[X] My Assistant

[All4BigGuns]

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.

I've heard of that rule, but the way I heard it was all dice coming up the same number (regardless of what the number was).

[Tashiro]

I have a reputation with dice in my house. I'll roll extremely well for attributes when they're needed, and I will often select a special die for gaming. I had a game master watching my die rolls for one game, and just stare in shock as I pulled off multiple 18s on 3d6. (And then a 6 on the bonus d6, since this was using Palladium mechanics). For this Nightspawn game, I wound up with a character using 24s+ in his social attributes, and a 44 for appearance (where Aphrodite has a 40).

Another friend is planning a new Pathfinder game, and has decided he wants to go point-buy, simply because he doesn't want me rolling attributes. :\ A shame, really. If you've got a talent, you should be allowed to use it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[_Pax._]

^^^^ Sounds just like the Mister Lucky I used to game with. ^_^

[Shortstraw]

I've heard of that rule, but the way I heard it was all dice coming up the same number (regardless of what the number was).

We just do 1's and 6's but ones go down.

[Cain]

The problem is that low-Edge refresh rates punish the lower Edge characters more than high ones. Leaving aside the issues of increasing dice pools, the higher Edge characters can ration their Edge just as well as anyone else. If you don't refresh often, the higher Edge characters will soon be the only ones with Edge left to play with.

[sk8bcn]

The problem is that low-Edge refresh rates punish the lower Edge characters more than high ones. Leaving aside the issues of increasing dice pools, the higher Edge characters can ration their Edge just as well as anyone else. If you don't refresh often, the higher Edge characters will soon be the only ones with Edge left to play with.

But he spend his experience somewhere else. It's not that clear.

[Sengir]

Anecdotal rebuttal:

1.) The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
2.) What you are describing is not a rebuttal but exactly what I'm talking about: The belief that unlikely events must not happen, or that $DEITY will fudge the dice to make the distribution of results match the probability distribution.

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.

Or maybe because they were expecting the game to be "Player C and his sidekicks"? There is a reason why science uses blind tests (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

@All4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXdM8fkup4Q

[_Pax._]

1.) The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"

Actually ... yes, it is. Data is information gained by observation. My anecdote is a single data point.

2.) What you are describing is not a rebuttal but exactly what I'm talking about: The belief that unlikely events must not happen, or that $DEITY will fudge the dice to make the distribution of results match the probability distribution.

A dozen or more instances, always following the same pattern of defying statistical probability, despite going to herculean lengths to remove that person's ability to physically manipulate the outcome.

Tell me what, you explain it.

Or maybe because they were expecting the game to be "Player C and his sidekicks"? There is a reason why science uses blind tests (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Did you just suggest that the player expectations of how the dice would fall, influenced where they actually did fall?

Player A: 8, 10, 10, 11, 13, 15 (average is ~11; average modifier is +0.3334 in a range from -1 to +2)
Player B: 7, 9, 12, 12, 14, 16 (average is ~11.5; average modifier is +0.8334 in a range from -2 to+3)
Player C: 13, 13, 13, 16, 16, 18 (average is 15; average modifier is +2.1667 in a range from +1 to +4)

To see the above general distribution, not just one or twice, but 10, 15, 20 times? That's a pattern, and it's one that defies statistical predictions.

So.

Without referencing luck, and given the tremendous anti-cheating measures I imposed... explain it.

[Tashiro]

Heh. The first time I discovered I was 'lucky' at RPGs, was the first tie I rolled a character for Star Frontiers. I'd only known the guy for a few days, and he was helping walk me through chargen, since this was my first RPG outside of Red Box D&D, and was new to the whole RPG thing still (wow... times sure change, I design RPGs now as a job). So, he showed me the d%, and told me to roll.

Me: "Watch me roll 00"
Dice: Here you go, boss!
Me: ...!
Him: ! ...

The look on his face was priceless. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[thorya]

Actually ... yes, it is. Data is information gained by observation. My anecdote is a single data point.


A dozen or more instances, always following the same pattern of defying statistical probability, despite going to herculean lengths to remove that person's ability tophysically manipulate the outcome.

Tell me what, you explain it.


Did you just suggest that the player expectations of how the dice wuld fall, influenced where they actually did fall?

