dain120475 |

Hey guys; I noticed that there's been a pretty frustrating trend in the campaign I'm playing for the past week regarding d20 rolls.

At first I thought it was nothing but bad luck, but I did a count in my game between 6 players and discovered that of the **41** d20 rolls made by 6 different players since Friday the 1st of November the following were the results:

30 of those rolls were 10 or below, the bulk of them being at best 8 or 9; and **15** of 41 d20 rolls in the same week were natural 5 or less.

Of the rolls that managed to beat a 10:

1 was an 11.

2 were 12's

3 of those rolls were 14.

1 was a 13.

1 was a 16.

1 was a 17.

2 were 19's.

I mean, we all have bad luck; but as it stands when more than 75% of 41 d20 rolls are 10 or less, and not one of them is a natural 20, I start to wonder if there's a glitch.

Is that something that may have happened? Could there be a glitch in the system?

Also, if there isn't a glitch, is there any way to just take a look at it anyway?

The thing is, I come to these games to feel like a hero, and when it takes more than a week for our entire 2nd level party of 6 players to kill a CR 3 (I think) monster; or the GM to hit us either, it feels pretty discouraging and makes me not want to even refresh the site or continue playing.

I don't know about the general staff or other players on the board; but it's my personal opinion that I'd rather be hitting more than missing.

I hope this doesn't sound petty or childish, but I was just wondering if it could be looked into.

If you guys check things out and find that it's really nothing but bad luck and there was no alterations to coding, well, I'll just suffer through it. But I'm actually wondering if something was changed in the coding in general because I've noticed this trend of lower rolls in a second campaign I've been playing also (though there the rolls are not as bad) but it seems to have started as of the 1st of November, so maybe it's not a coincidence?

Okay, that's pretty much it. Thanks again for any feedback in the matter; I'm pretty sure it may just be really bad luck, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention, just in case because after an entire week it seems crazy that 6 different players and 41 d20 rolls have that much bad luck in common :)

(By the way, the campaign is located **Here** if you'd like to check the results).

HangarFlying |

Well, just for giggles to test things:

**100 d20 rolls:**

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 2

Running these through my dice checker excel sheet, I don't have an indication of bias. Granted, I should do it with 400 rolls instead of 100 to get a really fair test, but I'm not motivated to copy/paste that many times.

dain120475 |

41 rolls are far not enough to be considered viable sample showing that the rolls are skewed.

That makes a lot of a sense, and I get the math to it, the thing is, I guess at was:

Did the general staff get together to compare notes at a meeting on how the site is doing and say (for example) - "Guys, I've noticed that players keep rolling fairly high in the games in general. There's been a lot of TPK's lately (Total Party Kills) and players are mowing through monsters so easily it's becoming boring. I think we need to even out the trend a bit so there is the chance of missing terribly as well as an unusually high amount of critical hits and critical confirmations. So let's go into the coding and make a few adjustments to lower the averages so things seem more 'average' rather than nothing but great rolls."

Now, I don't know if that happened or not, and chances are it didn't happen. But I wondered (based on the current results) if it did happen because having a general staff meeting and deciding to make adjustments at the start of the month seems possible.

The thing is, it could be nothing but bad luck and I understand that and I'll accept it.

What I'm trying to find out is if it is just really bad luck, or if the staff made a choice to alter the coding to lower the averages intentionally, because that is possible, too.

If I'm wrong, that's cool. But that's why I put it up on this thread, so that the moderators could tell me a definitive "yes we altered the coding" or "no, we didn't alter the coding, it's probably just bad luck at this point".

dain120475 |

Good. Now repeat that ten times and calculate standard deviation...

That's one option, but again, that's only one player.

In the campaign I'm playing not one of the six players is having decent luck; and after an entire week of not being able to hit more than 75% of the time, I'm just wondering if it's more than coincidence.

If 1 player consistently rolled bad, maybe they have bad luck, maybe their avatar/account has a glitch - but all of us?

Anyhow, I just thought I'd ask if it was an intentional coding issue to "even things out", or something else.

If it's just bad luck; that's one thing. If the coding was changed to even things out; well, I guess I'd just like to know either way.

Okay, I need to head out, but I'll check back later today.

Thanks again for all your help!

HangarFlying |

Rolls that I will put into my calculator.

**400 1d20 Rolls:**

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 2

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 4

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 16

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 10

1d20 ⇒ 14

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 3

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 8

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 12

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 13

1d20 ⇒ 7

1d20 ⇒ 18

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 6

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 5

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 17

1d20 ⇒ 1

1d20 ⇒ 15

1d20 ⇒ 9

1d20 ⇒ 11

1d20 ⇒ 20

1d20 ⇒ 19

1d20 ⇒ 12

dain120475 |

Rolls that I will put into my calculator.

** spoiler omitted **...

Most "random number generators" take in account outside variables which change during the day so you can't find patterns.

Variables such as User Accounts; time of postings; date of postings; and so on; all of those variables which change from day to day and minute to minute make a huge difference on the outcome of most software "Randomizers" so that people can't find patterns, because as external information changes, so too will the outcome of the randomizer.

So rolling 100 d20's in one post; or even 1,000 – that doesn't matter to the base calculator of the random outcomes.

