Absurd number of Nat 1 rolls?

[Aramachen]

is it just me? i mean ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ DICE REALLY? just had a battle with 15 NAT 1S IN A ROW. i see more nat 1s in a single hour session then ive seen in a month of tabletop with pathfinder

[Immortal Reaver]

4 people and I (as DM for 3 enemies), for total of 7 rolls, all of us rolled Nat1 on reflex on 1 metamagiced fireball. Total wipeout, nobody survived.

[Perception312]

Every RPG with RNG I've ever played has this complaint. It's bias. However, a game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating, so I support the idea of a mechanism that prevents absurdly poor streaks of luck for the player. Obviously not happening, but it's something I would consider if I made a game.

[Frostfeather]

Originally posted by Perception312:

Every RPG with RNG I've ever played has this complaint. It's bias. However, a game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating, so I support the idea of a mechanism that prevents absurdly poor streaks of luck for the player. Obviously not happening, but it's something I would consider if I made a game.

Then would it prevent good luck streaks, too? I dunno.

It's up to the player to play in such a way where their success isn't dependent upon a luck streak. Though it's not difficult in vanilla Kingmaker, it's one reason why the Call of the Wild mod is so nice to have. It gives you even more tools to do that, such as more "advantage"/reroll mechanics.

[Rizilliant]

I have this problem in BOTh games.. Particularly on skill checks! It absolutely is absurd, and simply not possible for SO many rolls to be so front loaded

[GeorgeJJR]

i have to admit some of the sequences seem very unlikely. I just had 23 rolls in a row of 10 and under. The chances of that are about 1 in 10 million, so even with admitted confirmation bias it seems odd. Of course I wouldn't have noticed if both my chars and the monster weren't constantly missing (it stands out if you're in turn-based mode), but going back into the combat log the data is there. Pseudo-random numbers tend to have longer sequences, but it still seems excessive.

Given how standardised random number generating functions are (they almost certainly simply use a library function), it makes me wonder if they tip the scales on the rolls themselves at higher difficulty levels.

[asame_akio]

The whole point of random numbers is that they’re random. Every single string of results you get is one out of tens or hundreds of millions, that’s just how probability works. The odds of getting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 are the exact same as getting 13-6-5-18-3-9-16-12-19-13, you just happen to notice it when the former happens because humans are programmed to pay more attention to patterns.

[talemore]

Originally posted by asame_akio:

The whole point of random numbers is that they’re random. Every single string of results you get is one out of tens or hundreds of millions, that’s just how probability works. The odds of getting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 are the exact same as getting 13-6-5-18-3-9-16-12-19-13, you just happen to notice it when the former happens because humans are programmed to pay more attention to patterns.

It's never a 1 or 2 who is rolled who result into a 1 or a 2 because if you got +5 in strength you always roll 6

They need to lost their bonuses to dexterity that give an extra +4 to hit

At 10 you'll need another 10 and another 10 for their armor.

That's why without true strike it's like a roulette. This isn't including BAB since a fighter at max level hits with their first strike as if their attack had true strike.

With a BAB of 15 it at least need 10 in strength with true strike. Without it they need 30 in strength. Just showing how ridiculously low the chances are without true strike.

[99Random]

Originally posted by talemore:

Originally posted by asame_akio:

The whole point of random numbers is that they’re random. Every single string of results you get is one out of tens or hundreds of millions, that’s just how probability works. The odds of getting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 are the exact same as getting 13-6-5-18-3-9-16-12-19-13, you just happen to notice it when the former happens because humans are programmed to pay more attention to patterns.

It's never a 1 or 2 who is rolled who result into a 1 or a 2 because if you got +5 in strength you always roll 6

They need to lost their bonuses to dexterity that give an extra +4 to hit

At 10 you'll need another 10 and another 10 for their armor.

That's why without true strike it's like a roulette. This isn't including BAB since a fighter at max level hits with their first strike as if their attack had true strike.

With a BAB of 15 it at least need 10 in strength with true strike. Without it they need 30 in strength. Just showing how ridiculously low the chances are without true strike.

Everyone else here is talking about unmodified ("nat") rolls. What are you talking about?

