[X] My Assistant

[Epicedion]

First a disclaimer: I don't know what "fiat" means. I've taken it as "personnal view". If that's not the case, I may have misinterpreted some points.

Fiat = arbitrary declaration, supported only by authority.

[Lionhearted]

I prefer to roll somewhat hidden, for the opposite reason... So I can fudge the roll if Im about to kill a player with a bullshit roll.
Don't get me wrong, they still suffer consequence but unless they've done something extraordinarily stupid I might reduce net hits from totally dead to survivable, necessary from time to time, I'm quite lucky with dice.

[Draco18s]

As two whole pages have sprung up overnight (I skimmed the first one) I did not see this mentioned:

NPCs do not have their own Edge (I believe this is even stated in the rules). Instead mooks have a "shared Edge pool" of a limited size. This keeps mooks from spending edge on every defense test where the GM can keep throwing more mooks at the problem. Only major NPCs--prime runners, dragons, etc.--have their own Edge pool.

[All4BigGuns]

That's a quality control issue with the GMs you've played with, then, not a rules issue. The GM's rolls are as secret as he wants them to be, but with few exceptions, at my table at least (and those of dozens of GMs I've played games with over the past 30-odd years), most of them are pretty open. Most of my players can see my dice unless it's critical for the story for them not to.

It's a roleplaying game. It's not a competition, as you make it out to be in most of your posts. Seriously, man, what is your issue with GMs?

The GM should just be subject to the same rules as his players in the interest of fairness, and how things are run in the game (even the style of game) should be determined by the majority of the group. The players are the majority, the GM is the minority, so when it comes to style or anything, what they say should be what goes.

[_Pax._]

As for the other silly notion of yours... it's not metagaming when players spend edge. But it is when a GM uses edge pool for NPCs? When he looks across the table after a roll and askes if you'd like to spend edge on that reaction test to avoid getting shot. Yet he's not allowed the same discretion for a prime NPC. No, rather than playing by the dice... yes I guess he should just 'ignore the rules' and invoke plot armor.

Check your targets - that's not my notion.

[_Pax._]

First a disclaimer: I don't know what "fiat" means. I've taken it as "personnal view". If that's not the case, I may have misinterpreted some points.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

Pay especial attention to #3. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[All4BigGuns]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

Pay especial attention to #3. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The 'arbitrary' part is the problem.

[Grinder]

Stop your discussion about the role of the GM, GM fiat, and related topics, as this is not topic of this thread. Thank you.

[Neurosis]

I prefer to roll somewhat hidden, for the opposite reason... So I can fudge the roll if Im about to kill a player with a bullshit roll.
Don't get me wrong, they still suffer consequence but unless they've done something extraordinarily stupid I might reduce net hits from totally dead to survivable, necessary from time to time, I'm quite lucky with dice.

My dice luck is apocalyptically powerful when GMing. It's really horrible: I can reliably roll 4-5 hits, 4-5 sixes, on 4-5 dice. More often than not. I don't fudge nearly enough. My players always die.

My dice luck translates SOMEWHAT when I'm PCing, but it's not nearly that ridiculous. I at least get SOME bad rolls. Never when I'm GMing, though. It's annoying.

By the way, the above specifically describes SR. It varies from game system to game system, I seem to have better luck with d6s then any other kind of dice.

Remember when we were kids in school and they taught us probability existed? lol

NPCs do not have their own Edge (I believe this is even stated in the rules). Instead mooks have a "shared Edge pool" of a limited size. This keeps mooks from spending edge on every defense test where the GM can keep throwing more mooks at the problem. Only major NPCs--prime runners, dragons, etc.--have their own Edge pool.

In SR4, all named NPCs and also spirits get their own Edge. Goons (nameless NPCs) get shared edge based on what used to be called Professional Rating/Threat Rating. The 'spirits' part is a bit of a problem. Spirits get as much edge as most PCs, and more than some. I kind of think they should be treated more like goons.

[All4BigGuns]

Careful Neurosis, there's several people on both forums that just harp on the mathematical calculations on probability and denigrate anyone who speaks of luck as superstitious and delusional...

