How do you guys deal with bad luck in your rolls?
One of my players can't seem to roll more than 11 in a d20, i have allowed him to reroll a few times but what else can i do?
Then the character is unlucky as well. Try new dice.
>>45307371
The dice are probably fucked. Let him borrow your d20 for a session. If he still rolls like shit, never let him have a character with high luck when applicable.
Roll 3d6 instead.
>>45307371
Tell him the next low roll, you'll rape him.
Then do it.
Maintain eye contact during the rape. It works better that way.
Because of a curse, I can actually rely on rolling badly. So I just avoid rolling when it's important and if I have to, have someone else roll.
>>45307371
I put up with it, and make it a part of my character.
Failure is as much a part of the game as success.
>>45307371
Be a caster and make the bad guys roll saves instead. I played a Cleric in a campaign once and must've rolled less than 15 d20s the whole time.
>>45307371
>One of my players can't seem to roll more than 11 in a d20, i have allowed him to reroll a few times but what else can i do?
Anyone else remember that anon who once reported having similar trouble?
We asked him to dice roll on /tg/ but greater than 90% of them were always horrible results. Even when switching to roll under.
>>45307371
>How do you guys deal
Only small children don't know that lucky "streaks" never last. Adults deal with this by moving forward and never giving it another thought. Posting about it like 4chan is your blog is weapons-grade retarded, so here's your obligatory Kill Yourself.
>>45307403
>>45307426
>it's probably the dice
Probably isn't, kids. Statistically there's going to be some poor fucker somewhere who rolls shit all the time even with straight dice.
>>45307516
>crossposter from r/teenedgelords
>>45307371
By doing the following:
- not playing D&D and it's derivatives
- paying attention to the story and not rolls
- using systems that can be easily tweaked on the spot, so when shitty rolls keep going, you can just adjust difficulty without anyone noticing too much
>>45307371
>deal with bad luck in your rolls?
I remember my stats classes and don't let a random integer bring my mood down.
Also, I do basic analysis to understand how likely things are to work, and make sure my character and his tactics aren't garbage.
I roll shitty numbers pretty much constantly. How I "deal" wih it is that my characters are bumbling idiots and I'm often the laughing stock of the group.
Yeah, me, not the characters. Whoop de fucking do.
>>45307371
Sorcerer made failures just a poor success. I think fate does the same thing. Essentially you succeed on your action, but take a consequence. You are able to seduce the Duchess, but the Duke has been listening the whole time. That sort of thing.
>>45307371
Have them switch out the dice. Game science was pushing their dice based on how they didn't round out the edges, which does effect the rolls.
>>45307371
Assuming you live in a universe governed by physics and probability, if he genuinely can't roll well the die may be unbalanced in some way. Otherwise this may be confirmation bias - when he rolls poorly it's given extra weight in everyone''s memory because it's a big deal because he's cursed, if another gut rolls poorly nobody thinks of it because sometimes that just happens. You remember the bad rolls because you expect them and assign meaning.
Back a decade or so ago, I made 10,000 dice rolls to prove a point to my gaming group.
5 sets of 20d6s, 2 sets from chessex, 2 sets from gamescience, 1 set from IIRC crystal caste, to minimize manufacturer bias.
Each set of 20 dice got rolled 100 times through a dice tower, producing 10,000 individual results. I no longer have the spreadsheet that resulted breaking down the mean and medians by dice company...but the final arithmetic mean of the entire process will stick in my head forever.
The arithmetic mean of 10,000 dice rolls from 5 company's worth of d6s should have been something very close to a 3.5. Really, anywhere between about a 3.1 and a 3.9 result would have been fine.
Mine was a 2.10 (can't recall the thousandths digit). A reproduction of the experiment produced a 2.17.
So don't say there's no such thing as bad dice luck.
>>45307371
Most of the systems my group plays have a mechanical resource (hero points/fate points/willpower/whatever) that can be expended to reroll dice so it's not such an issue. in systems that don't have that you're just kinda stuck. sometimes it can force roleplay when the player has to un-fuck themselves but when it happens all the time, idk whatever you do as the gm is it.
