# We have dice rollers!

### Website Feedback

 101 to 150 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

KaeYoss wrote:
Attempts to raise hell 1d10 + 660

Attempts to raise compassion and awareness 1d1 + 1 ⇒ (1) + 1 = 2

I think it's easier if a single dice roll reads like a single word in a sentence, so there should be no whitespace:

1d1(1)+1=2

Whitespace can separate multiple rolls.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Attempts to raise hell 1d10 + 660
Woah, did you rig that somehow or did it legitimately roll that? (or maybe you editted the words in after the roll?)

Muahahahahahah! Bwahahaha! AAAAAAAAAAhahahahaha!

Crimson Jester wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Attempts to raise hell 1d10 + 660

Am not. While it might be a translation error, the general consensus is to keep using the number those Christians are most afraid of.

Casts summon abyssal party

100d6 ⇒ (2, 1, 3, 4, 4, 1, 4, 5, 4, 3, 1, 2, 5, 6, 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 1, 6, 1, 4, 4, 3, 4, 6, 2, 4, 3, 3, 6, 2, 4, 2, 2, 1, 3, 6, 2, 5, 1, 2, 6, 5, 5, 3, 2, 1, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5, 5, 1, 3, 6, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 1, 1, 4, 4, 5, 6, 5, 6, 3, 4, 6, 1, 5, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 3, 4, 6, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 2) = 349

"To the conga line!"

awww were limited to 100 d6 now it seems

20d20 ⇒ (18, 12, 5, 2, 14, 20, 3, 16, 1, 3, 4, 9, 8, 19, 13, 2, 1, 12, 17, 10) = 189

awww were limited to 100 d6 now it seems

but.. but... what about Pun-Pun? I'm sure he can go waaay above 100d6. :o(

"Pun-pun cleans my pool"

100d100 ⇒ (27, 24, 14, 87, 64, 84, 33, 21, 59, 38, 62, 97, 96, 5, 36, 29, 19, 98, 98, 37, 76, 46, 47, 97, 63, 98, 30, 77, 8, 90, 96, 67, 74, 8, 4, 48, 29, 84, 1, 68, 33, 69, 47, 20, 46, 39, 47, 58, 6, 100, 81, 96, 54, 63, 9, 35, 10, 92, 2, 83, 48, 85, 76, 8, 76, 93, 60, 35, 18, 78, 10, 43, 52, 59, 35, 99, 70, 80, 13, 80, 80, 35, 80, 77, 81, 31, 42, 35, 87, 74, 27, 84, 90, 97, 92, 96, 58, 1, 30, 14) = 5458

My favourite dice rolling method for characters:

Str 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18
Dex 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18
Con 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18
Int 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18
Wis 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18
Cha 18d1 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 18

 Chief Technical Officer

1d1 ⇒ 1
1d1 ⇒ 1
1d1 ⇒ 1
1d1 ⇒ 1

Oh, Rosssssss!

2d1 ⇒ (1, 1) = 2

lol

100d1000 ⇒ (332, 874, 540, 548, 911, 828, 92, 176, 53, 486, 805, 742, 977, 270, 255, 722, 371, 306, 456, 596, 840, 634, 158, 206, 423, 352, 73, 603, 399, 778, 799, 469, 188, 313, 563, 707, 424, 50, 976, 62, 13, 511, 759, 934, 41, 425, 400, 13, 51, 227, 100, 376, 274, 270, 857, 742, 165, 373, 647, 382, 373, 660, 144, 265, 366, 458, 645, 369, 596, 424, 251, 965, 59, 629, 316, 322, 775, 319, 665, 551, 561, 656, 253, 133, 579, 579, 845, 729, 634, 121, 364, 776, 906, 437, 779, 710, 201, 128, 902, 874) = 47236

100d1000 ⇒ (23, 916, 116, 81, 92, 322, 44, 43, 845, 514, 99, 485, 824, 8, 485, 760, 265, 161, 735, 319, 180, 706, 493, 68, 832, 134, 113, 580, 150, 836, 663, 196, 249, 875, 563, 359, 15, 603, 548, 373, 974, 202, 450, 369, 402, 471, 202, 79, 394, 782, 450, 96, 146, 945, 440, 547, 139, 751, 933, 178, 279, 75, 703, 414, 241, 628, 524, 880, 601, 908, 82, 230, 213, 888, 699, 926, 139, 443, 102, 417, 162, 855, 537, 583, 969, 241, 170, 163, 175, 784, 989, 554, 978, 521, 455, 590, 51, 978, 218, 297) = 44285

can't roll 1000 times.

sniff...

