I think roll under is much more intuitive - because the skill percentage is a degree of how good you are at something.

HinterWelt, if you are using a percentage system, roll under should be the default because it is more intuitive.
A roll over with a percentile-based mechanic would be the exception, not the rule.

Playing Warhammer for years and other Percentile systems has conditioned me to look to roll under as the norm.  If I see a modifier I by default apply it to the target number and not the roll.  I just find that it makes more sense to figure out what you need to roll first and then roll.  Opposed to rolling then having to do the math on your result.

Quote from: kryystPlaying Warhammer for years and other Percentile systems has conditioned me to look to roll under as the norm.  If I see a modifier I by default apply it to the target number and not the roll.  I just find that it makes more sense to figure out what you need to roll first and then roll.  Opposed to rolling then having to do the math on your result.

This makes more sense to me.

My longest running effort as a GM was running Runequest, so I have to second a lot of what's been said. I like "math first, then roll" as kryyst suggested.

One of my players, who had only played AD&D up 'til then, had problems with it. In RQ, you roll to attack; if successful, the target may roll to defend, and parry the attack. The player was used to D&D's roll vs. armor class: "I roll, I hit". RQ was more like: "I roll, I hit! Oh crap, he parried". He then said, "This is like an old Errol Flynn movie," to which I of course replied, "Exactly!"

Quote from: Leo KnightMy longest running effort as a GM was running Runequest, so I have to second a lot of what's been said. I like "math first, then roll" as kryyst suggested.

One of my players, who had only played AD&D up 'til then, had problems with it. In RQ, you roll to attack; if successful, the target may roll to defend, and parry the attack. The player was used to D&D's roll vs. armor class: "I roll, I hit". RQ was more like: "I roll, I hit! Oh crap, he parried". He then said, "This is like an old Errol Flynn movie," to which I of course replied, "Exactly!"

And this is sort of what I am looking at but I am trying to move this down to one roll. So, I roll to attack, your dodge is figured in, if I hit then you can decide to try and parry. Most folks like my parry rules from V1.

Bill

After a stupidly long combat in HarnMaster last night, one thing to note about roll-under is that in combination with separate damage rolls it can lead to a real Whiff Factor.

"I swing at him with my sword!" *clatter* "I hit!"
*clatter* "He steps neatly aside."
"Damnit!"
"Now he jabs roughly at your guts -" *clatter* "He strikes a heavy blow."
*clatter* "His blow passes my guard!"
"His blow thunks on your chest for -" *clatter* "11 damage from the edge of his blade."
"11? Bah! I have 12 from mail and leather there! I jab at him -"
And so on.

Essentially, the more dice rolls there are between a strike at a foe and the actual injury, the more chance there is of a Whiff Factor, of nothing happening.

And it gets tedious. We did more dice rolls for that one combat than we'd done in the whole campaign so far - ten sessions or something.

So if you have roll-under, you have to have some sort of other stuff to speed things up, like fatigue, shock rolls, blows not being entirely stopped by armour (stab damage turned to bash, for example), options for "all out attack" or "feints" to make tangible results more certain, and so on. Otherwise... whiff!

That's one advantage of comparative game mechanics, like "Attribute + Skill + roll, highest roll wins, winning margin added to damage roll." Most exchanges will get some kind of actual tangible result...

I'll second Kyle's observation.  That is precisely why I will never play HarnMaster again. The only thing worse in Harn than participating in such a combat was watching it. ARRRRGG!!!

EDIT: Although I don't think it's entirely the fault of the extra d6 damage rolls. That you could so easily end up in a tie or a no result was at the root, and you'd see that outside combat too. Rerolls suck. I love rolling dice....when it means something's gonna happen!

Yep. Basically, as GM the worst words you ever have to say are, "nothing happens." That's boring, and players I'm sure can be bored without travelling to a game session, they can sit at home and play WoW or something.

On the other hand, it was a lot quicker when at least one of the participants was not wearing armour. Some impressive heroics from one PC, who fought on, covered with his own blood and that of his foes, who could have fled and saved his life, but chose to stand and fight and protect the gates of Tiwesdæg.