[TVMAN]

Originally posted by Perception312:

Every RPG with RNG I've ever played has this complaint. It's bias. However, a game is supposed to be fun, not frustrating, so I support the idea of a mechanism that prevents absurdly poor streaks of luck for the player. Obviously not happening, but it's something I would consider if I made a game.

Honestly, the way Baldur's Gate 3 handles it is pretty good. That game has a Weighted Dice setting, where if a player is hit with a string of bad luck, it'll start tilting the rolls in the players favor so they're not missing 10 rolls in a row or something. It's great for those of us who are prone to bad luck.

It's also closer to the spirit of playing tabletop RPGs imo, where the DM will occasionally fudge rolls for a player who's experiencing a string of bad rolls in order to keep things fun for the table. Then again, I also don't subscribe to the Gygax school of adversarial DMing.

[GeorgeJJR]

Originally posted by asame_akio:

The whole point of random numbers is that they’re random. Every single string of results you get is one out of tens or hundreds of millions, that’s just how probability works. The odds of getting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 are the exact same as getting 13-6-5-18-3-9-16-12-19-13, you just happen to notice it when the former happens because humans are programmed to pay more attention to patterns.

That's true for exact sequences, but not for distributions. For example, flipping a coin 8 times the sequence H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T is no more likely than H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H, but a distribution of 4-H and 4-T is considerably more likely than a distribution of 8-H because there are considerably more possible sequences that give the 4-H and 4-T distribution (the joy of the binomial theorem).

In the case of D-20's, the odds of each roll of a natural-1 is 1/20, whereas the odds of each non-1 is 19/20, so the odds of a sequence of ten 1's is (1/20)^10, which is much smaller than the odds of a sequence of say ten non-1's (ie 2-20) , ie (19/20)^10.

That's why long strings of any specific number (say 1) are unlikely.

[talemore]

Originally posted by GeorgeJJR:

Originally posted by asame_akio:

The whole point of random numbers is that they’re random. Every single string of results you get is one out of tens or hundreds of millions, that’s just how probability works. The odds of getting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 are the exact same as getting 13-6-5-18-3-9-16-12-19-13, you just happen to notice it when the former happens because humans are programmed to pay more attention to patterns.

That's true for exact sequences, but not for distributions. For example, flipping a coin 8 times the sequence H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T is no more likely than H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H, but a distribution of 4-H and 4-T is considerably more likely than a distribution of 8-H because there are considerably more possible sequences that give the 4-H and 4-T distribution (the joy of the binomial theorem).

In the case of D-20's, the odds of each roll of a natural-1 is 1/20, whereas the odds of each non-1 is 19/20, so the odds of a sequence of ten 1's is (1/20)^10, which is much smaller than the odds of a sequence of say ten non-1's (ie 2-20) , ie (19/20)^10.

That's why long strings of any specific number (say 1) are unlikely.

Computers are good at follow instructions. Deck of cards, there are reality issues with computers for that reason. What If I could just put in the joker before you got to draw the next card or what If I draw the card who was meant for you or shuffle the deck by changing the number of cards. Or in any way making the next card never drawn. Fire emblem is an example where using a pattern make it draw the next number and since RNG is used for level up the best available outcome is made by drawing a card.

This is used in pathfinder where when a target makes a 20 they have to draw another card from the deck and use it instead of the 20 as part of bad luck.

With luck the player draws two cards and uses the best card or the card they want to use.

Rifles in action games uses RNG to simulate bullets and rubberband the aim away from the center.

I don't think that RNG itself is the issue but what mechanics at disposal.

Things are pushed upfront like multiclassing providing all benefits at level 1 and the chapters doesn't help much unless the levels 1-4 are designed to be easier.

Their reasoning that we must keep the level 1 spells useful didn't really help that magic missile can miss the target.
True strike can miss the target. Some spells should just be, since it's a level 1 spell I won't even bother to roll for resistances since there won't be any challenge who allow it to pass the check.

Sleep for example doesn't need any checks since it doesn't work on higher levels.

Instead we got this game where standard action is allowed to continue attacking even after it has missed the target the player still get to use the bonus attack bonuses on an attack who never hit.