I have seen rolls in Champions that took more than 100 dice.

Ross- Just want to say your magical dice code has really simplified my life very much. If I ever get to PaizoCon I am buying you the beverage of choice! Thanks again from a harried PbP GM!

Kruelaid wrote:
I have seen rolls in Champions that took more than 100 dice.

so glade I skipped that then

1d20 ⇒ 19

Vic Wertz wrote:

d0

d0
d0
d0

Oh, Rosssssss!

2d0

This represents the creation of the universe out of nothing. Think of it as an easter egg.

1d1 ⇒ 1

Aw, it's gone! My zero-sided die is automatically converted to a one-sided die! No more null dice.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Ross- Just want to say your magical dice code has really simplified my life very much. If I ever get to PaizoCon I am buying you the beverage of choice! Thanks again from a harried PbP GM!

For what it's worth, I'm in a pbp where the GM has asked the players several times not to use the new dice roller, but most of the players ignore him. I think there are two reasons why:

1. It's easier to use.
2. People feel entitled to use it because it's the "official" Paizo roller now.

Both of these would be positive things, except when you combine them with the ease of cheating, it's worse than no roller at all because the ease of use only makes it more disruptive to existing pbp games. A safeguard against cheating is a minimum requirement for a dice roller, just as important as randomness. I will be a big fan too once that problem is solved, but as far as I'm concerned the new dice roller was released prematurely.

0d6 + 1d6 - 6 ⇒ (-) + (4) - 6 = -2

Null! Cool!

minkscooter wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Ross- Just want to say your magical dice code has really simplified my life very much. If I ever get to PaizoCon I am buying you the beverage of choice! Thanks again from a harried PbP GM!

For what it's worth, I'm in a pbp where the GM has asked the players several times not to use the new dice roller, but most of the players ignore him. I think there are two reasons why:

1. It's easier to use.
2. People feel entitled to use it because it's the "official" Paizo roller now.

Both of these would be positive things, except when you combine them with the ease of cheating, it's worse than no roller at all because the ease of use only makes it more disruptive to existing pbp games. A safeguard against cheating is a minimum requirement for a dice roller, just as important as randomness. I will be a big fan too once that problem is solved, but as far as I'm concerned the new dice roller was released prematurely.

Well, my take on those complaints is this:

• It's just as easy to cheat in any online dice roller
• Anyone who feels the need to cheat bad enough will find a way
• If you feel you need to cheat, go ahead, because cheaters never prosper

There ain't no money on the table. We're supposed to be adults, cheating dice rolls is juvenile and skews the game. My take as a DM is that people who want to cheat WILL. Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit. I like the fact I don't have to navigate to another page or keep an extra window open to IC to complete rolls. It simplifies things.

Patrick Curtin wrote:

Well, my take on those complaints is this:

• It's just as easy to cheat in any online dice roller
• Anyone who feels the need to cheat bad enough will find a way
• If you feel you need to cheat, go ahead, because cheaters never prosper

There ain't no money on the table. We're supposed to be adults, cheating dice rolls is juvenile and skews the game. My take as a DM is that people who want to cheat WILL. Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit. I like the fact I don't have to navigate to another page or keep an extra window open to IC to complete rolls. It simplifies things.

+1

Patrick Curtin wrote:

Well, my take on those complaints is this:

• It's just as easy to cheat in any online dice roller
• Anyone who feels the need to cheat bad enough will find a way
• If you feel you need to cheat, go ahead, because cheaters never prosper

There ain't no money on the table. We're supposed to be adults, cheating dice rolls is juvenile and skews the game. My take as a DM is that people who want to cheat WILL. Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit. I like the fact I don't have to navigate to another page or keep an extra window open to IC to complete rolls. It simplifies things.