Player A: 8, 10, 10, 11, 13, 15
Player B: 7, 9, 12, 12, 14, 16
Player C: 13, 13, 14, 16, 16, 18

To see the above general distribution, not just one or twice, but 10, 15, 20 times? That's a pattern, and it's one that defies statistical predictions.

So.

Without referencing luck, and given the tremendous anti-cheating measures I imposed... explain it.

Confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Everyone remembers when they had a really good set of rolls (or in my case a really bad set of rolls). I don't remember any of the stats I rolled in high school, but I definitely remember the one time that one guy in the group rolled 3 17's. Given that we each probably made about 6-10 characters throughout the time I played in high school and there were about 4-5 people in any given game, that's somewhere around 30-40 sets of stats that I don't remember anything about. So looking back the only things I remember are Matt's 3 17's and the time I rolled 4 1's one after another, out of thousands of rolls. Of course they're skewed. And since I now have it in my head that I roll terribly because of those 1's, every time I do it stands out and confirms my bias.

And given a large enough sample of roleplayers, it's likely that one amongst them will win the lottery on dice rolls (so to speak) and be able to present anecdotal evidence that really rare things are common. Just ask anyone who has won the lottery and it probably starts sounding like a good investment.

Also, that distribution is not actually very unlikely for 4d6, take the highest 3. Player B's rolls are actually about as likely as Player C's. 13 is the most commonly rolled number, 14 is the 3rd most common, 16 is the more common than 9 and while 18 is uncommon, it still happens more than 1 in a hundred times and it's only about 1/2 as rare as a 7.

[_Pax._]

Confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Everyone remembers when they had a really good set of rolls (or in my case a really bad set of rolls). I don't remember any of the stats I rolled in high school, but I definitely remember the one time that one guy in the group rolled 3 17's. Given that we each probably made about 6-10 characters throughout the time I played in high school and there were about 4-5 people in any given game, that's somewhere around 30-40 sets of stats that I don't remember anything about. So looking back the only things I remember are Matt's 3 17's and the time I rolled 4 1's one after another, out of thousands of rolls. Of course they're skewed. And since I now have it in my head that I roll terribly because of those 1's, every time I do it stands out and confirms my bias.

Absolutely Dead. Fecking. Wrong.

I had three players. The guy I'm talking about, NEVER had less than stellarly-awesome attributes. This isn't just "I only remember his good sets", no, I remember specifically the unbroken string of absolutely awesome attribute sets he had.

And given a large enough sample of roleplayers, it's likely that one amongst them will win the lottery on dice rolls (so to speak) and be able to present anecdotal evidence that really rare things are common. Just ask anyone who has won the lottery and it probably starts sounding like a good investment.

Every time?

This is like someone who can't win less than twenty bucks, on any $1 scratch ticket ... ever.

[Epicedion]

Absolutely Dead. Fecking. Wrong.

I had three players. The guy I'm talking about, NEVER had less than stellarly-awesome attributes. This isn't just "I only remember his good sets", no, I remember specifically the unbroken string of absolutely awesome attribute sets he had.


Every time?

This is like someone who can't win less than twenty bucks, on any $1 scratch ticket ... ever.

I'm going to have to go with "so what?" on this. It's not that unlikely, probably within a standard deviation, almost certainly within two. All the incredulity and implication is a nice touch, but this really isn't going anywhere.

[thorya]

Absolutely Dead. Fecking. Wrong.

I had three players. The guy I'm talking about, NEVER had less than stellarly-awesome attributes. This isn't just "I only remember his good sets", no, I remember specifically the unbroken string of absolutely awesome attribute sets he had.


Every time?

This is like someone who can't win less than twenty bucks, on any $1 scratch ticket ... ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect#Backfire_effect

There's simply no convincing you at this point.

Also, I use to know someone that can do that with scratch tickets. They're far from random. We worked at a gas station together and she could watch the pattern on a roll of scratch offs and determine when a winner was coming up. Turned a $7.00 an hour job into a $12-15 dollar an hour job for her. She probably could have made more, but she had to wait until the customers bought all the losers first.

[Sengir]

Actually ... yes, it is. Data is information gained by observation. My anecdote is a single data point.

