"Which is roll vs stat method is better?" Topic

So I am wondering which method of rolling is preferred for roll vs stat games.

High Stats are good and you roll under them for successes.

Low Stats are good and you roll over them for successes.

Mechanically it makes no difference, but what about the way your brain processes the information? Either seems good to me, but I generally prefer high rolls are better. But then all your stat bonuses are written out as negatives.

Thoughts?

I don't care either way. What drives me bonkers is games where some times you want to roll high and some times low. It helps game play a lot if you always want one or the other. That way if high is good and you roll 10, 9, 9 you know you got three hits without doing the math….

Prefer roll high as a mechanism. You tend to know you didn't get what you want if you roll a 1 etc.

I prefer rolling under stats – I'm a lousy dice roller anyway, so I'm more likely to get low results.

If you prefer rolling high, you can use the clumsy convention of adding the stat to the roll, trying to beat a target number.

Another way to go is writing the roll needed instead of the stat. If you write 3+ and 4+, it's clearer which one is the better stat.

One project of mine (which will probably never see the light of day) uses different dice sizes with better stats having larger dice (D4 < D6 < D8 &c), and trying to roll over a target number.

For example, A (attack dice D6) attacking B (defense value 5) needs to roll 5+ to hit. An attacker rolling a D8 also needs 5+ but has a greater chance of success.
You can also add different levels to the target, like 3+ dazed, 5+ stunned, 7+ killed.

While I can understand the desire for HIGH rolls = Success, when it comes to using it in relation to stats this usually means that LOW stats = better.

In my mind, LOW stats are bad. This can be a huge hurdle for some people to get over (especially old time roleplayers for example) as we are generally conditioned to think Higher numbers are better (with a few exceptions of course) and so when we see, let's say Character stats that are LOW we automatically think they suck.

That being said, I play games with both .. I just have to conciously remember which game I'm playing!

I like the High is better

Mixing it up can be a nightmare as Extra Crispy points out – we once had a rating system for grants in which the Canadian branch would rate 1 – 5 with 5 being best and the US branch rated 1 – 5 with 1 being best

Needless to say, it made meetings very ugly

Neither. Stat + Die Roll => Target Number.

If 1:1 skirmish where characters have multiple personality/attribute stats boardering on RPGs, the die roll should not be a single die because such a roll makes the odds too linear, unless wild results are the game's goal such as in D&D. A 1d6 gives too little variation IMO, which kills most skirmish games for me due to the overuse of the die.

And then there are opposed rolls….

"Another way to go is writing the roll needed instead of the stat. If you write 3+ and 4+, it's clearer which one is the better stat."

I'd go with this, as well.

Generally, I like systems where rolling high is good but don't mind having to roll under a target number. Just don't ever mix the two! It just makes things confusing.

I went to a 'roll this number or less' some years ago, and it's far cleaner than the other way – players just have to reverse the traditional thinking that sixes are good and ones are bad. They do this easily enough.

I've also found that a column shift method – "heavy armour – shift two columns to the left" – is clearer and cleaner than +1 this and -2 that, especially when minuses are actually good for the player rolling. That can be confusing to them, "So, a -4 is great, right?"

The point about consistency is important too – don't have a multitude of systems at work, and especially don't have "Roll high for this, roll low for that" if you can avoid it.

It's one of the reasons why variable die type* seems to be in vogue these days. It unifies the idea that higher is always better.

*The unit's stat is d4, d6, d8 or whatever, and modifiers to their roll are reflected in "shifts" up and down die type. So a negative modifier would turn your d8 into a d6.

I've played so many games for so long, I mixup BattleTech with Advanced Squad Leader dice mechanics…it's like gamer alzheimers…

I've played so many games for so long, I mixup BattleTech with Advanced Squad Leader dice mechanics…it's like gamer alzheimers…

Ain't that the truth.

I don't mind high or low but I dislike multiple die mechanics as you hunt around the table for that 1 die type you need.

I prefer all rolls biased the same way, rather than high sometimes and low others. I also don;t like hunting for various types of dice.

Given all that, I prefer a high roll.

I also don;t like hunting for various types of dice.

I've got a color-coded set just for these kinds of games. d4s are green, d6s are red, d8s are translucent aquamarine, etc. Without 'em, it's a real pain.

Well all the games mechanics are identical. So there is no mixing. Right now your characters stat card will designate his stats (this is an ultralight rpg/boardgame) So let's say a fighter has a STR of 7 and has a basic sword that nets him 2 dice. He'd roll 2 dice and try and get a 7+. That same fighter who get's a wand can attempt to use it, it may be a 4 dice wand, but his Will is only a 10, so he'd get 4 dice trying to roll 10's. BTW it's a d10 mechanic.

Now, I do really like the idea of writing the stat as 8+, instead of just 8 and I think that will alleviate confusion. It still leaves modifiers a bit wonky as a Bonus of -2 seems a bit counter-intuitive. There is the option of simply adjusting the dice roll itself, giving a +2 bonus to the die roll.

Thanks for all the feedback, I did not expect to get this many responses.

