Why do many people prefer roll-high to roll-under?

[mamba]

If I have 20 cakes all for myself, that's a lot; if 20 people have one cake among them, it's little. Dependent on the context, both situations are related to the abstraction of the number 20.

I’d argue that both are evaluated by the result of cakes / people, it’s not just about the number 20 occurring in both cases

 

[John Dallman]

Have you missed the general Western cultural idea that bigger is better?

I've never regarded it as very significant, given the vast importance of small things (biology, electronics, etc.).

 

[Starfox]

Late to the thread, have not read all of it so I may be redundant.

I prefer roll-over. It seems more intuitive to me to roll and add a modifier than to calculate a number and then try to roll beneath that number. Roll-low systems like BRP or the non-skill proficiencies of early DnD didn't do well with modifiers, if your Drive skill is 30% its more work to apply circumstance modifiers to that than it is if your drive skill is +6.

But the main thing for me is that roll high makes opposed rolls much easier at the table. Imagine arm-wrestling. In Runequest you'd compare the two contestants on a table and get a percentage to roll under. In a roll high system both parties make a Strength check and the higher one wins. Fast and easy.

In my homebrew the standard roll is 1d6 plus and 1d6 minus. This averages to +0 and the result can be compared directly to the skill of the opponent. You could get the same result by each side rolling 1d6 and adding it to their score and then comparing, but getting two people to roll one die always ends up slower than having one person rolling two dice.

 

[Starfox]

I prefer roll-over. It seems more intuitive to me to roll and add a modifier than to calculate a number and then try to roll beneath that number. Roll-low systems like BRP or the non-skill proficiencies of early DnD didn't do well with modifiers, if your Drive skill is 30% its more work to apply circumstance modifiers to that than it is if your drive skill is +6.

Presently I am trying out Blades in the Dark, which is a "roll several dice and use the highest" kind of system. It shares an issue with roll-low systems in that difficulties are hard to modify, instead you play around with effect and consequence. From what I said above I ought to not like such a system, but I find I do like BitD, mainly because it does not require much prep at all. Opponents do not have stat blocks, instead you modify effect and consequence based on the sensibility of the proposed action.

 

[mamba]

I've never regarded it as very significant, given the vast importance of small things (biology, electronics, etc.).

but why is small important in electronics, because you pack more transistors into a square inch and calculate faster. And calculating faster is again expressed in numbers that go up

Of course there are case there smaller is better, eg power consumption, but that is depending on the context / unit after the number and relatively rare. Take the unit away (like for a die roll) and bigger is better takes over

 

[aramis erak]

Do players just associate bigger numbers with being "better" in some way? Is there some cultural factor I'm missing? Is this just a way of saying "I don't want to play any game that isn't like D&D"?

I've asked a few hundred 5th and 6th graders over the years which was better. By that age, there's a strong trend even in the abstract.
About half said higher, and IIRC, about 1/6 said lower, The rest were largely don't care, with a few "i don't know" and "Not understand question, Mister H." (Ah, the joys of teaching severely low-English-proficiency students.)

The RPGers I knew prior to moving south were about 2/3 higher, 1/3 lower, but more importantly, 1/3 won't play a roll low.
Down here in Oregon, the kids I run for now, none are "won't play roll low". I've only met a couple "won't play roll high" types ever. (And neither was autistic. One only played Hero System; the other only played BRP.)

More interesting is that the roughly 60 4th graders asked "Which do you prefer: roll high to win or roll low to win?" - it was maybe 1/3 roll high, and the rest didn't care. And one, very sharp, gifted ed student, responded with, "Math says they are the same. [boardgame] says higher." (I don't remember the boardgame - but it was one of the Parcheesi variants. Not Sorry! nor Trouble, but one of that ilk.)

 

[Rystefn]

I think the idea that people have some internalized "bigger numbers = better" is absolute nonsense, given the existence of "we're number one!" Sure, people have preferences for dice games are scored, but I'd wager good money that's hugely influenced by however the first dice game they got into did it, and the entire rest of it is personal idiosyncrasy, with all other influences being somewhere between negligible to not actually influencing anyone's preference at all.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I think the idea that people have some internalized "bigger numbers = better" is absolute nonsense, given the existence of "we're number one!" Sure, people have preferences for dice games are scored, but I'd wager good money that's hugely influenced by however the first dice game they got into did it, and the entire rest of it is personal idiosyncrasy, with all other influences being somewhere between negligible to not actually influencing anyone's preference at all.

Well, on thinking about it, rolling over means positive modifiers are good, negative modifiers are bad, which as an application of language ties together quite neatly.

And in most systems, you gain XP or similar experience rewards, you amass wealth, you rise in class or skill level. So players are conditioning to think 'up'.

 

[Swanosaurus]

Well, on thinking about it, rolling over means positive modifiers are good, negative modifiers are bad, which as an application of language ties together quite neatly.

Why would it? It depends on whether you apply the modifier to the characteristic score or the difficulty. If you default difficulty in a roll-under system is zero (meaning you have to roll under your unmodified score), difficulty modifiers that apply to your score would be negative if something's especially difficult, positive if it's easy; or you could turn that around by applying the modifier to the roll - negative modifiers would then be for easy tasks, positive for hard tasks. You can do the same kind of switching around with roll over, whichever way you choose.

I'd agree with Rystefyn: It probably simply depends which kind of mechanism the game you started gaming with uses. I started with a roll-under game, so that feels natural to me. To add to that, I later tried D&D (the red box), and none of it made any sense to me because I was already used to something at least slightly more consistent and elegant. So I had made one good experience with a roll-low game and one bad experiences with a roll-high game early on, which probably colors my preferences. Admittedly, later cam WEG Star Wars and MERP, which I loved and which both were roll-high, but that was, well, later, and I loved them despite being roll-high (though with Star Wars, it wasn't really a problem, because I was already used to d6 as damage dice, so I already "knew" that rolling high on a d6 was a good thing, as opposed to rolling high on a d20 or a d100, which was bad).

 

[dragoner]

I play mostly 2d6, and telling them roll 2d6+2 or 3d6 pick two highest, is really easy. I have seen the stats, doesn't make a lot of difference. Why oh why? Don't know why people like roll high, but they do.