>>45307371
http://textfiles.com/rpg/luck.txt
Bam, this has been explained in the past. Enjoy, a luck system for your games.
Shall I tell you all the Tale of Evil Keen, the bane of all dice?
Play a game that doesn't rely on randomness.
White to move
>>45307371
Make him DM, the rest of the group gets a lucky run or his luck turns around.
>>45316435
Sure why not.
>>45307448
This guy has it right.
>>45316435
>Shall I tell you all the Tale of Evil Keen, the bane of all dice?
>>45316853
>Sure why not.
Evil Keen is the most noble of gamers.
He is the truist of white knights.
He has but one weakness, Chance.
Any game dictated purely by chance, he abhors.
If his stategy cannot be undone by the whim of the dice, he will play and win or lose in equal measure.
But he never partakes of games of chance, and had told us why.
The fates/gods/God/orwhathaveyou have decreed that he shall fail.
I did not believe him, as you likely do not.
Then came the day I entreatied him to play RISK, and he submitted, prophecising the outcome.
That day I saw a man roll a number one on several six sided dice far more than is statistically probable.
>HE ROLLED 1's 70% OF THE TIME.
Those same dice worked fine for all else.
That day he beat me at Risk, only to be conquered by the third player, as he predicted.
More than that, he proved to me that the dice gods hate some individuals.
It happens.
It is real.
Fate can and will fuck you if it wills.
Remember the lesson of Evil Keen.
>>45311155
>crossposter from r/teenedgelords
If you honestly think that 4Chan is less edgy than Reddit then you haven't been paying attention.
>>45316839
Rook to g6 seems like the best move, black takes then Queen to g6 black moves King, Queen to d6 then d8 for Queen for Queen trade (assuming black King has not moved to e8, if he has Queen to e7 for mate.)
End game: clean up with your Knight until you can get a Pawn or two Queened.
>>45316970
My DnD group has a rogue that can't shoot stuff.
>>45317033
>My DnD group has a rogue that can't shoot stuff.
Measure and quantify his ineptitude,,,
...FOR SCIENCE!
Be sure to post results here for review.
>>45307371
My group had such player. Always rolled extremely bad. He changed his dice several times, but it had no effect. We even had to roll for him sometimes, so he wouldn't ruin some important thing by his bad roll.
Finally we found the solution - he started using a dice cup, so he wouldn't be physically touching his dice. It worked.
>>45317033
I've just noticed if black queen moves to g4 after white queen takes d6 it messes up this plan, still can't see a better play.
>>45317262
That's hard as he has ok days and days when it would be faster to just lay his ammo on the floor.
>>45317850
What about Knight to A-7?
>>45318026
Then queen to B7 fucks your knight.
>>45318026
>>45318165
Queen to c1, check mate.
>>45318319
Sorry not mate, I was forgetting the rest of the moves I said hadn't happened. It still let's black fuck about with a Queen in your base.
>>45316839
>>45317033
>>45318026
Not Knight to e7?
>>45318385
Could be best move, black Rook takes, white Queen takes and black to move.
>>45318385
>>45318414
No I missed the d6 pawn, bad trade, sticking to rook to g6.
>>45318441
Ignor this, Pawns can't take backwards.
>>45318456
always good to remember
>>45307371
This can be interesting. My wife has been playing for about 25 years and used to complain that while playing fighters/paladins/etc. her attack rolls were above average her saving throws were well below. We spent two years recording all of her rolls and, she was right - on attack rolls her average on a d20 was 13 and on her saving throws it was 8. I tried having her make 6 d20 rolls before play began (well, I started doing that for everyone) and those would be for the first 6 rolls she had to make, attack or save, and the we kept recording for another six months.
attack rolls average - 13
save rolls average - 8
first six rolls average - 10.5
No, I have no idea how or why. Same die for everything? Different die each time? numbers about the same.
Even weirder was the fact that when she played clerics, thieves, etc. her rolls were dead average. The odd skew is only when she plays combat monsters.
.
