather than skill. The failed stealth roll works because the sentry was asleep. Loud snore makes the thief jump. The looser of the tug of war stumbles over an unseen imaginary deceased turtle

That. Depending on current game mood, it's a comedy moment.

[MoiMagnus]

"I don't have time to think about it" answer:
The one that fail by the least amount wins. If we're playing a comedic game, then this is comedy moment.

"I have time to think about it" answer:

+ I look at potential status-quo solutions:
In stealth vs perception, it is obvious that the intruder is going to fail with how things are going, but the guard being late/incompetent means that the intruder has a fraction of a second to retreat and try again latter. There is no winner/loser, as the action is cancelled (unless the player says "I don't care I don't retreat", in which case the action is not cancelled and they are automatically spotted).

+ I look at all the third parties that could succeed instead:
In stealth vs perception, maybe the guard didn't spot the intruder with is active perception, but the captain's passive perception might be enough to spot it anyway. (And scold the guard for missing such an obvious thing afterward).

+ I fall back to "I don't have time to think about it" otherwise.

[Tanarii]

How can both parties both fail in an opposed roll? Isn't it by definition a roll off between the two where one must succeed and the other must fail? Or is there some other definition of "opposed" that we're using here?

Seriously, please provide an example of how this could ever happen.

Yeah, it's something that "roll under ability score" systems really struggle with, since they almost always handle opposed rolls by a method of whomever succeeds but has closest to their ability scores. That means opposed rolls can easily be both fails.

As to examples, that's easy. Anything in which one person initiates an attack and the other defends. The attacker must both succeed and beat he defender. Both can fail, and the result is the status quo.

[Pauly]

A true opposed roll is where player A rolls a dice and adds their modifiers and player B rolls their dice and adds their modifiers and highest score wins.

In a true opposed roll you never have “both players fail” situations because all what matters is the differential.

What the OP describes is where 2 players make independent success/fail checks..
In which case neither party achieves a success. I would treat a near success as a positive modifier to future attempts and a total whiff as a negative modifier to future attempts.

[OldTrees1]

What was the minimum DC set by the nature of the contest? If neither passes the minimum, then the status quo is maintained due to both failing.

Consider 2 teams playing tug of rope with the rope wrapped around a boulder resting on the ground in the middle. If neither team overcomes friction, then the boulder does not move. If a team overcomes friction AND beats the other team, then their success is the lower of "their result-minimum DC" vs "their result - opponent result".

Now consider the 2 teams, disappointed with themselves, remove the boulder. There is no more friction of boulder against the ground. The minimum DC is now just air resistance against the rope, assuming both parties can hold the rope in the air. As a result the minimum DC dropped dramatically.

[farothel]

Depends on what they're actually doing to be honest. If it's a car race and they both fail then they both crash, if it's an opposed perception vs stealth then it's just a matter of difference. Doesn't really make sense that stealth can be independently failed. Opposed rolls are creature vs creature, static DC rolls are creature vs environment.

Essentially this. If they are competing and they have to do get a minimal amount rolled to go to the next stage, failing to get that amount will mean they don't go on (eg climbing, if they fail the DC, they can both fall, or one falls and the other one just holds on, that one has a wasted turn.

With things like stealth and perception, highest (or lowest, depending on system) roll wins, no matter how high it is. Basically they are each the other's DC.

[Vahnavoi]

Yeah, it's something that "roll under ability score" systems really struggle with, since they almost always handle opposed rolls by a method of whomever succeeds but has closest to their ability scores. That means opposed rolls can easily be both fails.

If you want to do opposed rolls in a roll under system, the formula is pA - pD + 0,5R, where pA is success rate of the attacker/initiator, pD is success rate of the defender/interferer and R is the range of the (pseudo)random number generator. So, for example, in a percentile system it's attack% - defend% + 50%.

Back to the opening post, as has been pointed out, in a true opposed roll mechanic this doesn't happen. What is being described is two independent rolls, in which case each failure incurs independent results. F.ex., if the rolls are for a climbing contest, all failed parties fall down. If the related rolls are perception and stealth, the person failing the perception check fails to notice the other party, but the person failing the stealth check is not hidden from anybody else.

[Anonymouswizard]

To be fair the OP was very specific about the circumstances they were interested in. True opposed rolls might never have this problem, but that's not the situation they described. Bringing the fact up is being needlessly prescriptive in your language.

That said, I think we've covered the three reasonable approaches: nothing changes, take less extreme failure and assume it succeeded, and less extreme failure succeeds by chance. Which is best friends in the circumstances.

Note that in stone systems attack/defence is actually two separate checks. The attacker told and if they hit the defender can roll to negate. Of course most group will roll both together, but it might sometimes be an important factor.

[Easy e]

A fourth option is, the PCs beat the NPCs in a failed opposed rolls. Or an extra fun, the PCs win but with consequences.