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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rolling high means the top end is open-ended, without getting into oddities with negative numbers.

• You're really good at something? You get a big bonus on your dice roll, or roll more dice!
• It's really hard? You must also roll a really big number!

And you can always stay with positive integers, no need to to worry with the range of the dice itself. (If you are really good, you also only express every modifer as addition, benefitial modifiers to go the bonus to your dice, penalties add to the DC)
Though that can be deceptive - sure you can have a system where modiers range from -5 to +50 on a d20 roll, but you might find it kinda dissatisfying if you get a lot of DCs that are unreachable for a specialized character and impossible for a merely trained individual, and it being really hard to define "routine tasks" that are actually reliably doable by someone trained that don't seem a bit too trivial for the untrained.
For that, I kinda prefer dice systems with a less linear distribution, like with bucket of dice systems like Shadowrun or World of Darkness, where you are much more likely to reach results in the "middle" area. Or systems (GURPSS) that have you roll just 3d6 plus modifier..

 

[Starfox]

Anecdotal: One situation when I would prefer rolling low but the system I am using uses roll high is in the Blades in the Dark hack Princess World. In this hack you can increase your effect by increasing the size of the die you are using. You get an effect upgrade each at d8, d10, d12, and d20. You get a full success if you roll the max on the die, and an opposed success if you roll 1 or 2 lower than the max (except 1, 2, or 3 lower on the d20). This would all be so much easier with roll low: 1 is a full success, 2 and 3 is an opposed success on all the dice except the d20 where 4 is also an opposed success. But the rest of the game is all about rolling high, and my players have a good grasp of math but less tolerance for odd rules, so we keep using roll high.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Even in percentile systems, you get a positive bonus to your skill chance. 50% becomes 70% with a +20% bonus, so rolling under is easier. Maybe the thinking there is less about the roll under number and more about the overall high number skill and high chance to succeed.

 

[Starfox]

Even in percentile systems, you get a positive bonus to your skill chance. 50% becomes 70% with a +20% bonus, so rolling under is easier. Maybe the thinking there is less about the roll under number and more about the overall high number skill and high chance to succeed.

I barely see anyone use such modifiers in roll-low systems, whereas both modifiers and variable DCs are legion in roll-high systems. In a roll-high system it is easy to apply a modifier after the player rolls, and getting close to the DC often leads to some kind of partial success. In a roll-low system, if the GM gives a post-roll modifier the entire roll takes on another meaning. It needn't be so, roll low can use the same modifiers as roll high, but this is my experience from actual play.

 

[Swanosaurus]

I barely see anyone use such modifiers in roll-low systems, whereas both modifiers and variable DCs are legion in roll-high systems. In a roll-high system it is easy to apply a modifier after the player rolls, and getting close to the DC often leads to some kind of partial success. In a roll-low system, if the GM gives a post-roll modifier the entire roll takes on another meaning. It needn't be so, roll low can use the same modifiers as roll high, but this is my experience from actual play.

There are actually tons of traditional d100 roll under games that love their modifiers ... and you can add (subtract) them after the fact just as well as in a roll-high system ... as for the entire roll taking on another meaning, well it's the same in a roll-high-system if you apply a modifier after the fact; either it has no impact, or the roll takes on another meaning (by changing from a success into a failure or vice versa). I don't really see the difference.

 

[Lidgar]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, I would say it's learned, not fundamental. You could have a numerical system where your score was the number of mistakes, and a 0 would be a perfect score.

The trick to using roll-under is to think of the numbers on the die as ordinals, not increments. You didn't roll a 1, you rolled "First". And First is best! Just like an A is the first letter, and that's the best. (Let's not investigate S-tier stuff. )

Sure, but there is no trick to using roll high. Everyone knows that 2 apples is more than 1 apple, and that this makes 2 apples better than 1 apple.

Do players just associate bigger numbers with being "better" in some way?

of course. How could they not? Higher numbers (I suspect this is it more than bigger) are better, other factors being equal.

And this is reinforced by the overwhelming majority of experiences involve comparative numbers. Higher GPA, higher game score, higher IQ, higher credit score, heck higher quality means better quality.

 

[Rystefn]

Sure, but there is no trick to using roll high. Everyone knows that 2 apples is more than 1 apple, and that this makes 2 apples better than 1 apple.


of course. How could they not? Higher numbers (I suspect this is it more than bigger) are better, other factors being equal.

And this is reinforced by the overwhelming majority of experiences involve comparative numbers. Higher GPA, higher game score, higher IQ, higher credit score, heck higher quality means better quality.

lol
Sure, but there is no trick to using roll low. Everyone knows that first place is faster than second place, and that this makes first place better than second place. Lower numbers are better, other factors being equal. This is reinforced by the overwhelming majority of experiences involving comparative numbers. Lower prices, lower golf scores, lower track times, lower interest on your mortgage. Heck, first class literally means the best quality.

See? Everything you're saying feels rational to you because you already believe it, but it's literally just post hoc rationalizations and can be applied the other way with equal ease.

 

[Swanosaurus]

lol
Sure, but there is no trick to using roll low. Everyone knows that first place is faster than second place, and that this makes first place better than second place. Lower numbers are better, other factors being equal. This is reinforced by the overwhelming majority of experiences involving comparative numbers. Lower prices, lower golf scores, lower track times, lower interest on your mortgage. Heck, first class literally means the best quality.

See? Everything you're saying feels rational to you because you already believe it, but it's literally just post hoc rationalizations and can be applied the other way with equal ease.

Exactly.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just agree that roll-under and roll-over are a matter of preference and allow for the same functionality, and if there are more people who prefer roll-over, it's probably because there are a lot more people who have started gaming with D&D and its roll-over attack roll (and maybe some other cultural factors)? Without constantl implying that people who prefer roll-under are kind of weird edge cases who are out of tune with what most human beings learn from first grade on?

On the other hand, then there would be nothing left to discuss, and we can't have that, can we?

 

[Aldarc]

One of the pitfalls of roll over, IME, is the tendency to increase the number of various floating bonuses in the game. So the game becomes about fishing for the bigger numbers with +Xs from different sources. That tends to slow the game down. Many people here have expressed, for example, that their players can never remember their various bonuses from proficiency, race, skills, feats, spell bonuses, etc.