John Dallman
Hero
The first TTRPGs I played, in 1979, were roll-high, being OD&D and AD&D1e. I was also exposed to roll-under Rune Quest early on, and and several other systems, varying between roll-high and roll-under. Back then, nobody seemed to feel that either mechanism had intrinsic appeal; it was a question of if the game worked as a whole.
This century, I've been encountering increasing numbers of people who feel that roll-high is more emotionally satisfying, or otherwise preferable, and that this is "obvious" to them. I'm baffled by this.
I have a slight preference for roll-under, because it's easier for me to figure out the odds of success. If they're too low, I'll look for some different action to take in the game. But this isn't a "won't play roll high games" thing, just a mild preference. I do see people saying on forums that they don't want to play any roll-under game.
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"?
This century, I've been encountering increasing numbers of people who feel that roll-high is more emotionally satisfying, or otherwise preferable, and that this is "obvious" to them. I'm baffled by this.
I have a slight preference for roll-under, because it's easier for me to figure out the odds of success. If they're too low, I'll look for some different action to take in the game. But this isn't a "won't play roll high games" thing, just a mild preference. I do see people saying on forums that they don't want to play any roll-under game.
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"?