A quick rant about math and DMs - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 stealthmarmot Jun 28, 2009 13:54:03	I need to rant a bit here because I seem to be facing a problem with one of my DMs. He is a good DM, scratch that a great one, when it comes to concepts and storytelling and even in theoretical game mechanics that he is able to successfully flesh out custom built classes that actually work. However he has such a huge weakness that I end up wanting to hit my head against a brick wall every time I try to explain this to him. He sucks with numbers. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of statistics. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of PROBABILITY. He does not understand how multiple dice rolls are incredibly less likely to give maximum or minimum results. Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million. The idea of "well it could go this way" irks the crap out of me because as a guy who is good with numbers I can easily see that certain things are so bloody unlikely that they aren't even worth thinking of as possibilities! Statistical anomolies(sic) happen, but to count on them or expect them is an act of lunacy in a DM. This is made worse by our resident Dice Jesus. In fact we have a couple. One for stats the other for attack rolls. One ends up with 15+ in all but one or 2 of his stats from 4d6 drop the lowest (out of 8 stats, we add comeliness and luck) and the other has, in more than one occasion, rolled 3 natural 20s in a row. Even considering the high amount of rolling we do, this guy has shattered statistics. It really makes it hard to argue when I say "Do you know what the chances of getting 4 20s in a row is?" and he remarks "I've seen it happen more than once." What makes it worse is that, of course, he DMs first edition. So you can imagine his delusions of how numbers and probability workings can have a negative effect on those of us who can't pull 3 20s in a row out of our collective asses. It is not as if we haven't tried to explain it to him either, but every time there is a numbers discussion, where me and the Physics major are explaining the numbers, everyone at the table gets it but the DM. It scares me that our first edition DM doesn't understand statistics and probability and may explain how my characters keep dying. Now we got into it when I explained to him why his new system for stats screwed the characters over. We added a new system that increases stats over time, but instead of getting 4d6 drop the lowest, we get 3d6 flat. Now at every level we get a certain amount of points to put into pre selected stats every level in the form of primary, secondary, tertiary and elective stats. The primary, secondary and tertiary stats are selected already by your class (example the Thief gets Dexterity as primary, Intelligence as a secondary, and Strength as a tertiary). The elective stat you can pick. At each level for the primary stat you get 2d10 + 2/level points. (For example at second level you would get 2d10 + 4 points, at 3rd you would get 2d10 +6) The secondary stat gets 2d8 + 1/level The tertiary stat gets 2d8 + .5/level The elective stat gets 2d10 flat. In order to increase a stat you need to put 100 points into it. If the stat is under 8 then it costs less, starting at getting 2 for 1 (which means it only takes 50 to increase a stat from 7 to 8). If the stat you are increasing is already a 15 or higher (Which is likely if it is your primary stat since that is why you would pick the class to begin with) it costs more, starting at costing 2 for 1 (which means it would cost 200 to get a stat increase from 15 to 16.) Now being the logical person I am, I assume that when it comes to dice rolls I take the averages to be what will likely be rolled especially with several dice rolls involved (it will average out more as the amount of rolls increase). I proceeded to explain to my DM why we would get at best an increase of 1 to to the primary stat at 5th level, probably not until 6th, an increase of 1 to the secondary stat at 7th probably not until 8th, and an increase of the tertiary stat at 8th level, probably not until 9th, and the elective stat would have only a slim chance of increasing at 8th, less than 50% chance by 9th, and would probably take until 10th level to increase. The next time would be the primary stat again at around 9th level, probably 10th. Now to be clear this is ASSUMING all these stats are under 15, which given that they are the primary stats, is not too likely. Not to mention in First edition the difference between 8 and 13 usually meant almost no difference in anything. So unless your stat was currently 13 or 14, this would not be helpful, and if it was a 15 or higher you would probably need to wait until 10th level. I have been playing in his campaign for 7 years. The highest level character I have EVER seen a player get to is level 9, and he only barely got level 8 and then luckily got a wish spell that we agreed to let him get the 9th level with. (He is a cleric. Raise Dead in first edition takes 1 round and costs 0 components. Makes him the most valuable guy around.) In D&D First edition you need to double your current XP to level usually. Basically is what I am getting at is that our DM gimped our character creation and gimped our characters for most if not all of the time we will likely play them for, in fact even with the stat increases the 4d6 drop lowest is better because you have a much better chance of getting high stats like 15 and above, where most stats in first edition actually start giving tangible bonuses. What makes me mad though is that he gimped our new characters and all future characters and does not even freaking realize it because he thinks one, that the characters have a chance at getting perfect rolls and stats at lower levels than my projections (which although possible is incredibly unlikely, we are talking less than 2% chance in most cases, and even then we are talking 1 level earlier than the "best" I gave) and two he says that at 20th level or in his hyperbole "35th level" we will be getting tons of points to increase stats. That part really makes me mad when I have been in his game 7 years and the highest level character I ever had was a level 6 thief level 6 cleric (equivelent level 7 multiclass character). I have