Rolling a 1 5x consecutively is around 1 in 3.2 million

[Fast]

So how have i managed this even once...let alone twice on this playthrough...

for reference

0.000000312500 (0%) is the probability of this.

[Makkura]

Originally posted by Ichthyic:

Originally posted by Fast:

So how have i managed this even once...let alone twice on this playthrough...

for reference

0.000000312500 (0%) is the probability of this.

computers can only SIMULATE random numbers. there are inherent dependencies that sometimes produce strings. hence why they even added a detector for when this happens. you refused to use it, you get what you pay for.

The general randomness of generic algorithms is sufficient for all non encryptive purposes. If I roll 10000 dice or simulate 10000 rolls, you wouldn't be able to spot the difference.

[WeirdWizardDave]

Originally posted by Ichthyic:

Originally posted by Fast:

So how have i managed this even once...let alone twice on this playthrough...

for reference

0.000000312500 (0%) is the probability of this.

computers can only SIMULATE random numbers. there are inherent dependencies that sometimes produce strings. hence why they even added a detector for when this happens. you refused to use it, you get what you pay for.

Modern RNG algorithms satisfy statistical randomness to an incredibly high level. Whilst not truly random from a mathematical point of view. To a human observer it is as close as makes no difference.

[Aria Athena]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

Originally posted by Aria Athena:

Yes, but the probability that the guy who complains about something and tries to stir ♥♥♥♥ up every single day would roll that twice, is basically zero.

I'm not sure what the posting habbits of the player have to do with it. I suppose it might draw into doubt the report's validity which is certainly worth considering.

I am saying that regardless of the possibility of this happening, he is just lying. Saw another similar post getting much attention and made his own a couple days later.

[Gregorovitch]

Originally posted by Fast:

So how have i managed this even once...let alone twice on this playthrough...

for reference

0.000000312500 (0%) is the probability of this.

1. NPCs roll dice too so the 1's in question may not be consecutive which changes the probability calculation considerably.

2. Millions of people are playing BG3, currently an average of about 400k concurrently. Each player is generating hundreds of rolls per hour and playing for an average of maybe 100 hours each. Millions x hundreds x 100 = billions if not tens of billions of rolls. Suddenly an outlier sequence such a five 1s in a row doesn't look anything like as unlikely, in fact it becomes virtually a certainty.

3. Which is confirmed by the fact that out of all these millions of players it's just you and maybe a few other unlucky souls who have experienced a long string of 1s. This just confirms how unlikely it is.

Finally, as always has to be pointed out in these cases, rolling 1,1,1,1,1 has EXACTLY the same probability as rolling 17,8,3,20,14 (in that order). Any sequence of five rolls you ever make in the game has EXACTLY the same probability as rolling any other sequence including five 1s.

The ONLY reason why rolling five 1's is in any way notable at all is that according to the rules of the game very bad things tend to happen to a player who roll five consecutive 1's. But that is 100% due to the rules of the game and 0% due to the laws of probability.

[Pieshaman]

this week I started a very important roll for 1 of the deadliest (and funniest) traps with 4 inspiration points.
I rolled a 1 (I not roll 1 too much so ok then I thought, no problem I have 4 more tries!)
next roll was a 2, the next a 3 and then a 4.
At least each throw went better right?
I said goodbye to inspiration points and hello to big round boulder that going to crush whole party like a pancake

[AirRevenant]

At a real table, I once rolled 3 natural 20s in a row in combat. These things happen.

[Marik]

Not sure how OP expects those numbers to be correct when even 10^5 is only 100000. In what world would (1/6^5) be anywhere close to 1/3200000?

[Crispy™]

I still have yet to see a single thread here complaining that someone rolled too many 20s in a row...

[Marik]

Originally posted by Geist:

Originally posted by Kris:

Not sure how OP expects those numbers to be correct when even 10^5 is only 100000. In what world would (1/6^5) be anywhere close to 1/3200000?

its 1/20^5 right?

Oh whoops, I just woke up

[Ranix]

I've seen much more unusual things

computerized random number generators aren't very random sometimes and streak hard

not that non-computerized ones are much better

[zero]

Originally posted by Crispy™:

I still have yet to see a single thread here complaining that someone rolled too many 20s in a row...

cause people fall for negative biases more then positive ones.

them critting 4 times in a row felt great and "should of happened".

these things happen in equal measure both ways, as thats ultimately what rng is.

i've had 4 20's on an actual table, you can find conversations online about people who have had more, or had worse with 1's, it all evens out in the end.

[a.out]

The chance of rolling 12 18 5 8 9 is the same as rolling 1 1 1 1 1. Every combination will be rolled for someone at some point.

[Zeel Ara]

Originally posted by Crispy™:

I still have yet to see a single thread here complaining that someone rolled too many 20s in a row...

Or people pointing out that they rolled 11 five times in a row. Despite that being exactly as unlikely as five times 1.

It's just confirmation bias and the basic human tendency to see patterns where they don't exist. But it's always funny to see these threads. Every single chance based video game has them.

I am still laughing about the time people were convinced that XCOM fudged the rolls to make them miss shots. And then it finally turned out that the rolls were indeed fudged. But in favour of the players :D

[Fast]

Originally posted by zero:

Originally posted by Crispy™:

I still have yet to see a single thread here complaining that someone rolled too many 20s in a row...

cause people fall for negative biases more then positive ones.

them critting 4 times in a row felt great and "should of happened".

these things happen in equal measure both ways, as thats ultimately what rng is.

i've had 4 20's on an actual table, you can find conversations online about people who have had more, or had worse with 1's, it all evens out in the end.

false. i have not even had 2 critical success in a row. ive been keeping track.

[Woldy]

Lucky guy.