Patrick Curtin, I basically agree with you, but your comment of "It's just as easy to cheat in any online dice roller" makes me wonder. Earlier in this thread, I asked what good Invisible Castle is, and...
Ross Byers wrote:

Invisible castle asks the user to input the name of the character, the campaign in which it is played, and a short description of the roll. The DM can then search for rolls made by that character name. If they see 10 rolls all labeled ''Attack and damage" timestamped within 5 minutes of each other, they can be reasonably sure the player is cheating.

Sure, the DM doesn't check every time. The point is that, once you suspect a player is cheating, you have a method to check.

The player could leave the character name, campaign name, and description blank, but that's one of those things that people who aren't trying to cheat usually wouldn't do.

How would someone cheat with that, without the risk of getting caught?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the ease of Paizo's dice roller is a major selling point. If I ever run a PBP on Paizo, I would probably tell the players to use it, until I notice one player get lucky die rolls at all the critical moments. I'm just wondering, that's all.

Aaron Bitman wrote:

How would someone cheat with that, without the risk of getting caught?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the ease of Paizo's dice roller is a major selling point. If I ever run a PBP on Paizo, I would probably tell the players to use it, until I notice one player get lucky die rolls at all the critical moments. I'm just wondering, that's all.

The problem is, there is a risk being caught no matter how you cheat. Sure IC's tracking and security is tighter, but I will trade the security factor being slightly better for the ease of use and trust that my players are big enough people not to have to cheat. Like I said, there's no money on the table, and I would hope that anyone who cheats will realize that they are being a yutz for a make-believe game and they really should get up from the computer and take a long hard look in the mirror.

1d20+15=

Whoopsie. Where's the instructions?

Pax Veritas wrote:

1d20+15=

Whoopsie. Where's the instructions?

When posting, you see "BBCode tags you can use:" Hit the "Show" button, and you'll see the following instructions:

<dice>1d20 + 3; 1d6 + 2</dice> This is a dice expression.

(I replaced the square brackets with angle brackets so as not to invoke the dice roller, but you get the idea.)

Ross Byers wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

1d3,14

Edit, ok it doesn't handle decimals. So much for easy as pi.

Did you really expect to be able to roll a pi-sided die?

Wouldn't that be a sphere?

I built a roller for pbp that generates an image for the result and remains static through preview refreshes. You can still get a different value by altering the parameters you've specified, but aside from that it is a static value. I built it when I was getting into Savage Worlds, but it works great for any system involving dice or cards.

There is a wizard page that will generate code in HTML, Wikidot Code and BBCode.

Forum Roller

though I now see the img tag is disabled here so I can't post a sample :D

Anyways, hope it may be somewhat useful to someone.

Clever Kobold wrote:

0d6 + 1d6 - 6

Null! Cool!

Nicely done!

Patrick Curtin wrote:

Well, my take on those complaints is this:

• It's just as easy to cheat in any online dice roller
• Anyone who feels the need to cheat bad enough will find a way
• If you feel you need to cheat, go ahead, because cheaters never prosper

No it's not inevitable that wanting to cheat confers the ability to cheat. Can you prove that cheaters are finding a way to circumvent the logging in Invisible Castle that allows double-checking by the DM? Can you prove that cheaters are not prospering in your own pbp? Not with this roller. How does complaining about that make me a cheater?

Patrick Curtin wrote:
There ain't no money on the table.

So that means we shouldn't care? If I invest time in something I certainly do care about it. Just because there's no money, does that mean it doesn't really matter if someone cheats?

Patrick Curtin wrote:
We're supposed to be adults, cheating dice rolls is juvenile and skews the game. My take as a DM is that people who want to cheat WILL. Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit.

But with this roller you can't catch anyone. You can only suspect someone, and you could be wrong.

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I agree that the ease of Paizo's dice roller is a major selling point. If I ever run a PBP on Paizo, I would probably tell the players to use it, until I notice one player get lucky die rolls at all the critical moments.