I'm with the "Roll High" for success club. I can live with the "Roll Low" for success club. I am definitely in the "Either Always High or Always Low" club -- when you need to roll high for combat and low for morale and high for movement and low for supply and…well, to me the point of the rules mechanics is to provide structure without distracting you from the tabletop.

One mechanic I do NOT like is the "Roll greater than this number" for success. My mind is more wired for a "Meet or Beat" a number, so I like the idea of a + sign after a number to prevent confusion.

Another mechanic I've seen, which I do NOT like, is the 2d6 table where the results have holes in them due to the way the percentages play out. For example, if rolling high is good, then rolling an 11 on 2d6 should be great, but I've played in games where the 11 on certain Firing Points columns is blank (no effect) while the FP column to the left or right has a good result.

As for modifiers, I prefer die modifiers instead of result modifiers… +2 is good, while -2 is bad sort of thing (assuming high rolls are good).

Russ

Make the stats letters (A, B, C, etc..) and then it is not a problem.

A needs 1+
B 2+
C 3+

As others have said, consistently is key:

One type of die for all rolls.

Consistently rolling high or low is good, not high sometimes and low other times.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I've played with Skippy for years. It is a kick how he gets rules mixed up. I'm older than him and have to remind him.
but
He runs the best scenarios.

I use the roll low. That is, must be less than of equal to the value I am rolling for. This makes it easier when you use a few modifiers. I modify the VALUE not the die. Thus if my unit has a "to stand" value of a 3, it gets a +1 for being on a defensive obstacle, and if it has an officer with it it gets a +2. Thus it has to make a 1 to 5. But no matter how many modifiers it can never equal 6, so a six is always a failure.

It's the same way the other way around but here you have to apply the minus' as a die roll So if you were a "3"on "to stand" then the auto fail would be 1 and the modifiers would be minus' There are other permutations, they just involve a bit more mental gymnastics. That's why for simplicity's sake I chose the one I did.

Personally, I prefer a high stat is good and you must roll low.

But after many, many test games I learned that people prefer to roll high.

Recently I re-did our charts to "roll high" with a bit of semantics.

Now stats/target numbers represent the "difficulty" of an action. So higher difficulty actions have higher numbers (eg 6+) while lower difficulty actions have low difficulty numbers (eg 2+).

This way modifiers also make sense. A minus reduces the difficulty of an action. A plus increases the difficulty of an action. We do this because we prefer to know the final modified target number before rolling rather than rolling and then modifying the die roll.

Using this system meets the requirements Otto spells out (which I fully agree with and which is why I prefer high stats and rolling low) and avoids the mental gymnastics of traditional roll-high systems. I know the "difficulty" bit is just semantics but it does help players understand stuff like modifiers better.

Dear Wartopia.

Agreed.

The problem with any rolling system is the modifiers. Depending on the die used (4,6,7,10,12,20,100) the modifiers can in the lower cases make a roll automatic. Thus if you have to make a 4 or better on a six sided die, three simple positive modifiers make it an automatic pass.
This is why I put in a ceiling on modifiers because I only want to use 6 sided die unless I absolutely have to use other, and I always want a chance of failure. The problem with using larger dice means the value of the individual modifier is reduced, which means players tend to multiply them to move the likelihood of any particular action up to the certainty range.

So if that's the case, why just not reduce the number of modifiers, make them more drastic, and lower the stats.

The preference for the high roll is habit. All of us work on the principle of the more the better and higher is better, so we are more emotionally comfortable with the concept. We learn this as kids. Twelve penny candies is better than six, a 100 is better than a 50, an "A" is better than an "F" and "two for the price of one" a common adage. That's pretty much it. The math in a game however, works better and faster for the roll low simply for the arithmetic.

Besides there should only be a maximum of three POSSIBLE modifiers in any situation.

I like to sometimes roll high then others to sometimes roll low. At all time the same die must be used.

Besides there should only be a maximum of three POSSIBLE modifiers in any situation.

Great minds think alike!

:-)

That is PRECISELY the approach we've taken with our home grown rules. Maximum of three mods to any target number and fewer if possible.

The base value is always based on a single factor such as range for direct fire (e.g. within 12", within 24", over 24"). And then we use 0-3 mods based on factors relevant to the roll.

We're also careful to set up base values and mods to limit potential for getting modded off the chart. OTOH, we're so parsimonious with the mods that they well deserve whatever effect they have on the probabilities.

The result is really nice situational contrast. Shoot an enemy at close range from higher elevation in the flank while he's in the open and shooting…he's toast. Shoot an enemy at long range while he's remaining fully concealed in full cover…at best you might frighten him a little.

I like to sometimes roll high then others to sometimes roll low. At all time the same die must be used.

I really dislike this. Confuses the heck out of players. One time your target value is 4 or higher, the next three or lower. Simply no reason for this confusion.

Die roll mechanics are like a game's user interface. Changing the UI randomly is like making some steering wheels rotate left in order to turn right or putting the hot spigot on the right in some of your bathrooms and the left in others.

Yep, adding negative modifiers… I have often been confused in morale checks – but then maths was never my forte – is zero a number?