[Neurosis]

Dude, weird shit happens with dice. Just saying. Like, if an "average" shadowrun roll should yield about one hit for every three dice rolled, according to probability, I consistently roll about one hit for every 1.5 dice rolled while GMing, or about twice as good as probability dictates. It's weird, it's scary, it happens. My players, on the other hand, are awesome at rolling absurd numbers of 1s and far-below-probability hits.

On the SAME PHYSICAL DICE.

Also, it happens specifically when I am GMing.

Perhaps every set of dice I have ever owned is somehow defective? Perhaps, more likely, there's some degree of observational bias? I'm not sure. What I am sure is that what I have learned about probability in school and what I have empirically observed do not sinc up at all. I am not a superstitious person, and certainly not delusional, which is why this observable phenomenon, with years of observed evidence, really weirds me out. It's not how it's supposed to work. Probability should exist. It just seems to well, get bent sometimes. : )

[All4BigGuns]

Dude, weird shit happens with dice. Just saying. Like, if an "average" shadowrun roll should yield about one hit for every three dice rolled, according to probability, I consistently roll about one hit for every 1.5 dice rolled while GMing, or about twice as good as probability dictates. It's weird, it's scary, it happens. My players, on the other hand, are awesome at rolling absurd numbers of 1s and far-below-probability hits.

On the SAME PHYSICAL DICE.

Also, it happens specifically when I am GMing.

Perhaps every set of dice I have ever owned is somehow defective? Perhaps, more likely, there's some degree of observational bias? I'm not sure. What I am sure is that what I have learned about probability in school and what I have empirically observed do not sinc up at all. I am not a superstitious person, and certainly not delusional, which is why this observable phenomenon, with years of observed evidence, really weirds me out. It's not how it's supposed to work. Probability should exist. It just seems to well, get bent sometimes. : )

Oh, I know it happens. I've seen it myself. I was just warning you that there are a lot of posters that attack people for suggesting that luck exists.

[Neurosis]

Oh, I know it happens. I've seen it myself. I was just warning you that there are a lot of posters that attack people for suggesting that luck exists.

LOL, that's pretty silly. : )

Then again, I've been on the anti-suspicion bandwagon myself, so I understand.

[hermit]

I was just warning you that there are a lot of posters that attack people for suggesting that luck exists.

Aww, he's being persecuted. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[thorya]

Double post, sorry.

[thorya]

Dude, weird shit happens with dice. Just saying. Like, if an "average" shadowrun roll should yield about one hit for every three dice rolled, according to probability, I consistently roll about one hit for every 1.5 dice rolled while GMing, or about twice as good as probability dictates. It's weird, it's scary, it happens. My players, on the other hand, are awesome at rolling absurd numbers of 1s and far-below-probability hits.

On the SAME PHYSICAL DICE.

Also, it happens specifically when I am GMing.

Perhaps every set of dice I have ever owned is somehow defective? Perhaps, more likely, there's some degree of observational bias? I'm not sure. What I am sure is that what I have learned about probability in school and what I have empirically observed do not sinc up at all. I am not a superstitious person, and certainly not delusional, which is why this observable phenomenon, with years of observed evidence, really weirds me out. It's not how it's supposed to work. Probability should exist. It just seems to well, get bent sometimes. : )

So that's where my freaking good rolls are going!

Seriously, on a d20, I have rolled 4 1's in a row followed by a 2 and another 1. I never have to fudge dice. When I get behind the screen the NPC's are screwed.

In our last game, I had a group of moderately trained opposition rolling 9 dice on short bursts (first one compensated and second one -3 for 6 dice). There were 3 of them. In 2 passes, I didn't roll above two hits on any of them. (6 rolls with 9 dice and 6 with 6 dice). What should have been a gang getting revenge on the team over a previous incident succeeded in doing 2 boxes of damage and messing up their van. After that, the group wasn't afraid of the gang any more, decided they could take em out rather than deal with them. The mage did more damage to herself crit glitching a summoning check. It would have been comical if they had seen what I was rolling.

[Sengir]

Dude, weird shit happens with dice.

Probability theory is not a script for the future, and there is no cosmic force which fudges your dice after rolling too good or bad for several times in a row. Not that I have much hope mankind will ever learn that, the gambler's fallacy is probably as old as gambling.