That's exactly the problem. Now if I happen to get lucky, I have to worry about whether everyone else will believe it. How fun is that? When I play an RPG around a table with friends, if someone rolls a natural 20 at a crucial moment, it's something to cheer about. Everyone can see the dice so there's not an instant of doubt about what was rolled.

minkscooter wrote:
No it's not inevitable that wanting to cheat confers the ability to cheat. Can you prove that cheaters are finding a way to circumvent the logging in Invisible Castle that allows double-checking by the DM? Can you prove that cheaters are not prospering in your own pbp? Not with this roller. How does complaining about that make me a cheater?

Sorry Mink, I never said you were a cheater. I just said that if someone wants to cheat, they will. IC has security features in it, but does that make them immune to cheaters? Nope. I can think of several ways to circumvent their security measures without breaking a sweat. A sharp-eyed DM might catch me, but when you are running a PbP you really have to trust those you play with. All I was saying.

minkscooter wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
There ain't no money on the table.
So that means we shouldn't care? If I invest time in something I certainly do care about it. Just because there's no money, does that mean it doesn't really matter if someone cheats?

It means that people who cheat dice rolls in a RPG are really missing the point. If someone feels the need to cheat to advance their character, then that is a personal character flaw, and all the high-tech security in the world will only make it harder for them to cheat, not impossible.

minkscooter wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
We're supposed to be adults, cheating dice rolls is juvenile and skews the game. My take as a DM is that people who want to cheat WILL. Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit.
But with this roller you can't catch anyone. You can only suspect someone, and you could be wrong.

Well, back to my premise. If someone wants to cheat, they will find a way to do it. I would rather have an embedded dice code in place then have to jump through several hoops at an unrelated site for the dubious feeling that I am somehow circumventing my players from cheating, which as adults I would like to assume they wouldn't in the first place. If someone keeps coming up with crits, I am going to smell a rat, checking function or no.

Anyway, this conversation is rapidly falling off the rails. You personally don't like the new code, I understand that. I do, and the only reason I replied to your complaints was you pullquoted me. Ross, once again thank you for inculding it. I will be using it, non-checkable results and all.

Does Paizo have a dice serving program?

Normally I use EvilDM Dice Server and I rolled a character stats. See if you can do something with this. Oh drop the lowest score. I used Heroic method of generating scores on page 15 of the Pathfinder core rulebook.

----- Original Message -----
From: EvilDM.net Dice Server
To: devilboy@anv.net
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:32 AM
Subject: We Have Dice Rollers' rolls for

Hello! You're receiving this message because somebody requested that their dice rolls at http://dice.evildm.net/ be sent to you.

Results of We Have Dice Rollers' dice rolled on October 29th, 2009 at 11:32:12 GMT
Result #1 (2d6 + 6): 3, 3 + 6 = 12
Result #2 (2d6 + 6): 4, 1 + 6 = 11
Result #3 (2d6 + 6): 5, 6 + 6 = 17
Result #4 (2d6 + 6): 5, 3 + 6 = 14
Result #5 (2d6 + 6): 6, 4 + 6 = 16
Result #6 (2d6 + 6): 4, 5 + 6 = 15
Result #7 (2d6 + 6): 3, 6 + 6 = 15

These rolls were e-mailed to devilboy@anv.net.

Vulgar Hammersmithe, a dwarven barbarian, just chopped Garlog the Rancid Orc.

----- Original Message -----
From: EvilDM.net Dice Server
To: devilboy@anv.net
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:46 AM
Subject: BAB and Modifier's roll for

Hello! You're receiving this message because somebody requested that their dice rolls at http://dice.evildm.net/ be sent to you.

Results of BAB and Modifier 2's die rolled on October 29th, 2009 at 11:46:49 GMT

1d20 + 6: 16 + 6 = 22

This roll was e-mailed to devilboy@anv.net.

minkscooter wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I agree that the ease of Paizo's dice roller is a major selling point. If I ever run a PBP on Paizo, I would probably tell the players to use it, until I notice one player get lucky die rolls at all the critical moments.
That's exactly the problem. Now if I happen to get lucky, I have to worry about whether everyone else will believe it. How fun is that? When I play an RPG around a table with friends, if someone rolls a natural 20 at a crucial moment, it's something to cheer about. Everyone can see the dice so there's not an instant of doubt about what was rolled.

Good point!