never had a character reach 7th level in his campaign. I have one close right now but I have never had any close to 8th. As for why that is, well he plays first edition, and has put a limit of 3 resurrections on characters by any means. Although only 1 character has reached that limit, (which we circumvented once using reincarnation. He died again) the others either didn't make their resurrection survival roll (what a load of crap those things are), or were simply deemed not worth reviving. (Resurrections are 10k gold) or their bodies were beyond retrieval. I have horrible luck as a player, or I simply don't min max enough, or it might be the fact that my longest running character was a thief, which is the butt monkey of first edition. (later thief/cleric, but mostly tried to be a thief) Of course that is another thing, I tried to explain why thieves having a separate skill roll to find the trap and to DISARM it was such a bad thing, especially considered if you succeeded on the first and FAILED on the second, the trap goes off at you and anyone else caught in the blast radius as applicable. Yeah now my 6th level thief with 18 dexterity has a 55% chance to find he trap and a 55% chance to disarm it. I think the DM sees that as 55% but with 2 rolls it comes to about 30% chance of BOTH finding it and disarming it without it blowing up on him. And no, stating specific instructions like "Well if the dart is set to shoot out of that hole, then I can put a block of wood up in front of it to block it in case it shoots off accidentally right?" Wrong. That's apparently part of the disarm attempt and has a 45% chance to fail. And there are loads of traps in his game. And don't get me started on the move silently/hide in shadows crap. 2 rolls either one fails and you fail. 6th level thief, 18 dexterity, 45% and 50%. That's 22.5% chance to slip by the yelling level 1 town drunk, 77.5% chance he notices you. I don't think I ever actually succeeded in sneaking with my thief, and I think I failed 3 or 4 times with a trap and only succeeded once or twice. Only survived one trap because I literally had another cleric STANDING OVER ME with a neutralize poison spell READIED, even though I found the trap and it was the dart one in my example that I wasn't allowed to just put a piece of wood in front of. But I did succeed often at one thing, picking pockets. Whoop de doo. I guess I am just ranting here, feel free to ignore me, but tell me if you have ever had this problem with a DM who was bad at probability, statistics, or math in general, and it affected your game?
#2 silent_stone Jun 28, 2009 22:25:34	I totally feel your pain here, although for me it is from the perspective of a DM dealing with less-mathematically-talented players, and it has never been as bad as you describe. Most of the time, I was either able to give a quick explanation of whatever statistical concept we encountered, but frequently I had to rely on saying "uh, let's just finish this encounter first" (and hoping they would forget the question before they could raise it again). Fortunately, for the most part, D&D doesn't require a doctorate in mathematics to DM or play...unfortunately, the game is built on a framework of mathematics and adjudicated through large quantities of random numbers (which behave statistically), and those who tinker with the system without at least a basic grasp of the mathematics involved are likely to end up with something far wonkier than the original, at best. A minor nitpick... Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million. If a level 10 fighter without a con bonus had to roll a d10 each level for their hit points, the odds of ending up with a total of 100 hit points would be 10¹⁰ or ten billion to one against. If the fighter automatically got the maximum of 10 for the first level, it would be 10⁹ or one billion to one against.
#3 etarnon Jun 29, 2009 6:56:42	seems to me like it's time to say yes you like the DM despite math flaws, or depart, since it pisses you off so badly. Good luck with your choice.
#4 esperifiel Jun 29, 2009 7:07:24	Honestly, it does not matter. Your DM is running the game with that stat system for all the players, not just you, so in that closed system, it's 100% balanced. He knows what you're capable of, and throws stuff at you with full knowledge of that system. There is no inequity here.
#5 pyromancer2k Jun 29, 2009 9:16:56	It really makes it hard to argue when I say "Do you know what the chances of getting 4 20s in a row is?" and he remarks "I've seen it happen more than once." About 20 times greater then rolling three 1s in a row. But I've seen that happen. I guess my friend could be called the Anti-Dice Jesus ;). We played with critical failure and fumble rules which were a lot of fun mainly because he constantly rolled horribly. In one game (not D&D) he had a movitail cocktail critically failed to throw it dropping it and setting himself on fire. Failed roll to see if he panicked so he ran in a random direction which happen to be towards some slipper stairs. Then failed the balance check so he fell down the stairs. Which wasn't the time he rolled three 1s in a row as that was a bit less eventful though the funny part was it involved him using reroll abilities. Cause it was like "And I roll a 1. I'm gonna use X to reroll that. And I rolled another 1. #@$%! Um I really don't wanna do this but I need to hit so I'll use Y to reroll that. And... OMG #$@#$ #@$@#!" We all laughed and yea he did swear a bit. And the DM made a joke about only having a Critical Fumble chart and not a Critical Critical Critical Fumble chart.
#6 Mechalibur Jun 29, 2009 9:23:16	In one game (not D&D) he had a movitail cocktail critically failed to throw it dropping it and setting himself on fire. Failed roll to see if he panicked so he ran in a random direction which happen to be towards some slipper stairs. Then failed the balance check so he fell down the stairs. Which wasn't the time he rolled three 1s in a row as that was a bit less eventful though the funny part was it involved him using reroll abilities. Cause it was like "And I roll a 1. I'm gonna use X to reroll that. And I rolled another 1. #@$%! Um I really don't wanna do this but I need to hit so I'll use Y to reroll that. And... OMG #$@#$ #@$@#!" We all laughed and yea he did swear a bit. And the DM made a joke about only having a Critical Fumble chart and not a Critical Critical Critical Fumble chart. Ouch. Was he in a bad mood after that, or was he laughing like everyone else? Every other roll for my brother is a 1, but he never seems to roll them twice in a row. (Movitail? Molotov, right? :P )