You need to get a wide variety of subjects from a wide variety of times and dates to see the averages.

But none of it matters, though.

dain120475 |

**Patrick Harris @ MU**wrote:

] My impression (read: limited understanding) of this conversation:

A: "Math math math?"

B: "Psh, math math math."

C: "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED"

Fair enough; I'll try to put this another way:

**Question:**

*Did the moderators of the site change the coding of the system to make it more challenging to roll higher on a d20 than it has been in the past? *

That's a simple black and white question. I don't know how to contact the site administrator directly, or I would have done that instead.

By the way, it's just my opinion but I don't think your your post was very nice or helpful in answering the question.

I just wanted an answer to the question, that's all.

Thank you.

Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |

Chris Lambertz Digital Products Assistant |

Patrick Harris @ MU |

1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Alright, I'll try to put this as simply as possible and I'll cut out math, if that a problem:

Question:

Did the moderators of the site change the coding of the system to make it more challenging to roll higher on a d20 than it has been in the past?That's a simple black and white question. I just wanted a straight answer and I don't know how to contact the site administrator directly, or I would have done that instead.

Your comment didn't add anything to the post, it was just negative and wasn't helpful.

It's my opinion that if you don't have anything nice to say about a topic or other people, please just don't post anything.

Your post wasn't nice, and it wasn't very polite.

Thank you.

Okay, that clearly went over your head. Let me try it another way.

Your original post brought up the idea that there was an issue with randomization, and presented a limited sample size. The first response was someone telling you your sample size was too limited. The immediate response from a third party was to offer a larger sample size. Subsequent interactions been "B" and "C" were "B" upping the stakes and "C" gleefully rising to the challenge.

My "limited understanding" sidebar was a self-deprecating throwaway to make it clear that I was generalizing the math itself--which was irrelevant to my observation--and not asking for clarification.

Instead, I was pointing out the overall structure of the exchange, because I found it amusing--and pleasantly so, as HangarFlying seemed to get quite into the idea of testing this with a massive sample size, which as a nerd, I can appreciate on a big-picture level without having any interest in the task itself.

There was *nothing* in my post that was negative, and frankly I'm not even sure what you might have *mis*read so badly as to think I was *being* negative. The condescension and high-handed moralization you utilized to fight back against this perceived slight, however, adequately portray your willingness to ignore your own advice.

Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |

HangarFlying wrote:Rolls that I will put into my calculator.

** spoiler omitted **...

Most "random number generators" take in account outside variables which change during the day so you can't find patterns.

Variables such as User Accounts; time of postings; date of postings; and so on; all of those variables which change from day to day and minute to minute make a huge difference on the outcome of most software "Randomizers" so that people can't find patterns, because as external information changes, so too will the outcome of the randomizer.

So rolling 100 d20's in one post; or even 1,000 – that doesn't matter to the base calculator of the random outcomes.

You need to get a wide variety of subjects from a wide variety of times and dates to see the averages.

But none of it matters, though.

Our random number seed doesn't use techniques like that. Whether you roll 1000 dice in a single post, or roll 1 die in each of 1000 posts in one day, or 1 die in 1 post per day for 1000 days, you should see a similar amount of randomness.

dain120475 |

Nope. No modifications have been made to dice rolling recently.

Thank you for that information; I was curious mainly because of the extremely bad luck the crew I'm with keeps running into lately. Your answer does help, though.

It seems like it's just been bad luck. Hopefully our luck will turn soon :)

Our random number seed doesn't use techniques like that. Whether you roll 1000 dice in a single post, or roll 1 die in each of 1000 posts in one day, or 1 die in 1 post per day for 1000 days, you should see a similar amount of randomness.

Cool. I appreciate that as well, it's helpful to hear.

Meanwhile, I appreciate all the information you've both provided on the subject.

Thank you both!

Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |

Most "random number generators" take in account outside variables which change during the day so you can't find patterns.

Variables such as User Accounts; time of postings; date of postings; and so on; all of those variables which change from day to day and minute to minute make a huge difference on the outcome of most software "Randomizers" so that people can't find patterns, because as external information changes, so too will the outcome of the randomizer.

A properly designed random number generator will appear equally random regardless of the seed. Adding more 'noise' to the seed does not make the outcome more random.

bbangerter |

dain120475 wrote:A properly designed random number generator will appear equally random regardless of the seed. Adding more 'noise' to the seed does not make the outcome more random.

I'd actually be surprised of any websites using a method such as number of user accounts, or total post counts, etc as a seed for random number generation. There is simply no need to use such odd sources for a seed when there are plenty of more 'reliable' methods for setting an initial seed number.

Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |

I wouldn't doubt there is some site out there where the programmer didn't know enough. But even then, it shouldn't change the 'randomness' of the outcome unless the underlying random number generator is also poorly designed, or the programmer is mucking with the values after the randomizer spits them out.

However, a much more likely explanation for the perception that some sites do that is the human tendency to see patterns where there are none.

DeathQuaker RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8 |

HangarFlying |

Nowthere'sa challenge to the endurance of HangarFlying's nerdiness.

Sorry that I missed this post, but I was busy flying a jet at 41,000 (or 40,000 depending on direction) for the last few days. Unfortunately, my schedule would prohibit the regular postings that such a project would require.