Still, there are plenty of cash challenges for proving a supernatural gift, so if you believe the laws of nature do not apply to you...

Like, if an "average" shadowrun roll should yield about one hit for every three dice rolled, according to probability

Rolling one hit in three dice has the highest individual probability among results, depending on the DP it might still be quite unlikely

[All4BigGuns]

And there one of them goes with the denigration...

[hermit]

The black helicopter's already on it's way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Halinn]

And there one of them goes with the denigration...

I like complaining about bad dice and poor luck as much as the next gamer. Doesn't change the fact that statistics actually work, and true randomness will have clumps. Here's a good example.

[_Pax._]

Probability theory is not a script for the future, and there is no cosmic force which fudges your dice after rolling too good or bad for several times in a row. Not that I have much hope mankind will ever learn that, the gambler's fallacy is probably as old as gambling.

Anecdotal rebuttal:

I ama huge, HUGE fan of point-buy attributes for ANY system ... due to experiences with campaign after campaign requiring a reboot, because of one player's unnatural luck with the dice. Seriously, three players; two would consistently get (using "4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste") averages around 12 or 13; one or two scores as low as 7, one or two scores as high as 16.

The third guy? Averaged 16+, never had less than 3-4 scores of 17+, never less than one 18. Anything lower than 13 was "really low" to him. And he wasn't cheating. It didn't matter where the rolls were made. I made him use my dice. I made him use a CUP. I rolled FOR him - not allowing him to even TOUCH the dice with his hands! Bloody hell, I even rolled for him, without him present, two days before he knew there would BE a game, in a different building than we played in; he got ONE set "suck it up", I rolled SIX APIECE for the other guys - same table, same hour, same dice, same hands. Once, I put him on "3d6 play 'em where they lay" hardcore 1E attribute gen, and the others kept the usual rules.

And for something like a year and a half, it was "Player C and his sidekicks" over and over again, because of how the attributes came out. Every. Single. DAMNED. Time.

...

Don't ever tell me there's no such thing as "luck". I've seen first-hand evidence of it, and it is very real. Unpredictible, but real.

[Halinn]

_Pax._, in spite of all the precautions you mention, I am quite certain that he was cheating. Since he got at least one 19 on 4d6 drop lowest, I'd check to see if he was actually using 6-siders, and if he was, whether or not they were actually numbered 1-6.

[All4BigGuns]

_Pax._, in spite of all the precautions you mention, I am quite certain that he was cheating. Since he got at least one 19 on 4d6 drop lowest, I'd check to see if he was actually using 6-siders, and if he was, whether or not they were actually numbered 1-6.

Dude, non-human race. Probably had a 17 before +2 from race for a total of 19.

[_Pax._]

_Pax._, in spite of all the precautions you mention, I am quite certain that he was cheating. Since he got at least one 19 on 4d6 drop lowest, I'd check to see if he was actually using 6-siders, and if he was, whether or not they were actually numbered 1-6.

That 19 was a typo, it should have been (and now is) "18".

And, regardless of aught else ... explain to me how he cheats when:

• A freshly-bought set of dice was used EDIT: and yes, since I bought them and I know how to tell one die from another, I am 100% certain they were six-sided dice;
• The same set of dice was used for ALL players;
• I rolled the dice, not him;
• The player in question had never set eyes upon said dice, let alone touched them;
• The player in question was a half-mile away from the dice when they were rolled;
• None of the players even knew dice were being rolled at all;
• The player in question was held to a stricter standard of generation (3d6 play-them-where-they-fall) than the other players (4d6, drop the lowest, arrange-to-taste)

It's literally physically impossible for him to have "cheated", unless you would like to posit an ability on his part to generate a quantum energy field of some sort, unconsciously and at great distance from himself, that applied only to tabletop RPG attribute generation for his own characters.

Which, well, would certainly be luck expressed in technobabble terms, yes?

[Shortstraw]

We have a house rule where if you roll 4 sixes you get a nineteen makes the character feel extra special. Also I have stat dice, they roll rubbish for anything but stats, for stats their average for stats is 15.