#7 pyromancer2k Jun 29, 2009 9:28:42	Honestly, it does not matter. Your DM is running the game with that stat system for all the players, not just you, so in that closed system, it's 100% balanced. He knows what you're capable of, and throws stuff at you with full knowledge of that system. There is no inequity here. Um really? If it were that easy to balance systems then why do so many games have balance issues? The reason is they are not balanced is because things can work differently then you might expect. This is why games go through extensive testing before being released to the public and even then it is not always balanced. If anything his group is the test subjects of this setup so their likely to see it's flaws close up. Just because all the other players have similar limitations in their stat gaining doesn't mean the system is balanced. Just look at 4e and how they had to release all those "patch feats" to counter act the math fail on WoTC part for late game stuff. The monsters gain faster than the players so without those feats over time the monsters are harder to hit and hit more often.
#8 pyromancer2k Jun 29, 2009 9:32:25	Ouch. Was he in a bad mood after that, or was he laughing like everyone else? Every other roll for my brother is a 1, but he never seems to roll them twice in a row. (Movitail? Molotov, right? :P ) Yea he was joking about it too afterwords. He's kinda learn to take it in stride because he does roll so poorly in pretty much every RPG he plays and we often make the joke he's cursed. I limit it to RPGs because we also play minis like clicks, WH40K, and some others which he rules about averages. (Yea I couldn't remember the spelling and spell check was no help. :P)
#9 gargs454 Jun 29, 2009 11:30:16	Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability. 4th ed. has obviously made it much more generous. So, if I am reading, and recalling, everything correctly, the DM is actually creating a system that is more generous than the RAW (even though it may not be quite as generous as he thinks). As to the issues with regard to having to both find and then disarm the trap . . . ummmmm well, again those are the rules. Even in 4th you still have to find the trap (though there are some traps that are not exactly hidden now) and then roll again to disarm it. As late as 3.5, Move Silently and Hide were also two skills that required separate rolls. So, the drunk might not hear you, but he could see you. 4th Ed has condensed this to one skill though. So yeah, I'm really not sure I understand the rant since like it or not, I believe that the DM has created a more generous system than the RAW and is not in fact gimping the characters. 3.x and 4th Ed have definitely made PC's more powerful than they were in the past (in terms of ability scores), but it sounds as though the OP is not playing 3.x or 4th Ed. I suppose you could request to change editions. As for dice, yeah they go hot, and they go cold (like when I failed 7 consecutive saving throws in my 4th ed game yesterday). :P
#10 lordmarek Jun 29, 2009 12:13:54	I suspect your DM knows more about statistics than he's letting on. I'm assuming that he's not just a killer DM that gets jollies from offing characters, as most players wouldn't stay 7 years in such a campaign. What may be going on here though is you have a control freak DM who is deathly afraid of high level characters breaking his campaign. I've never heard of a resurrection limit in AD&D (other than the constitution score limit), and quite frankly with the system shock rules it's unnecessary. Also 10k gold for a raise dead is ridiculous. If your fellow players are as tired of dying as you are it's probably time for a player revolt. Have the characters split up their gold and buy some land, and roleplay sitting around in idle retirement. Then explain to the DM that the dungeon risks far outweigh the rewards, and that the probability of perma-death is so high that no one in their right minds should be adventuring.
#11 kevrock Jun 29, 2009 13:10:16	Actually, each die roll is completely independent of the next. You have the same probability every roll of rolling any number on the die. Yes, the probability gets worse if you look at sets of numbers (e.g., 4 consecutive 20s), but the target number is of no concern (e.g., a set of 4 20's vs. a set of 4 1's has the same probability of occurring). But again, that increase in difficulty only exists b/c you choose group them; it doesn't change the underlying fact that everyone has the same probability on every roll. By assigning "meaning" to the numbers (e.g., a 20 is a critical hit), then you are perceiving those rolls as being more "valuable" when in reality they are all equally as common. If someone has historically had a non-random sampling of numbers, I would evaluate the dice themselves (i.e., their flawed) or their rolling technique (i.e., they're cheating).
#12 CCS Jun 29, 2009 14:00:20	Actually, each die roll is completely independent of the next. You have the same probability every roll of rolling any number on the die. Yes, the probability gets worse if you look at sets of numbers (e.g., 4 consecutive 20s), but the target number is of no concern (e.g., a set of 4 20's vs. a set of 4 1's has the same probability of occurring). But again, that increase in difficulty only exists b/c you choose group them; it doesn't change the underlying fact that everyone has the same probability on every roll. By assigning "meaning" to the numbers (e.g., a 20 is a critical hit), then you are perceiving those rolls as being more "valuable" when in reality they are all equally as common. Exactly. If someone has historically had a non-random sampling of numbers, I would evaluate the dice themselves (i.e., their flawed) or their rolling technique (i.e., they're cheating). There is another possibility.... That they've just gotten lucky so far. For all anyone knows (in the absence of flaws/cheating) the next time they roll they could start an equel trend of low rolls. Or mixed rolls.