She just lives with it. It's just a game.
>>45318414
From here it looks like black queen to c1 to check, rook blocks, black then trades queen for rook to stop the rook to g6 mate in 2, queen cleans up blacks pawns and white gets some more queens then mate.
Can anyone see a better move for black given that at this point rook to g6 is mate in two?
Have him roll 21-1d20. Or add 10 to the 1-10 side and subtract 10 from the 11-20 side. It's exactly the same result, but a good way to shut them up for a while.
>>45315554
Best post in the thread and it gets ignored.
People bitch about statistics, but statistically someone out there will roll garbage forever.
>>45307371
rolled like shit anyway ever
now im gm
>>45318385
This.
Black can either move king to Hx, leading to rh3 mate, or it can qe7, leading to white mate
Tech up
>>45311108
Holy fuck, the shitposters are out in force this morning. And they can't even properly read the OP!
I have had two characters die from rolling triple 1s one of which actually died after i rolled four ones, some of my best builds have been ruined by shit rolls, and lately ive just been making spellcasters whi dont have to roll much because of it
>>45315554
Did the reproduction involve any of the original dice?
>>45315554
If by "bad luck" you mean statistical anomalies then yeah, no shit.
>>45320491
As a practical matter, that amounts to the same thing. "Bad Luck" is just a prolonged statistical anolomy.
That doesn't always mean that the trend will correct itself, though, within the timeframe you're giving it. If anon rolls 100,000 dice over his gaming lifetime and averages a 2.2, and stops gaming after those 100k rolls...then the statistical anomaly never corrected itself. It's equally probable that had he rolled another 100k, those rolls could have brought his lifetime average back up into a single standard deviation. Or it could have not corrected at all and it would take another 100k rolls (or more to do that).
You're NEVER "due" for a statistical anomaly to end at any given moment. If people want to describe a prolonged statistical anomaly as "bad luck", then they're fine to do so.
>>45320262
Sorry about that. I thought I had typed that into my original post. It should have read:
> A reproduction of the experiment using different dice collected from my gaming group produced a 2.17.
We played a lot of Shadowrun, so we had lots of d6 sets floating around the table at any given time. Made things a lot easier. And yes, I know that I could have always used a bigger sample size, and my experiment can be invalidated based on the argument that, "if you'd used a bigger sample you would have approached the arithmetic mean." Thing is, that argument can be used to invalidate any sample size, period.
>>45320491
In the end, is there any meaningful difference between the two? Or pretty much this whole post: >>45320764
>>45320491
>>45315554
I know there's a way to calculate the probability of this happening, and I know I know it, but it's been a while since Stats and I can't remember.
>>45307371
Fuck off, it's probably happened like 3 times at important moments, overall the player probably rolls just fine, it's just that you remember the bad ones.
There's no demon sitting on his shoulder nudging the dice, what the fuck do you expect from a thread that basically reads.
>Guys, how do you deal with chance?
Oh, you pretty much don't, because it's chance. Asking that question is like asking how to win at blackjack.
>>45320926
And remember, if it's improbable, that definitely means it's impossible and could never actually happen.
>>45315554
>Bad Dice Luck
>Average should be 3.5
>Got 2.1 instead over 10,000 rolls
>Bad Dice
FTFY
Also, you only have 20 dice for each company. That's not a large sample, even if you rolled them a lot.
>>45321246
>Also, you only have 20 dice for each company. That's not a large sample, even if you rolled them a lot.
He called this exact counterargment: >>45320838
Honestly, though, nobody's going to be convinced unless they're talking about something like buying 1000 dice per company per production batch, making sure to buy at least 4 different production batches spaced over a calendar year. Then you roll each die by itself 1000 times. It would all have to be done in person, since video can be faked, and you'd have to conduct the experiement again for each person individually.
In terms of conducting a reasonable sample that a person without $50 grand to spend on dice can actually do, there's absolutely nothing wrong with >>45315554's methodology. Everything that CAN be reasonably controlled for, was controlled for.
