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

[Aldarc]

That’s basically it. The math is almost always the same either way. You can flip them back and forth with a little math. Bigger numbers have more of a dopamine hit. It’s more intuitive, to me, to have a higher number you roll under, like BRP %s. You have a 75% chance of success. Roll 75 or less on these dice. Simple.

I have found running games like Black Hack, Into the Odd/Mausritter, and Dragonbane, that players have an easier time grasping roll under, even if roll high has "more of a dopamine hit." Yes, roll high is easy from the perspective of "higher is better." However, roll under is quicker and easier from the perspective of rolling under the value on your character sheet and know instantly. There is generally far less looking at the GM for "did I do the thing?"

Of course, roll over and roll under aren't the only systems. Roll d6s and pick the highest, for example, is also ridiculously easy for most new players.

 

[innerdude]

The benefit of roll under is that when you roll, you know. IME, that is psychologically powerful as a player.

Whereas for me it creates a false . . . positivity? Sensibility? Expectation? . . . about the variability of task resolution. As a player you DON'T KNOW that your chance of success is always "70%", or at least you shouldn't. Situational modifiers should be part and parcel with good GM-ing, IMHO.

This sense of "I know I have exactly a 70% chance of success, no matter what" leads to table dissonance in my experience. The players get used to the idea that the GM can't have any input / gainsay on probability of success. "But wait, you can't just modify my percentile probability down! It says right on my character sheet, 70 percent!"

It used to drive me crazy with the power gaming GURPS players, because it was like, "As soon as I get my stat up to 17, it literally doesn't matter what's happening in the game world, I auto-succeed." It was this constant race to obliterate any chance of failure, because that big fat 17 or 18 on the character sheet basically made them "immune" in their eyes from GM interference.

*Edit: this is one of the things I love about Ironsworn and Genesys. There's more unpredictability to the "narrative" of the resolution, because the full range of difficulty isn't set in stone. And it's NOT ENTIRELY on the GM --- the dice play their part. The GM can potentially sway the resolution by adding or removing dice, but the dice play their part.

 

[Aldarc]

Whereas for me it creates a false . . . positivity? Sensibility? Expectation? . . . about the variability of task resolution. As a player you DON'T KNOW that your chance of success is always "70%", or at least you shouldn't. Situational modifiers should be part and parcel with good GM-ing, IMHO.

This sense of "I know I have exactly a 70% chance of success, no matter what" leads to table dissonance in my experience. The players get used to the idea that the GM can't have any input / gainsay on probability of success. "But wait, you can't just modify my percentile probability down! It says right on my character sheet, 70 percent!"

It used to drive me crazy with the power gaming GURPS players, because it was like, "As soon as I get my stat up to 17, it literally doesn't matter what's happening in the game world, I auto-succeed." It was this constant race to obliterate any chance of failure, because that big fat 17 or 18 on the character sheet basically made them "immune" in their eyes from GM interference.

Tastes vary. Yours and mine differs.

But consider that you say all of this but swear by Ironsworn where difficulty doesn’t scale. So what gives?

Moreover, there are plenty of roll over systems where you are basically guaranteed to succeed after you have milked your bonuses high enough.

 

[Deset Gled]

Even in roll-under systems, there are almost always mechanics where higher numbers are better. Rolling higher ability scores is a better outcome. Higher hit points is better. Rolling higher for damage is better. Rolling higher for a healing [whatever] is better. Having a higher number of rations is better.

Considering that, I think that a roll-high system just feels more internally consistent. In roll-under systems you have some rolls where rolling low is good, but you still have some rolls where rolling high is good. In roll-high systems, you always know that higher is always better. It's not mathematically hard to change that expectation, but keeping it the same gives a feeling of comfort and dependability. YMMV.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Even in roll-under systems, there are almost always mechanics where higher numbers are better. Rolling higher ability scores is a better outcome. Higher hit points is better. Rolling higher for damage is better. Rolling higher for a healing [whatever] is better. Having a higher number of rations is better.

Considering that, I think that a roll-high system just feels more internally consistent. In roll-under systems you have some rolls where rolling low is good, but you still have some rolls where rolling high is good. In roll-high systems, you always know that higher is always better. It's not mathematically hard to change that expectation, but keeping it the same gives a feeling of comfort and dependability. YMMV.

Except in situations where the GM likes their players to roll their fates

GM: [checking random encounter table] Looks like you encounter some orcs. Bob - roll a d10 to see how many there are
Bob: Uh oh, a 10. I run!

 

[Epic Meepo]

This sense of "I know I have exactly a 70% chance of success, no matter what" leads to table dissonance in my experience. The players get used to the idea that the GM can't have any input / gainsay on probability of success. "But wait, you can't just modify my percentile probability down! It says right on my character sheet, 70 percent!"

This is only a problem in a system where the results of a die roll are always either complete success or complete failure. If you have degrees of success and degrees of failure, there are other factors involved beyond just, "Did I succeed, yes or no?"

 

[uzirath]

For RPGs, I think it mostly has to do with past experience. I've played plenty of roll-over and roll-under games (among other mechanics) and it doesn't take very long to switch my thinking. Nowadays, I mostly play GURPS, and I introduce a lot of new players to it, including many who are new to RPGs altogether. In that latter category, I don't think I've ever heard anyone comment on "roll under" being confusing or unintuitive. When I have players who have mostly played D&D or other roll-high systems, it does take them a bit to get used to it, which seems only natural. Regardless, they'll do a happy dance when they roll three ones.

It used to drive me crazy with the power gaming GURPS players, because it was like, "As soon as I get my stat up to 17, it literally doesn't matter what's happening in the game world, I auto-succeed." It was this constant race to obliterate any chance of failure, because that big fat 17 or 18 on the character sheet basically made them "immune" in their eyes from GM interference.

I'm sorry this was the GURPS culture you encountered. I've been a regular GURPS player since the early 1990s (in Ohio, California, and Minnesota) and I've never played at a table where that was a thing. Sure, many players like to buy their core skills up as they develop, but that's no different from any RPG where character advancement is a thing. Most adult players I've known (in any trad RPG) want "GM interference" because that's what generates a dramatic story.

 

[Autumnal]

Suspect part of our preferences stem from the games you played when you were young, for the same reason that schools and sports teach us we want high scores rather than low.

That makes a lot of sense. I played RuneQuest at the end of the ‘70s and Call of Cthulhu in the ‘80s, so they were in the mix early.

I prefer a degrees of success and failure over simple binary over/under.

Oh yes. Me too. I like not having to make a bunch of rolls to find out what happened.

I was a big fan of the Fading Suns "Price is Right" style system: you need to roll under your stat/TN, but higher is still better. So, the better you are at a thing (higher value) the better your results ona success -- BUT you still fail if you roll too high.

Yeah, QuestWorlds does that too, and it works for me.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't care, so long as it is consistent. But I am more used to rolling high.

 

[Umbran]

Do players just associate bigger numbers with being "better" in some way? Is there some cultural factor I'm missing?

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