#13 entropy_judge Jun 29, 2009 17:45:38	Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability. RE: Stats creation: Default, yeah that was it. IIRC, there were also three or four other methods in the DMG, and a fifth in the Unearthed Arcana book. RE: Ability Increase: No. It was in AD&D, again in the Unearthed Arcana book. The Cavalier (and the Paladin, as it was changed to a subclass of the Cavalier instead of the Fighter) was able to roll percentile dice for DEX, STR, and CON (although I don't remember at what levels ... I think it was on even levels, or something), and you could increase those three stats (up to 18 or 18/00). Extra percentiles did roll over, IIRC, and of course didn't matter unless it was STR 18/XX.
#14 stealthmarmot Jun 30, 2009 5:27:55	Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability. 4th ed. has obviously made it much more generous. So, if I am reading, and recalling, everything correctly, the DM is actually creating a system that is more generous than the RAW (even though it may not be quite as generous as he thinks). As to the issues with regard to having to both find and then disarm the trap . . . ummmmm well, again those are the rules. Even in 4th you still have to find the trap (though there are some traps that are not exactly hidden now) and then roll again to disarm it. As late as 3.5, Move Silently and Hide were also two skills that required separate rolls. So, the drunk might not hear you, but he could see you. 4th Ed has condensed this to one skill though. So yeah, I'm really not sure I understand the rant since like it or not, I believe that the DM has created a more generous system than the RAW and is not in fact gimping the characters. 3.x and 4th Ed have definitely made PC's more powerful than they were in the past (in terms of ability scores), but it sounds as though the OP is not playing 3.x or 4th Ed. I suppose you could request to change editions. As for dice, yeah they go hot, and they go cold (like when I failed 7 consecutive saving throws in my 4th ed game yesterday). :P You have to remember first edition also claimed more character lives more often than most modern serious Call of Cthulu games. In reality, if he did have us play by the default rules, I would have quit LONG ago. Even with the adapted rules I have found myself quite often very jaded when playing in his game. As far as the separate rolls for finding and disarming traps goes, well the problem is that instead of scaling your chance starts at a flat low percentage. So at first level instead of a 65% chance on 2 rolls, it is a 40% chance. How's 16% strike you as a chance for overall removal? But the real bad part is the whole missing by 1% on the removal means the trap goes off. Would you be interested in disarming traps if they had a 60% chance of going off? If I ever decide to play a First edition thief again, I will simply refuse to disarm traps. Find them sure, but disarm no. It would be one thing if the campaign started over with these rules, but instead one of my characters is playing with a group of a total of 9 characters where 7 of them are using the old system of 4d6 drop 1. And there is more than one fighter type with 18(50+) strength. I think one has 18(00). Oh, forgot to mention, while both builds were give one wholesale swap of 2 stats (rest of the stats in order of rolls) the other characters were given 2 for 1 (you could reallocate stats at a cost of 2 for 1) and if you recall in 1st edition, there was a whole lot of stats you could drain with no mechanical effect when they were in mid range. Well it doesn't seem to matter any more. We are playing a whole new game with a whole new system called Lords of Creation. Funnily enough in THIS game you have to roll LOW on your d20s to succeed, and now my dice can't seem to roll below a 14. After some reflection I am seriously considering quitting that Sunday group. I honestly can't remember the last time I actually cared about what was going on. For Christs sake my DM actually had a quiz on his game, asking about some more obscure things about his game, and one of the questions was to name the current main villain! And I didn't honestly know! Granted I am bad with names, but one would think you would at least know the BBEG's name when you met him around 4 times! It isn't entirely the DMs fault. The other players are just, well, stupid. What can I say, I enjoy having some intelligence in a D&D game, and the DM tries to give it some, but it falls on deaf ears as the players end up with characters who would make the Joker vomit. I can't tell if I am currently spoiled by my new DMs (the ones I've been playing with on Saturday for about a half year) or whether I just had bad luck in the past getting DMs, but I have come to expect NPCs to actually engage in the game, and players to actually roleplay in a way that I want to remember.
#15 entropy_judge Jun 30, 2009 9:57:20	You have to remember first edition also claimed more character lives more often than most modern serious Call of Cthulu games. Stats on this?
#16 voska66 Jun 30, 2009 10:10:17	Um really? If it were that easy to balance systems then why do so many games have balance issues? The reason is they are not balanced is because things can work differently then you might expect. This is why games go through extensive testing before being released to the public and even then it is not always balanced. If anything his group is the test subjects of this setup so their likely to see it's flaws close up. Just because all the other players have similar limitations in their stat gaining doesn't mean the system is balanced. Just look at 4e and how they had to release all those "patch feats" to counter act the math fail on WoTC part for late game stuff. The monsters gain faster than the players so without those feats over time the monsters are harder to hit and hit more often. Well it is 1st edition and the 3D6 stat creation method is a valid method for generating stats. So I don't see the problem. Actually all the stuff this DM is doing is 1st edition rules. I remember how painful it was for thief in 1st edition. 2nd edition fix that by allow you to focus on specific thief skills by assigning points.