Mind you, I didn't really mean just ONE lucky roll at a crucial moment. I meant that if someone gets a dozen critical hits in a row, or something like that...

But still, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't want to make a player uncomfortable for having a string of good luck. Better that a player should ACTUALLY cheat, rather than the DM making all the players uncomfortable. You've convinced me! Go, Paizo dice-roller!

(Heck, I just came to realize that I can have good luck, too. I often think that dice hate me because of the way I get strings of unlucky rolls during some battles. Yet I'm usually quite lucky when rolling ability scores...)

EDIT: Okay, I just looked over your older posts, minkscooter, and I see that you were advocating the OPPOSITE of what I momentarily thought you were. You were saying that more security should be added to Paizo's dice roller, and I interpretted you to mean that we shouldn't worry so much about security. Well, you've convinced me not to worry about it, even if that's not the way you feel.

I allow them, if a player cheats and I catch them I say nothing...but ya know they do pay for that bad roll..oh yes they pay.

Really I have no issue if someone wants to cheat bad enough they will, and you can on IC. It comes down to trust, I trust my players not to cheat, it's up to another DM to make that call if they do as well

1d20 + 15 ⇒ (8) + 15 = 23

EDIT: Cool, thank you PAIZO!

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Mind you, I didn't really mean just ONE lucky roll at a crucial moment. I meant that if someone gets a dozen critical hits in a row, or something like that...

So as long as the cheating isn't noticeable, you don't care? A cheater doesn't have to make it obvious by posting a dozen crits in a row.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Sorry Mink, I never said you were a cheater. I just said that if someone wants to cheat, they will.

I believe that's what you meant, however...

Patrick Curtin wrote:

If you feel you need to cheat, go ahead, because cheaters never prosper

...
Go ahead, if I catch you at it you won't be invited back to my game, so it's a risk you take for little benefit.

Your wording sounded a little finger-pointy I guess.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
IC has security features in it, but does that make them immune to cheaters? Nope. I can think of several ways to circumvent their security measures without breaking a sweat.

Can you describe one?

Patrick Curtin wrote:
A sharp-eyed DM might catch me, but when you are running a PbP you really have to trust those you play with. All I was saying.

A DM who simply bothers to look will catch it. A good rule I'd suggest is that DMs not accept rolls without an accompanying description, which can be something simple like "Perception" or "Will save".

Patrick Curtin wrote:
all the high-tech security in the world will only make it harder for them to cheat, not impossible.

No, it's preventable. While theoretically nothing is "impossible", I will settle for absurd or easily detectable. Are you suggesting that people will infiltrate Paizo's servers if they have to?

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Anyway, this conversation is rapidly falling off the rails. You personally don't like the new code, I understand that. I do, and the only reason I replied to your complaints was you pullquoted me. Ross, once again thank you for inculding it. I will be using it, non-checkable results and all.

Pullquoted? Don't you just mean quoted? Are you suggesting that I did something misleading or quoted you out of context?

How has the conversation gone off the rails? We're still talking about the new dice roller. Or is criticism off topic because the purpose of the thread is to say good things about the roller?

I have nothing against the new code if it would do what it should: generate believable random numbers. In its current stage of development the roller does more harm than good to play-by-post on these messageboards.

I will make a climb check to overcome the collective indifference to the problem:

1d20 ⇒ 20

:)

minkscooter wrote:
Your wording sounded a little finger-pointy I guess.

It was meant for the impersonal 'you'. My apologies if you took it personally, it was not meant to be.

minkscooter wrote:
Can you describe one?

Mistype the name of the PC. If the roll is good, keep it, if not, reroll with correct spelling. If questioned on mispelling, claim it was a typo. Wont get you 10 free rolls, but will get you a do-over.

EDIT: And to forestall more arguments, I know this can be checked by further searching on IC. But it makes the harried GM do more searching, which most don't have the time for.

minkscooter wrote:
A DM who simply bothers to look will catch it. A good rule I'd suggest is that DMs not accept rolls without an accompanying description, which can be something simple like "Perception" or "Will save".