Hwæt! Hear tell of Aesc, Daughter-done,
fell fighting, seven times spear-struck,
never man could slay him,
vanquished by Valkyrie with Wotan's Wyrdaxe
Hear tell of Aesc, Bear-born,
fell fighting, seven times spear-struck,
before the gates of Tiwesdæg,
gore-garnished, kilted kin killed.

Much better than "whiff!"

See, damage soaking through armor is an important part. I am thinking of extending it to parries. Yeah, you parry but he tinks you for 1 die of the damage of the weapon so, if the weapon does 3d10 you would tink for 1d10.

But yeah, Kyle, it can be an issue with roll under systems. Often you need to watch balance on the armor/defense mechanisms closely in order to keep them in balance with the rest of combat.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle AaronAfter a stupidly long combat in HarnMaster last night, one thing to note about roll-under is that in combination with separate damage rolls it can lead to a real Whiff Factor.

I know I'm a bit more dense than most of the folks who're taking part in this conversation, but I don't understand how the Whiff Factor is inherently more pronounced in a roll-under vs. roll-over system.  The extra dice rolls for damage and such can be found in roll-over systems as well.

Assume you have two systems, one roll-over, one roll-under.  All other things (chance to hit, dodge, etc.) being equal, how would the roll-under system produce more Nil results?  The chances are the same, yes?

Or are you saying that it tends to be easier to skip all the extra dice rolling with roll-over games?

Again, if I'm dense, slap me up.  But I've never noticed this being a property inherent in the roll-under systems vs. the roll-over, comparative, pool, etc. systems I've played.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAfter a stupidly long combat in HarnMaster last night, one thing to note about roll-under is that in combination with separate damage rolls it can lead to a real Whiff Factor.

That's one advantage of comparative game mechanics, like "Attribute + Skill + roll, highest roll wins, winning margin added to damage roll." Most exchanges will get some kind of actual tangible result...

Kyle,

That has NOTHING to do with roll under, and EVERYTHING to do with HarnMaster.

It's the large number of rolls, not the fact it's roll under.

-Kyle

Quote from: KenHRI know I'm a bit more dense than most of the folks who're taking part in this conversation, but I don't understand how the Whiff Factor is inherently more pronounced in a roll-under vs. roll-over system.

It's not.

I never mentioned roll-over. Rather, I said that a comparative game mechanic, where "highest roll wins, add margin of success to damage" or something similar would avoid that.

Roll-under, roll-over, comes to the same thing, the difference is purely aesthetic, except that addition tends to be quicker for people to calculate than subtraction (such was the complaint about d4-d4), so that if you want to use the margin of success - the amount rolled under or over - for something in the game, then roll-over works better.

Quote from: flyingmiceThat has NOTHING to do with roll under, and EVERYTHING to do with HarnMaster.

Yes and no. In any system where one rolls to hit, and the other to parry/dodge, there are four possible results

• Attacker hits, defender defends
• Attacker misses, defender defends
• Attacker hits, defender fails
• Attacker hits, defender defends

in most game systems, only one of those four possible results, the third, gets you a hit which may do damage. So for example if two foes have 50% skill each, only 25% of the passes between them will result in a strike which can cause injury.

When that's combined with armour subtracting from damage done, many of the hits won't give an actual result.

The same thing can happen in GURPS, however GURPS has feints, all-out attacks, extra effort, critical hits and so on, which lessens the whiff factor quite a bit. Still, it can get annoying, which is why in GURPS I allowed xp to be spent as "hero points" to turn successes into critical successes, and so on.

The whiff factor's something to watch out for in roll-under or roll-over systems, but doesn't occur so much in comparative systems. The whiffing can be reduced by combat options for the foes which are likely to give more tangible results, feints in one round to reduce defences in the next, and so on.

PS, why are you signing with my name, Clash?

Quote from: Kyle AaronPS, why are you signing with my name, Clash?

I meant to add that at the top, but I'm old and easily get confused!

BTW, that's why I don't use defense rolls in StarCluster. They drag out combat.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI meant to add that at the top, but I'm old and easily get confused!

BTW, that's why I don't use defense rolls in StarCluster. They drag out combat.

-clash

Bingo Lucy! Although I tend to take heat for "static" defense. Still, it seems a good trade-off.

Bill