#17 gargs454 Jun 30, 2009 15:01:07	It would be one thing if the campaign started over with these rules, but instead one of my characters is playing with a group of a total of 9 characters where 7 of them are using the old system of 4d6 drop 1. This is an entirely different issue, and I agree with you that all PCs should use the same creation method. I would never DM a game where different PCs were given different creation methods. (However, I have given my players the choice of rolling or point buy in the past, but everyone had the choice). It sounds though that your main complaint (mechanics-wise) is a rule set issue and not a DM issue. I can certainly understand the idea that you like other RPGs or other editions of D&D better than 1st Ed. That being said though, its not your DM's fault per se that his generosity is not as big as you would like. On the plus side, it does sound as though you have found a better group, and under those circumstances I would recommend dropping the first group and just sticking with the new group. The point of D&D is to have fun after all, and if you are not having fun with one group, its time to move on.
#18 stealthmarmot Jun 30, 2009 15:47:48	I wouldn't have minded the DM reducing character power as much if he knew he was doing it, but his inability to understand statistics and averages makes it so he doesn't even realize it.
#19 salla Jun 30, 2009 16:00:16	Stats on this? In CoC, you impotently go insane rather than dying. Anyway, does a DM of the opinion that a 10% chance to succeed at any task, whether it be climbing an icy wall or jumping a foot-wide mud puddle, qualify for this thread?
#20 stealthmarmot Jun 30, 2009 16:30:47	In CoC, you impotently go insane rather than dying. Anyway, does a DM of the opinion that a 10% chance to succeed at any task, whether it be climbing an icy wall or jumping a foot-wide mud puddle, qualify for this thread? Not as such, that isn't so much a problem of bad math and statistics as a case of bad judgment. But I think it qualifies in the fact that his rule setup is causing you to dislike the game. In all seriousness, I like the idea of not having to make a check unless the task is either particularly tough, or there are consequences for failure, or the player is pressured for time. One of 3rd edition's best moves was inventing taking 10 and taking 20. (If they invented it, maybe someone else did first, but it was the first I ever heard of it).
#21 trinoya Jun 30, 2009 18:15:17	Whoa... Just.... Whoa... .... You should totally give your DM my number and I'll talk to him about the concept of play testing...
#22 stealthmarmot Jun 30, 2009 21:00:23	Whoa... Just.... Whoa... .... You should totally give your DM my number and I'll talk to him about the concept of play testing... Yeah well I also have this other DM who thinks that when a guard's listen check perfectly equals your invisible tiny familiar's move silently check that not only does he know something is there, he immediately identifies it, alerts every guard there who fall in line, and when they search for it and don't find it immediately assume that the creature is invisible and thus call in a wizard who happens to have see invisibility ready for use. So when the guard hears a slight scratch and doesn't find anything, he immediately figures it is a wizard's invisible familiar instead of, you know, a mouse that has since left. Yeah, that guy.... :P
#23 mock26 Jun 30, 2009 22:12:16	Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million. Well, actually the possibility is 50%.
#24 stealthmarmot Jun 30, 2009 22:23:28	Well, actually the possibility is 50%. ......wut?
#25 entropy_judge Jul 01, 2009 1:12:53	Because the other 50% of the time he won't have 100 HP. Set it up as an either/or. Yes, I know it doesn't work that way. Mock26 does as well.
#26 yellowdingo Jul 01, 2009 4:48:14	I need to rant a bit here because I seem to be facing a problem with one of my DMs. He is a good DM, scratch that a great one, when it comes to concepts and storytelling and even in theoretical game mechanics that he is able to successfully flesh out custom built classes that actually work. However he has such a huge weakness that I end up wanting to hit my head against a brick wall every time I try to explain this to him. He sucks with numbers. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of statistics. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of PROBABILITY. Actually the concept of Random Numbers and Probability ended with Stringtheory. The Universe is debris of change in possibility. The Eye of Ra 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 +... + {1/n} + r(1/n)
#27 mock26 Jul 01, 2009 22:48:18	......wut? 50% chance. It either happens or it does not happen! :D ============================================== Because the other 50% of the time he won't have 100 HP. Set it up as an either/or. Yes, I know it doesn't work that way. Mock26 does as well. :D
#28 pyromancer2k Jul 02, 2009 10:08:31	50% chance. It either happens or it does not happen! :D I think yellowdingo is talking multiple dimensions where everything that can happen does happen therefore the probability of something happening is always 100%. So in some alternate reality you rolled a 20 but here you maybe only rolled a 4. Sucks to be here ;).
#29 stealthmarmot Jul 03, 2009 15:13:46	Well this Sunday will be the test, if I don't have an at least memorable time this Sunday, I'm going to gracefully leave the group. If I do quit, it will be nice having a full day to dedicate to the things I have been meaning to do for a while (finish watching all the lost episodes, time to work on tyhat youtube series I want to start, play some video games I've completely missed out on like Chrono Trigger...)
#30 alric Jul 04, 2009 0:44:37	Well he is right, it is possible. In d&d you roll so many dice, its almost guaranteed, you will see someone great rolling. Especially when your probably rolling hundreds of dice per game, and then playing many games in a row. That said I always hated rolling for stats. It makes it so unbalanced. Especially between players. Who wants to be the player that gets below average stats when everyone else gets above average stats? It just sucks.
#31 arderkrag Jul 04, 2009 0:58:13	Tell him, point blank, "It does not matter how many times you have seen it happen. The ODDS are what matter." If he still won't back down, he's a tard.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