Well, I guess we have a difference of opinion. I don't have time to fact check every roll, not with four games currently going on this site. I accept that my players are honest, and that I don't have to play nanny. YMMV.

minkscooter wrote:
No, it's preventable. While theoretically nothing is "impossible", I will settle for absurd or easily detectable. Are you suggesting that people will infiltrate Paizo's servers if they have to?

??? If they want to write in a checking code, by all means. I just am happy they released the dice code early so I can take advantage of it. If they tighten up the security, then that's all to the good. All I was trying to say is no security is perfect, and that cheaters will cheat, no matter how many hurdles you place before them.

minkscooter wrote:
How has the conversation gone off the rails? We're still talking about the new dice roller. Or is criticism off topic because the purpose of the thread is to say good things about the roller?

The conversation is falling off the rails because I really don't want to argue about it any more. Pullquoted=quoted, as in took my words and quoted. Why you did, I'm not sure, as I was just thanking Ross for making the dice code. I get your complaints, I just don't agree with them. You dislike the code as is. I like it. Can we just agree to disagree and let it drop?

Hey monkey Patrick! You want me burn place down?

Neh. I'm done. Off to more productive threads ...

shrugs. tries to set fire anyway. burns self.

"Here they this" Hands goblin a ring of fire resistance and a bag of holding having nothing but alchemists fire

"There ya go, carry on"

minkscooter wrote:
Aaron Bitman wrote:
Mind you, I didn't really mean just ONE lucky roll at a crucial moment. I meant that if someone gets a dozen critical hits in a row, or something like that...
So as long as the cheating isn't noticeable, you don't care? A cheater doesn't have to make it obvious by posting a dozen crits in a row.

That's not what I meant. I meant that if I were running a game, and someone got one lucky roll, I wouldn't think that player is cheating. I'd think that player got a lucky roll.

Aaron Bitman wrote:
How would someone cheat with that (EDIT: "that" meaning Invisible Castle), without the risk of getting caught?
Patrick Curtin wrote:
The problem is, there is a risk being caught no matter how you cheat. Sure IC's tracking and security is tighter, but I will trade the security factor being slightly better for the ease of use and trust that my players are big enough people not to have to cheat. Like I said, there's no money on the table, and I would hope that anyone who cheats will realize that they are being a yutz for a make-believe game and they really should get up from the computer and take a long hard look in the mirror.

Hah! I knew it! Patrick Curtin CAN'T figure out a way to cheat with Invis-...

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Mistype the name of the PC. If the roll is good, keep it, if not, reroll with correct spelling. If questioned on mispelling, claim it was a typo. Wont get you 10 free rolls, but will get you a do-over.

Oh. That's a... um... good answer. Is it getting hot in here? I think I'm going to stand over THERE now...

Seriously, though, good form. Your arguments would convince me not to be so uptight about security, except that I have already been convinced of that.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Pullquoted=quoted, as in took my words and quoted.

Sorry, I honestly misunderstood the word, and I think one of the sources I checked at the time misled me. I hope at least you won't hold that against me.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
I just am happy they released the dice code early so I can take advantage of it. If they tighten up the security, then that's all to the good.

I just hope releasing early hasn't limited Paizo's options for the future by making people resistant to any change that adds any inconvenience at all. Hopefully there's a solution that won't need to do that.

Patrick Curtin wrote:
All I was trying to say is no security is perfect, and that cheaters will cheat, no matter how many hurdles you place before them.

No, I think there are some reasonable hurdles that would make cheating effectively impossible or easily detectable. I hope that's not inflammatory, and I apologize for my other remarks that were.

No hard feelings I hope. I imagine we would enjoy being in a pbp together, in spite of this.

minkscooter wrote:
No hard feelings I hope. I imagine we would enjoy being in a pbp together, in spite of this.

No worries Mink, I think most of the ill feelings were miscommunications brought on by the imperfect interface known as the Interwebz. Insults real and imagined can be exacerbated by this medium. I hold no ill feelings, despite our differences in security protocol preferences :)

1d20 + 3 ⇒ (18) + 3 = 211d6 + 2 ⇒ (4) + 2 = 6

Just an experiment to see if editing my post will change the dice rolls.

1d20 + 3 ⇒ (9) + 3 = 12

 101 to 150 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>