Data is not just about quantity, but also about quality. Anecdotes typically do not involve controlled, repeatable conditions.

Did you just suggest that the player expectations of how the dice would fall, influenced where they actually did fall?

Always a possibility when objects are handled manually (see dowsing with pendulums or rods, or "facilitated communication"), but much more likely is simple observational bias, combined with a low sample size. And in case of how the games turned out a nocebo effect among the players -- they were convinced their characters would suck compared to Lucky Guy, so they played accordingly.

Without referencing luck, and given the tremendous anti-cheating measures I imposed... explain it.

You didn't even apply the most basic measure: Randomization. Roll a D4 under a cup and keep it there, then roll four character sheets, then look at the D4 to decide which sheet will be the one of Mister Lucky. Repeat ~50 times.

[_Pax._]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backfire_effect#Backfire_effect

There's simply no convincing you at this point.

Look, it's like this: I have a personal, direct, first-hand experience. I know three other people who are witnesses to it, as well.

So no, this isn't any "backfire effect" nonsense. You're not presenting me with evidence of any sort - you're just saying "that doesn't happen". Well, screw you, it did; I was there.

Or maybe this "backfire effect" is something you are experiencing? Ever consider that?


...


No, of course not. [/sarcasm]

[_Pax._]

Data is not just about quantity, but also about quality. Anecdotes typically do not involve controlled, repeatable conditions.

A lot of "data" doesn't involve controlled, repeatable conditions either. Climate science, for example.

[bannockburn]

Well, this player obviously has the lucky quality and has edge 8.

Of course he's lucky. Succeeding in spite of the odds is the definition of lucky. But ... how does this pertain to dice pools and edge usage in SR5?

[_Pax._]

Of course he's lucky. Succeeding in spite of the odds is the definition of lucky. But ... how does this pertain to dice pools and edge usage in SR5?

Edge = Luck.

And some people are offended by the idea that "luck"is a quantifiable, definitive advantage represented with an attribute. Nevermind the premise of dwarves, elves, magic, dragons, shedim, etc, etc. Nope; "luck" offends them. Thus ... Edge should be done away with. (As has been suggested in this very thread.)

[bannockburn]

Don't take offense, please. I am neither damning you nor trying to rile you up (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
I meant the real life person. Luck is as quantifiable in RL as God is and we don't go there either on a forum.
In game, yes, edge = luck, until it runs out. And I think, I've made my point of view on edge very clear a few pages back.

[Epicedion]

Edge = Luck.

And some people are offended by the idea that "luck"is a quantifiable, definitive advantage represented with an attribute. Nevermind the premise of dwarves, elves, magic, dragons, shedim, etc, etc. Nope; "luck" offends them. Thus ... Edge should be done away with. (As has been suggested in this very thread.)

What? Edge shouldn't go away because "luck" is offensive. Edge should go away because Edge is a stupid system that's poorly implemented and works awfully.

[_Pax._]

I've taken no offense at/from you, Bannock. You aren't suggesting that I'm either a liar or off my rocker. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[_Pax._]

What? Edge shouldn't go away because "luck" is offensive. Edge should go away because Edge is a stupid system that's poorly implemented and works awfully.

I disagree. One of the first thoughts I had about 3E, was that moving all those pools into an attribute, was elegant in it's simplicity.

[bannockburn]

What? Edge shouldn't go away because "luck" is offensive. Edge should go away because Edge is a stupid system that's poorly implemented and works awfully.

And I disagree, as many others do. I've seen no argument for why it's 'poorly implemented' and neither have I seen it 'work awfully'.
Karma pool was poorly implemented, because characters beyond a certain level always succeeded at what they tried. It still worked fine at normal power levels.
Edge works fine, too, except in a few fringe cases, where the system breaks down. Which is, in general, the case with most fringe cases.

[Epicedion]

I disagree. One of the first thoughts I had about 3E, was that moving all those pools into an attribute, was elegant in it's simplicity.

That's not what happened, though. Edge is most comparable to Karma Pool, not any of the other pools -- you don't get the effect (or even close) of the pools from Edge. The effect of Edge was to take Karma Pool and exponentiate its usefulness.

[bannockburn]

As well as limit it to a reasonable number with its inherent hardcap.