stealthmarmot

Jun 28, 2009 13:54:03

I need to rant a bit here because I seem to be facing a problem with one of my DMs. He is a good DM, scratch that a great one, when it comes to concepts and storytelling and even in theoretical game mechanics that he is able to successfully flesh out custom built classes that actually work.

However he has such a huge weakness that I end up wanting to hit my head against a brick wall every time I try to explain this to him.

He sucks with numbers. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of statistics. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of PROBABILITY.

He does not understand how multiple dice rolls are incredibly less likely to give maximum or minimum results. Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million.

The idea of "well it could go this way" irks the crap out of me because as a guy who is good with numbers I can easily see that certain things are so bloody unlikely that they aren't even worth thinking of as possibilities! Statistical anomolies(sic) happen, but to count on them or expect them is an act of lunacy in a DM.

This is made worse by our resident Dice Jesus. In fact we have a couple. One for stats the other for attack rolls. One ends up with 15+ in all but one or 2 of his stats from 4d6 drop the lowest (out of 8 stats, we add comeliness and luck) and the other has, in more than one occasion, rolled 3 natural 20s in a row. Even considering the high amount of rolling we do, this guy has shattered statistics.

It really makes it hard to argue when I say "Do you know what the chances of getting 4 20s in a row is?" and he remarks "I've seen it happen more than once."

What makes it worse is that, of course, he DMs first edition. So you can imagine his delusions of how numbers and probability workings can have a negative effect on those of us who can't pull 3 20s in a row out of our collective asses.

It is not as if we haven't tried to explain it to him either, but every time there is a numbers discussion, where me and the Physics major are explaining the numbers, everyone at the table gets it but the DM.

It scares me that our first edition DM doesn't understand statistics and probability and may explain how my characters keep dying.

Now we got into it when I explained to him why his new system for stats screwed the characters over.

We added a new system that increases stats over time, but instead of getting 4d6 drop the lowest, we get 3d6 flat.

Now at every level we get a certain amount of points to put into pre selected stats every level in the form of primary, secondary, tertiary and elective stats. The primary, secondary and tertiary stats are selected already by your class (example the Thief gets Dexterity as primary, Intelligence as a secondary, and Strength as a tertiary). The elective stat you can pick.

At each level for the primary stat you get 2d10 + 2/level points. (For example at second level you would get 2d10 + 4 points, at 3rd you would get 2d10 +6)

The secondary stat gets 2d8 + 1/level
The tertiary stat gets 2d8 + .5/level
The elective stat gets 2d10 flat.

