AS I said, the mathematical formula for the perception of randomness is extremely complex. If you just have a programmer making a die roller, without the knowledge, then there is a major flaw.
The mathematical formula for the perception of randomness may be extremely complex, but the built in random() function that exists in practically every modern scripting language is not really that complicated to use. No one sane would code a random number generator from scratch just for a die rolling program.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can test for flaws in your existing dice. Get a micrometer and measure the different axis. Many dice are short on the 10-11 axis and long on the 1-20 axis. This will produce fewer 1's and 20's.
You can also test the weight of most dice by floating them in a salt water solution. Note: I used about a quart of epsom salt to about a quart of water. It took me awhile to get it to absorb that much salt.
Once you get the die floating, spin it (like a ball rolling on the ground, not like a top). If it radically changes direction at the end of the spin then it is weighted. The faster the direction change the more significant the weighting.
- Gauss
As alluded to, a program running on a smartphone is not going to be a real random number generator, but will use an pseudorandom number generator algorhythm, which is not truly random, AFAIK only computers that can measure some randomly variable physical quality are truly random... So I don't see how such a program is any better than a good set of dice. If the group feels there is a problem with the dice, get a new set of dice. Stretches of 'bad luck' are not a sign there is a problem, they are totally normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If using an electronic roller, I ask that players choose an app that produces results at least as visible to the rest of the players as a die roll, and the player declare what the die roll is for before making it (preferably with a sound effect so people know he is rolling). I have found that players find it too tempting to roll repeatedly if its silent/not visible.
Yes. This.
I HATE cheating. To the point where when I GM I never use a screen.
But when I'm a player, and I just rolled a handful of dice that are JUST short of what I need to succeed, I feel the temptation to fudge.
If you made it so it would be virtually undetectable to re-roll until I got the right result, it would be harder to resist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the roller is truely* random, it will have the same problem physical dice have, where some nights it will roll horribly, and some nights it will roll awesome.
If it is a random() function which is seeded and designed to ensure a moderately even distribution of numbers, it won't give abysmal nights, but it also won't give really awesome nights. Point out to him that the trade off is he will never get those nights where you roll 3 20s in a row. :)
*true random number generator, take the last 3 digits of a gigahertz clock. mod the output. close enough to random to compare approximately to dice.
|
If you have all your gamers buy high-quality dice and only roll them so much, test them for being weighted and the size of them, and make them bounce their dice off of 2 surface's (1 curved), then don't let them use their app. If you are a NORMAL GM and simply let them roll the dice they feel like rolling (Obviously loaded/cheat dice aside) then there isn't much of a difference between that and an average-low quality app. Now, there will be a bias between low-quality dice and high quality apps (and vice versa) but the bias will go either way, and still lies in average v. low quality dice (and apps).
|
However, he goes on to say he plans on using a smartphone app to roll his dice from now on. A little backstory: last night the players did have lots of poor rolls. He says the random number generators will do a better job than dice and prevent another "nightmare" like last night.
Should I let him use a phone app to generate random numbers?
How do the forum cognoscenti feel about this?
I would suggest not allowing it. You certainly sound hesitant. The app is probably completely legit, but if there is cheating going on, it could be very difficult to know.
Normal dice are plenty random. If he wants the most random dice possible, he can buy a set of GameScience Dice (they say theirs are the most random because they cut out the tumbling from the manufacturing process).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of dice will be just as random as a dice roller.While I can agree with the first part of your post, this part is not accurate. It would depend upon the person that did the coding for the die roller. AS I said, the mathematical formula for the perception of randomness is extremely complex.
If you consider ax + b mod c to be "extremely complex."
Making (and testing) a random number generator is a standard assignment in programming 101 classes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest not using the phone app, for a very different reason.
It's a distraction.
I have had many tables ban cell phones at the table, as it became a pain to repeat every turn in combat, or room/monster/NPC description, because someone was too busy dicking around with their phone.
For ease of use with dice, nab a dice tray. The first time I brought one in to a game, everybody was asking why that had not got one earlier.
agreed, i didn't spell that out, but such concerns are 110% valid reasons to use dice only.
but overall, i don't think it's kosher for this player to be unilaterally changing the terms of the game.
apparently, they didn't die, so the dice weren't really that serious of a problem.
and in fact, if they had died due to dice rolls, so what? that's part of the game.
nothing about that justifies one player imposing their own preferred rules change.