>>45321246
>Bad Dice Luck
>Average should be 3.5
>Got 2.1 instead over 10,000 rolls
>Only tested 100 dice
>Bad Dice
>Buy more dice for a better sample
>Bad Dice Luck
>Average should be 3.5
>Got 2.1 instead over 100,000 rolls
>Only tested 10,00 dice
>Bad Dice
>Buy more dice for a better sample
>Bad Dice Luck
>Average should be 3.5
>Got 2.1 instead over 10,000,000 rolls
>Only tested 100,000 dice
>Bad Dice
>Buy more dice for a better sample
>>45307371
My group has a player that has not rolled above a five in four years. On the upside, enemies constantly crit fail against him. It's fucking magic. He can stand at the top of a guard tower and have five people all slaughter themselves by trying to kill him.
He compensates by minmaxing the fuck out if his characters so they don't give a shit about the RNG.
>>45321598
That sounds like a character idea. An ordinary guy who generates a field of bad luck, causing himself and everyone around him to constantly critfail at everything.
>>45307371
This is me. We play D&D digitally(no physical dice) and we stopped the game to celebrate because I rolled a 10 once. Some people are just the ass end of statistics.
>>45321718
Which is funny, because we're running Hell's Rebels as NotDiamond Dogs. He's playing NotVenom Snake, and is a CQC machine that destroys in Stealth and Grapples. I'm playing NotKaz, a Duel Cursed Oracle who's only real purpose is rebellion logistics. But he's got Misfortune, and every poor bastard that actually hits Big Bird immediately gets a reroll for a nice fresh nat1.
>>45321718
Can he also give speeches about how the bad guys aren't living their lives correctly, before punching them in the face?
>>45322240
Eww...
>>45321485
You probably never had a statistics class.
Try a new dice mechanic with a bell curve. 3d6, treat 3-4 as Nat 1, 17-18 as Nat 20; crit chances drop from 5% to a little less than 2%, but that's a barely noticeable difference and average rolls are much more common Increasing the range to 3-5 and 16-18 makes it closer to d20 probabilities though (4.6% vs. d20's flat 5%).
>>45307371
If a character has utterly abysmal rolls or my dice are rolling off or something, I get them to use an online RNG.
It mightn't improve their luck any but at least its down to random chance then. Makes it easier to handle I find.
>>45321718
Isn't that Black Cat's power?
>>45322489
She doesn't cause herself to fail, only her foes
>>45319742
king to hx followed by rh3 isn't mate, black just goes queen to h3. gotta take his queen and play it out a few more turns with your three pieces to his one
>>45322321
>You probably never had a statistics class.
Tabletop statistics discussion consists primarily of people who are ignorant of statistics spouting nonsense at each other.
>>45319643
Statistically, the odds of rolling a 10 or lower on a d20 fifty times in a row are about 1 in 1015. So no, statistically, it's just about impossible to keep rolling badly forever.
>>45324103
Sorry, that SHOULD have been 10^15 and not 1015. Dunno why 4chan fucked up the formatting.
>>45311162
>changing the rules on the fly
What's the point of agreeing to use rules if you're just going to change them whenever you want?
If you find yourself ignoring the rules of the game you're playing because people aren't having fun, that's literally the strongest sign you could hope for that you need to be playing something else.
>>45324103
its statistically unlikely but not impossible. from a sample size of the entire human population that rolled 50 d20s across the entirety of history, you could probably find one dude who rolled like ass the whole time
and thats without considering any possible skew by imperfect dice being used
>>45324225
Theres a difference between changing it to have fun and ''Johnny is having really shitty luck so from now on he can choose to roll under instead of over.'' or something similar
One means unnecessarily extensive homebrews, the other is a one session allowance for one dude getting fucked over by random chance
>>45324319
Let me put that number in context: If everyone who could generously be called homo sapiens is counted, there has been way less than 100 billion humans who ever lived. Assuming all of them rolled a d20 fifty times, the odds of anyone having a streak of 50 rolls of 10 or lower would be 1/10 000.
I roll terribly in almost every single game. I compensate by choosing abilities and spells or whatever that don't require rolling as much as I possibly can.