In order to increase a stat you need to put 100 points into it. If the stat is under 8 then it costs less, starting at getting 2 for 1 (which means it only takes 50 to increase a stat from 7 to 8). If the stat you are increasing is already a 15 or higher (Which is likely if it is your primary stat since that is why you would pick the class to begin with) it costs more, starting at costing 2 for 1 (which means it would cost 200 to get a stat increase from 15 to 16.)

Now being the logical person I am, I assume that when it comes to dice rolls I take the averages to be what will likely be rolled especially with several dice rolls involved (it will average out more as the amount of rolls increase). I proceeded to explain to my DM why we would get at best an increase of 1 to to the primary stat at 5th level, probably not until 6th, an increase of 1 to the secondary stat at 7th probably not until 8th, and an increase of the tertiary stat at 8th level, probably not until 9th, and the elective stat would have only a slim chance of increasing at 8th, less than 50% chance by 9th, and would probably take until 10th level to increase. The next time would be the primary stat again at around 9th level, probably 10th.

Now to be clear this is ASSUMING all these stats are under 15, which given that they are the primary stats, is not too likely. Not to mention in First edition the difference between 8 and 13 usually meant almost no difference in anything. So unless your stat was currently 13 or 14, this would not be helpful, and if it was a 15 or higher you would probably need to wait until 10th level.

I have been playing in his campaign for 7 years. The highest level character I have EVER seen a player get to is level 9, and he only barely got level 8 and then luckily got a wish spell that we agreed to let him get the 9th level with. (He is a cleric. Raise Dead in first edition takes 1 round and costs 0 components. Makes him the most valuable guy around.) In D&D First edition you need to double your current XP to level usually.

Basically is what I am getting at is that our DM gimped our character creation and gimped our characters for most if not all of the time we will likely play them for, in fact even with the stat increases the 4d6 drop lowest is better because you have a much better chance of getting high stats like 15 and above, where most stats in first edition actually start giving tangible bonuses.

What makes me mad though is that he gimped our new characters and all future characters and does not even freaking realize it because he thinks one, that the characters have a chance at getting perfect rolls and stats at lower levels than my projections (which although possible is incredibly unlikely, we are talking less than 2% chance in most cases, and even then we are talking 1 level earlier than the "best" I gave) and two he says that at 20th level or in his hyperbole "35th level" we will be getting tons of points to increase stats. That part really makes me mad when I have been in his game 7 years and the highest level character I ever had was a level 6 thief level 6 cleric (equivelent level 7 multiclass character). I have never had a character reach 7th level in his campaign. I have one close right now but I have never had any close to 8th.

As for why that is, well he plays first edition, and has put a limit of 3 resurrections on characters by any means. Although only 1 character has reached that limit, (which we circumvented once using reincarnation. He died again) the others either didn't make their resurrection survival roll (what a load of crap those things are), or were simply deemed not worth reviving. (Resurrections are 10k gold) or their bodies were beyond retrieval. I have horrible luck as a player, or I simply don't min max enough, or it might be the fact that my longest running character was a thief, which is the butt monkey of first edition. (later thief/cleric, but mostly tried to be a thief)

Of course that is another thing, I tried to explain why thieves having a separate skill roll to find the trap and to DISARM it was such a bad thing, especially considered if you succeeded on the first and FAILED on the second, the trap goes off at you and anyone else caught in the blast radius as applicable. Yeah now my 6th level thief with 18 dexterity has a 55% chance to find he trap and a 55% chance to disarm it. I think the DM sees that as 55% but with 2 rolls it comes to about 30% chance of BOTH finding it and disarming it without it blowing up on him. And no, stating specific instructions like "Well if the dart is set to shoot out of that hole, then I can put a block of wood up in front of it to block it in case it shoots off accidentally right?" Wrong. That's apparently part of the disarm attempt and has a 45% chance to fail. And there are loads of traps in his game. And don't get me started on the move silently/hide in shadows crap. 2 rolls either one fails and you fail. 6th level thief, 18 dexterity, 45% and 50%. That's 22.5% chance to slip by the yelling level 1 town drunk, 77.5% chance he notices you.

I don't think I ever actually succeeded in sneaking with my thief, and I think I failed 3 or 4 times with a trap and only succeeded once or twice. Only survived one trap because I literally had another cleric STANDING OVER ME with a neutralize poison spell READIED, even though I found the trap and it was the dart one in my example that I wasn't allowed to just put a piece of wood in front of. But I did succeed often at one thing, picking pockets. Whoop de doo.

I guess I am just ranting here, feel free to ignore me, but tell me if you have ever had this problem with a DM who was bad at probability, statistics, or math in general, and it affected your game?

silent_stone

Jun 28, 2009 22:25:34

I totally feel your pain here, although for me it is from the perspective of a DM dealing with less-mathematically-talented players, and it has never been as bad as you describe. Most of the time, I was either able to give a quick explanation of whatever statistical concept we encountered, but frequently I had to rely on saying "uh, let's just finish this encounter first" (and hoping they would forget the question before they could raise it again).