Unix rand() (specifically) is also well known to be a bad random number generator. The theory of random number generation has advanced substantially from the 1960s. Linux basically scrapped rand() altogether in favor of random() for that reason.
The vast majority of dice will be just as random as a dice roller.While I can agree with the first part of your post, this part is not accurate. It would depend upon the person that did the coding for the die roller. AS I said, the mathematical formula for the perception of randomness is extremely complex.If you consider ax + b mod c to be "extremely complex."
Making (and testing) a random number generator is a standard assignment in programming 101 classes.
This reminds me of something I did in my first year in a computer science course. I used the C rand() function on a Unix server to generate triplets - an X-coordinate, a Y-cordinate and a printable ASCII character, which it then plotted in a window. I then told it to continue running until I stopped it. I used (rand() * size) and truncated the result (rand() generates a floating point number between 0 and 1). Interestingly, it produced patterns on the screen. The random printable character seemed random, but the X/Y pairs tended to form a grid pattern - it was definitely NOT random.
Since then, I've had a healthy disrespect for random number generators. For most uses, they're fine, but there's always the danger that they'll have patterns to the numbers they generate (and shown by the pattern the UNIX rand() function was producing).
I did write a variant that appeared to be random, but it wasn't out-of-the-box.
Fun fact, the C standard library has that problem. We tested it in a compsci class by generating bits and casting the result to a bitmap. Use the unix syscall to get random numbers. Its better written :)
Should I let him use a phone app to generate random numbers? I'm afraid if he does it, everyone will want to do it, and while I'm only speculating, might a die roll being a little number on a phone only you can see make fudging easier?
Since he doesn't like the ranged penalty rule, he might compensate the -4/-8 secretly... I think it's a bad idea.
So you would need to make sure to be able to read the dice results.Do I have any right to even raise this issue when I myself roll dice behind aGM screen?
Actually I think that's a mistake.
Yes, you should roll perception/sense motive/bluff and such secretly to avoid metagaming from your players...but!!! for combat, we actually roll in a "box" like this: pic (ours is ~30cm in diameter)
obligation to have the dice bounce off the border at least 3 times, or "shoot it" spinning along the border for at least a full circuit.
All combat dice (attack, damage, saving throws) from players and DM alike are made in that box sitting in the middle of the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the posts, it seems like the guy in the OPs post is simply trying to 'cheat' himself an edge over his colleagues. If that's what he needs to do to get his RPG kicks, and you're ok with it, then fine.
Personally, I wouldn't be. Nor would my friends around the table be either (especially if it was so obvious)
I had a guy (I think many of us have been here) who almost continuously rolled a D20 over and over again, and when it come to his action, if the last roll he made was good he'd claim to use that 'Hey, I rolled a 17!'. If that roll wasn't good, he'd make an 'official' roll. Also, he'd try and discredit any low roll stating it was cantered and needed to be rerolled.
Errr, no. Stop that.
Thankfully, my current group are well past that, and tend to have much more fun sessions when things do go badly. Failure can be half the fun, especially when they learn from it and succeed the second time.
Depending on the personality of the player, this may be a battle not worth fighting. It's less disruptive to just say yes and allow him to use the phone app so you can get on with the task of playing.
The mathematical formula for the perception of randomness may be extremely complex, but the built in random() function that exists in practically every modern scripting language is not really that complicated to use. No one sane would code a random number generator from scratch just for a die rolling program.
I disagree. The build-in random() function in programming languages is notoriously NOT truly random. If you are making a dice roller for Pathfinder, or any other game that is heavily dependent on randomly generated numbers, you absolutely need something better.
Having said that, there are plenty of Internet-based random number generators that are based on things that are random, such as random.org which generates numbers based on atmospheric noise.
Tell him he can ignore the rule since it is taking aim to not hit allies, and instead just give him a % chance to hit his allies but not take the penalty.
So shooting into:
1v1 50/50
1v2 33/33/33
1v3 25/25/25/25
1v4 20/20/20/20/20
Considering his chances of hitting the enemy are drastically reduced and his chances of hitting his allies is drastically increased with each ally fighting the enemy it is almost always going to be a better idea to shoot the enemy with the penalty. Have him roll attack, damage, and then who the percentile targeted. Also, make allies flat-footed to him since they are not expecting him to attack them.
