Roll Under.

Definitely.

I don't want my Cthulhu players to fuck about with the mathematical bollocks that always seems to come with Roll-Over.

D.

Roll under with minimal modifiers and simple outcomes.

With roll over, every single roll includes adding two double digit rolls together and comparing them to a target number. It's d20 in treacle.

Quote from: Typhon;469136I don't want my Cthulhu players to fuck about with the mathematical bollocks that always seems to come with Roll-Over.

D.

I am very curious as to what you mean by that! Could you elaborate? Which mathematical bollocks?

Quote from: Settembrini;469132Huh? Rolemaster involves tables and high rolls, all adding to length. Nothing to do with roll under.

Rolemaster is roll-over, I said it myself.

My point is that I have played both roll-over and roll-under 1d100 systems, so I can judge from experience.

QuoteOn another front it bugs the hell out of me when players announce they made their rolls. How would they know? How should the GM interpret the result?

"I search the room!"
"Make a search check."
"I succeeded!"

The GM cannot be telling him the modifiers, as that would already give away too much info, i.e. that something is hidden there at all, as well as how good it is hidden.
Target numbers for the win.

You can do the same with roll under. The GM adds the modifier to the skill in his head, the player rolls, and only the GM knows if the PC succeeded.

Quote from: Claudius;469152You can do the same with roll under. The GM adds the modifier to the skill in his head, the player rolls, and only the GM knows if the PC succeeded.

Wow. So the player reports his modified skill and literal die roll? Wow... that's amazingly inferior to roll-over-100 as a system.

-Frank

Quote from: B.T.;468912d100 roll-over is just d20, and if I wanted to play d20, I'd play D&D.

Quote from: deleriad;469138With roll over, every single roll includes adding two double digit rolls together and comparing them to a target number. It's d20 in treacle.

I've seen this misconception crop out a few times, and it's about time to put it to rest. When the d20 system appeared, Rolemaster was already an old system. It's not that 1d100 roll-over is d20 in disguise, it's actually the other way around, d20 is 1d100 roll-over in disguise. D&D3 is in debt with Rolemaster, just like Rolemaster is in debt with AD&D. Before he wrote D&D3, Monte Cook wrote supplements for Rolemaster, that should give you a clue.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;469154Wow. So the player reports his modified skill and literal die roll? Wow... that's amazingly inferior to roll-over-100 as a system.

-Frank

No, the player reports his currect skill, it's the GM who adds the modifier.

Whereas with roll-over, you have to add two digit ciphers, which is always harder than just compare two numbers, which is what you do with roll-under.

Huh? So the GM rolls for the player?

QuoteWhereas with roll-over, you have to add two digit ciphers, which is  always harder than just compare two numbers, which is what you do with  roll-under.

Wait, there is substraction involved in roll-under, and that is scientifically proven to be more difficult for humans than addition. Also, the GM needs to remember three numbers, substract two and compare to one.

Whereas all the GM needs to do in roll-over is to compare to a target number,

I get the feeling we can safely say people who think roll-under is simpler are living in a self-fulfilling prophecy-world:

Doing away with modifiers, margin of success, hidden target number etc. is indeed simplification. As roll-under can do all of them only cumbersomely, they are done away with, and roll-under becomes very simple. The circle is closed.

Quote from: Settembrini;469157Huh? So the GM rolls for the player?

No, the player rolls, he just doesn't know what the target number is.

I used to be one of those GMs that sometimes rolled in secret (things like perception), but one day a player told me that he liked rolling the dice himself. Since then, they always roll the dice.

QuoteWait, there is substraction involved in roll-under, and that is scientifically proven to be more difficult for humans than addition. Also, the GM needs to remember three numbers, substract two and compare to one.

Whereas all the GM needs to do in roll-over is to compare to a target number,

It's true that substraction is generally harder than addition. However, when I run a 1d100 roll-under system, I only use multiples of ten as modifiers (-10, -20, -30, etc), they are not difficult at all.

Quote from: Settembrini;469158I get the feeling we can safely say people who think roll-under is simpler are living in a self-fulfilling prophecy-world:

I don't belong to that camp, I think they're equivalent.

QuoteDoing away with modifiers, margin of success, hidden target number etc. is indeed simplification. As roll-under can do all of them only cumbersomely, they are done away with, and roll-under becomes very simple. The circle is closed.

That's a strawman. When I run RuneQuest, I use modifiers, and margin of success. I don't use hidden target numbers, but I don't use them either when I run a roll-over system.

I think that the problem Frank and Settembrini have is that they are amongst a small niche group of players that are really interested in game mechanics  - a group of people in which I would include myself, I should point out. We like dissecting rules, and are thrilled – thrilled, I tell you! - by innovative and elegant new game mechanics.

The majority of players aren't like us. They aren't interested in the detail of the rules, don't read them (relying on people like Frank and Settembrini and me to plough through the rulebooks and explain how the game works). Above all else they don't want to have to relearn the rules once they have finally got the hang of them. This is the reason that, in the case of an existing game like RQ, roll under is superior to roll over: because the majority of people that play the game don't want to learn new rules, and would be happier if the designers were to leave them the way they are... well, as long as they work reasonably well, at least.  

In other words, and much as it pains an inveterate rules tinkerer like myself to admit it, the most important rule is: if it ain't broke (and in this case it ain't) don't fix it...

Glazer

The fact that I fail to see how roll-over is so much better than roll-under, doesn't mean I'm not interested in game mechanichs.

QuoteI've seen this misconception crop out a few times, and it's about time to put it to rest. When the d20 system appeared, Rolemaster was already an old system. It's not that 1d100 roll-over is d20 in disguise, it's actually the other way around, d20 is 1d100 roll-over in disguise. D&D3 is in debt with Rolemaster, just like Rolemaster is in debt with AD&D. Before he wrote D&D3, Monte Cook wrote supplements for Rolemaster, that should give you a clue.

What I'm saying is that why would I bother adding large numbers to get a three digit number when I could just roll 1d20 and have the same results?  If I have 1d20 + 10, it's the same as 1d100 + 50, but the numbers are smaller and thus faster to compute, making gameplay quicker and easier.

On a side note, people arguing about how 1d100 roll under is better than 1d100 roll over are retarded: roll over is superior in almost every way, as Frank has repeatedly explained.  My personal preference is roll under, but that doesn't mean that roll over isn't the superior system in terms of mathematical ease and intuitiveness.

The whole comparison completely neglects the psychological outlook of a human being on the numbers so far. That is, what the numbers might instinctively mean to him or her. Like say you have Climb 60%, roll under this value, versus Climb +60 roll over 100. There is a difference, and different players (and GMs) will react differently to these principles.