Also I let my friend roll all important rolls. That helps too.
>>45324320
>Theres a difference between changing it to have fun and ''Johnny is having really shitty luck so from now on he can choose to roll under instead of over.'' or something similar
If luck were real wouldn't he then start rolling high on roll-under challenges?
>>45307371
Check to make sure they aren't rolling d12's.
>>45321718
pic related
>>45324921
I have no idea. Im not aware enough of the rules of statistics and such to make any educated comment. Im also not advocating for that approach, simply clarifying the intention behind the statement.
Personally, if the dice are rolling harsh I'll just suggest to the player to use an online roller. We all have smartphones, as long as they show me which roller they use (I usually recommend the one wizards has) and show me what they rolled Im happy. If the dice are being cruel, I turn to the most random option available.
>>45324924
i remember when a dude needed to roll a 10 or higher for a saving throw, got an eleven. then i mentioned he rolled a d12
dm allowed it
>>45324320
>''Johnny is having really shitty luck so from now on he can choose to roll under instead of over.''
>suddenly Johnny goes from being unable to roll above a 5 to being unable to roll under 15
that's how you test if it's the dice or the player
>>45322321
Yes, statistics tell us that is extraordinarily unlikely to happen and yet it did. When it does happen, we call it "bad luck".
>>45325125
Kek, I wish this was my group. Fuckers plain ol' don't know which dice is which.
>>45307371
>reroll a few times
And that is why you fail. Might as well play freeform if you don't take the dice as they roll.
>>45307371
Find him that one d20 you have that always rolls above 10.
>>45325274
Seconding this.
At the very least, use some kind of GM-cookies like inspiration or fate points to keep rerolls under control.
>>45322489
No, her power is fitting that body into that suit.
>>45326465
It's not a suit, it's just a kind of thick paint directly on to the skin.
Or at least that's how I rationalise the whole draw the character naked then fill in the clothing areas with colour thing that comics have going on
>>45326529
Isn't it easier just to assume there's some sort of costume material in superhero universes that works that way? Probably made by a wizard or and alien or some bullshit.
>>45325195
But it didn't happen. Things that unlikely don't.
>>45326572
Wouldn't be too hard to BS some incredibly puncture-resistant material that basically shrink-wraps itself at body heat temperatures.
In that case, the only question is whether it's possible to peel it off (potentially aided by zippers), or you need to take a cold shower at the end of every shift.
>>45316839
Are there rules out there for a version of chess where you have to roll to do things like take a peice or move?
Hmm... for movement you could make it so that the peices that move any amount in a line have to succeed a 2d4 roll over, where the target number is the amount you want to move the peice, getting less than that amount means you move the amount you roll.
Pawns have a flat 4 to beat on any move
Kings don't roll to move, only to castle
Knights have a flat 3 to move.
Taking a peice does not require a move roll but an attack roll, and if the player fails the attack roll the peice they tried to take with doesn't move. the target number to roll over is computed as following:
Pawns have an Defense Class (or target number to roll over) of 2 when being attacked, all peices get a +1 AC when on a square of the same color as their side.
Knights have a base defense of 3 and add a +1 when attacking another unit.
A rook have a defense of 6, and any friendly peice adjacent to them on the n, s, e or w side (but not diagonal) gains a +1 to defense that stacks with square color defensive bonuses but does not stack with additional (so a rook could have a defense of 8 and so only be takeable by a knight with a double 4 roll if it was on a same colored square and adjacent to its counterpart rook, but a king on a same color square with two rooks next to it would only have a defense of 6 rather than 7)
Queens and Bishops have a base defense of 4, and suffer a -1 penalty when on the opposite color square to their peice color, but a knight who has succesfully taken an enemy bishop or queen suffers a defense penalty of -1 for the opponents round immediately after the bishop or queen is taken.
A king has a base defense of 4, but can give themselves an almost permenant +1 defensive bonus if they can castle - this doesn't stack with the bonus from having a rook next to them and is lost if both friendly rooks are taken.