After the healer has to heal wounds caused by him a couple of times the healers will just stop healing him, and shortly thereafter: death.
Do this the easy way. If he doesn't want to take the -4 to attack, then he has a 50% chance to hit a friendly. This is how it was up and until pathfinders.
How is that easier than "No"?
Do this the easy way. If he doesn't want to take the -4 to attack, then he has a 50% chance to hit a friendly. This is how it was up and until pathfinders.
Ehm... Both in 3.0 and in 3.5 there wasn't such a rule, you just had the -4 penalty.
Wasn't there a feat in the Tiefling book / Blood of Fiends that let you ignore the penalty at the risk of hitting an ally?
|
|
Player sounds like he doesn't realize it's pretty hard to hit the desired target when the bad dude and the ally are assumed to be dodging blows, dancing around each other within their five foot squares, ducking, swinging and otherwise making aiming difficult.
Play some Chivalry: Medieval Warfare as the archer class. I guarantee you'll accidentally headshot an allied knight engaging an enemy a few times... And he will probably ragevote to kick you.
leo, the rule was there. I no longer have all the 50+ books of 3.0 and 3.5 to find the exact book and page number.
leo, the rule was there. I no longer have all the 50+ books of 3.0 and 3.5 to find the exact book and page number.
3.5 SRD, shooting or throwing in melee, you see there is a -4 to attack roll and not a percentage to hit someone else, i will try to dig the document for the 3.0 SRD (iirc was never a web site but a .doc file) and show you that it was the same in 3.0.
EDIT:Found it.
Here is the SRD for 3.0, download the combat actions file, around the 2nd page (i think) is the following "If a character shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target that is engaged in melee with an ally, that character suffer a -4 penalty on its attack roll."
So you see in 3.0, 3.5 and PF that rule is the same.
Thanks to everyone who offered advice. I quite like the idea of not taking the penalty in exchange for risking friendly fire.
It's all moot now as the player has decided to leave the game. We had a friendly and frank discussion over e-mail and he decided to find a game more suited to his preferences. It's probably for the best.
This is the first time I've GM'd with players I wasn't already friends with. Two sessions in, I've already learned a valuable lesson. Thanks again to everyone who chimed in. This really is a great site. Cheers!
I love how the OP calmly and maturely resolved his issue, which was really more of a PLAYER problem then a RULES problem;
And yet everyone goes on flagellating their favorite deceased equines!
(lets mock a person with claims a rule unfair, with examples of worse rules; and...
my statistical kung fu for calculating the equality of dice/random number generators is superior to yours.)
It's funny, is all I'm saying.
|
Thanks to everyone who offered advice. I quite like the idea of not taking the penalty in exchange for risking friendly fire.
It's all moot now as the player has decided to leave the game. We had a friendly and frank discussion over e-mail and he decided to find a game more suited to his preferences.
One where he flips a coin for everything, and the results are "Heads I win, Tails everyone else loses.", perhaps?
Wow a lot going on in this thread. Here are some of my random thoughts:
The first image you need to get out of your head is that combat isn't a bunch of guys waiting to take their turn like they're in line and the D.M.V. everything is happening all at the same time. It isn't the fighter walks up to the orc, swings his sword once and rolls to see if he hits or misses. The fighter moves up looking for openings, thrusts he sword a couple of times judging skill or making an opening, then rolls the dice to see if it hits.
The next thing you need to realize is that the penatlies aren't there to hurt the archer, they're there to make the acher relevent. I mean how would you feel if you make your archer character who's been training all his life to shoot a bow, and the wizard who's never been outside before is just as accurate as you are?
Then consider that throwing things are much more efficient then having to move up to the baddie.
Look at how you want, to make it more realistic, to make being an archer more significant, or to balance it against melee (who also have to deal with soft and hard covers by the way), either way, the penalites make sense.
|
I explain it based on game balance terms.
Its the price you pay for being able to stand 100 ft out of combat, while the fighter stands 5-10ft.
Also, the precise shot tree is ridiculously good so if he's not taking it he's not trying to be an archer. Ignoring anything but full cover and then ignoring EVEN THAT is so stupid good and hilarious that its worth taking.