This way fighters become high risk for high reward. Your chances are reduced while your damage increases. Your bonus attacks on the standard attacks are part of the standard attack. Some rogues get this ability on sneak attacks and archers get to summarize their bonuses as part of the standard attack.

But the issue with that is summarizing all bonus attacks damage as part of the standard attack makes armor weaker. In practice why two handed weapons is because in early game we use only standard attack without the bonus attacks.

This is why two weapon fighting is pointless. You don't summarize the attacks as part of the standard attack and if the standard attack doesn't hit it in practice wouldn't be possible to obtain bonus attacks on an attack who never occured.

This is why 2 standard attack versus 1 standard attack would help. Each standard attack obtain the bonuses but each attack can't summarize into a single attack like the rogue sneak attack or the archer. Likewise sneak attacks should only apply to 1 standard attack.

[The Big Sadman]

Originally posted by talemore:

Originally posted by GeorgeJJR:

That's true for exact sequences, but not for distributions. For example, flipping a coin 8 times the sequence H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T is no more likely than H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H, but a distribution of 4-H and 4-T is considerably more likely than a distribution of 8-H because there are considerably more possible sequences that give the 4-H and 4-T distribution (the joy of the binomial theorem).

In the case of D-20's, the odds of each roll of a natural-1 is 1/20, whereas the odds of each non-1 is 19/20, so the odds of a sequence of ten 1's is (1/20)^10, which is much smaller than the odds of a sequence of say ten non-1's (ie 2-20) , ie (19/20)^10.

That's why long strings of any specific number (say 1) are unlikely.

Computers are good at follow instructions. Deck of cards, there are reality issues with computers for that reason. What If I could just put in the joker before you got to draw the next card or what If I draw the card who was meant for you or shuffle the deck by changing the number of cards. Or in any way making the next card never drawn. Fire emblem is an example where using a pattern make it draw the next number and since RNG is used for level up the best available outcome is made by drawing a card.

This is used in pathfinder where when a target makes a 20 they have to draw another card from the deck and use it instead of the 20 as part of bad luck.

With luck the player draws two cards and uses the best card or the card they want to use.

Rifles in action games uses RNG to simulate bullets and rubberband the aim away from the center.

I don't think that RNG itself is the issue but what mechanics at disposal.

Things are pushed upfront like multiclassing providing all benefits at level 1 and the chapters doesn't help much unless the levels 1-4 are designed to be easier.

Their reasoning that we must keep the level 1 spells useful didn't really help that magic missile can miss the target.
True strike can miss the target. Some spells should just be, since it's a level 1 spell I won't even bother to roll for resistances since there won't be any challenge who allow it to pass the check.

Sleep for example doesn't need any checks since it doesn't work on higher levels.

Instead we got this game where standard action is allowed to continue attacking even after it has missed the target the player still get to use the bonus attack bonuses on an attack who never hit.

This way fighters become high risk for high reward. Your chances are reduced while your damage increases. Your bonus attacks on the standard attacks are part of the standard attack. Some rogues get this ability on sneak attacks and archers get to summarize their bonuses as part of the standard attack.

But the issue with that is summarizing all bonus attacks damage as part of the standard attack makes armor weaker. In practice why two handed weapons is because in early game we use only standard attack without the bonus attacks.

This is why two weapon fighting is pointless. You don't summarize the attacks as part of the standard attack and if the standard attack doesn't hit it in practice wouldn't be possible to obtain bonus attacks on an attack who never occured.

This is why 2 standard attack versus 1 standard attack would help. Each standard attack obtain the bonuses but each attack can't summarize into a single attack like the rogue sneak attack or the archer. Likewise sneak attacks should only apply to 1 standard attack.

what

[Frostfeather]

Originally posted by The Big Sadman:

what

Lol.

I don't even read what that person posts anymore. I'm not sure if they're a dedicated troll or just have a rather... unique way of looking at things, but either way the posts are mostly gibberish.

[ptirodaktill]

Originally posted by The Big Sadman:

what

Open AI

[talemore]

Originally posted by night4:

Originally posted by The Big Sadman:

what

Lol.

I don't even read what that person posts anymore. I'm not sure if they're a dedicated troll or just have a rather... unique way of looking at things, but either way the posts are mostly gibberish.

You're welcome to just leave if you have nothing to contribute.