Fortunately, for the most part, D&D doesn't require a doctorate in mathematics to DM or play...unfortunately, the game is built on a framework of mathematics and adjudicated through large quantities of random numbers (which behave statistically), and those who tinker with the system without at least a basic grasp of the mathematics involved are likely to end up with something far wonkier than the original, at best.

A minor nitpick...

Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million.

If a level 10 fighter without a con bonus had to roll a d10 each level for their hit points, the odds of ending up with a total of 100 hit points would be 10¹⁰ or ten billion to one against. If the fighter automatically got the maximum of 10 for the first level, it would be 10⁹ or one billion to one against.

etarnon

Jun 29, 2009 6:56:42

seems to me like it's time to say yes you like the DM despite math flaws, or depart, since it pisses you off so badly.

Good luck with your choice.

esperifiel

Jun 29, 2009 7:07:24

Honestly, it does not matter.

Your DM is running the game with that stat system for all the players, not just you, so in that closed system, it's 100% balanced. He knows what you're capable of, and throws stuff at you with full knowledge of that system. There is no inequity here.

pyromancer2k

Jun 29, 2009 9:16:56

It really makes it hard to argue when I say "Do you know what the chances of getting 4 20s in a row is?" and he remarks "I've seen it happen more than once."

About 20 times greater then rolling three 1s in a row. But I've seen that happen. I guess my friend could be called the Anti-Dice Jesus ;). We played with critical failure and fumble rules which were a lot of fun mainly because he constantly rolled horribly.

In one game (not D&D) he had a movitail cocktail critically failed to throw it dropping it and setting himself on fire. Failed roll to see if he panicked so he ran in a random direction which happen to be towards some slipper stairs. Then failed the balance check so he fell down the stairs.

Which wasn't the time he rolled three 1s in a row as that was a bit less eventful though the funny part was it involved him using reroll abilities. Cause it was like "And I roll a 1. I'm gonna use X to reroll that. And I rolled another 1. #@$%! Um I really don't wanna do this but I need to hit so I'll use Y to reroll that. And... OMG #$@#$ #@$@#!" We all laughed and yea he did swear a bit. And the DM made a joke about only having a Critical Fumble chart and not a Critical Critical Critical Fumble chart.

Mechalibur

Jun 29, 2009 9:23:16

In one game (not D&D) he had a movitail cocktail critically failed to throw it dropping it and setting himself on fire. Failed roll to see if he panicked so he ran in a random direction which happen to be towards some slipper stairs. Then failed the balance check so he fell down the stairs.

Which wasn't the time he rolled three 1s in a row as that was a bit less eventful though the funny part was it involved him using reroll abilities. Cause it was like "And I roll a 1. I'm gonna use X to reroll that. And I rolled another 1. #@$%! Um I really don't wanna do this but I need to hit so I'll use Y to reroll that. And... OMG #$@#$ #@$@#!" We all laughed and yea he did swear a bit. And the DM made a joke about only having a Critical Fumble chart and not a Critical Critical Critical Fumble chart.

Ouch. Was he in a bad mood after that, or was he laughing like everyone else? Every other roll for my brother is a 1, but he never seems to roll them twice in a row.

(Movitail? Molotov, right? :P )

pyromancer2k

Jun 29, 2009 9:28:42

Honestly, it does not matter.

Your DM is running the game with that stat system for all the players, not just you, so in that closed system, it's 100% balanced. He knows what you're capable of, and throws stuff at you with full knowledge of that system. There is no inequity here.

Um really? If it were that easy to balance systems then why do so many games have balance issues?

The reason is they are not balanced is because things can work differently then you might expect. This is why games go through extensive testing before being released to the public and even then it is not always balanced. If anything his group is the test subjects of this setup so their likely to see it's flaws close up.

Just because all the other players have similar limitations in their stat gaining doesn't mean the system is balanced. Just look at 4e and how they had to release all those "patch feats" to counter act the math fail on WoTC part for late game stuff. The monsters gain faster than the players so without those feats over time the monsters are harder to hit and hit more often.

pyromancer2k

Jun 29, 2009 9:32:25

Ouch. Was he in a bad mood after that, or was he laughing like everyone else? Every other roll for my brother is a 1, but he never seems to roll them twice in a row.

(Movitail? Molotov, right? :P )

Yea he was joking about it too afterwords. He's kinda learn to take it in stride because he does roll so poorly in pretty much every RPG he plays and we often make the joke he's cursed. I limit it to RPGs because we also play minis like clicks, WH40K, and some others which he rules about averages.

(Yea I couldn't remember the spelling and spell check was no help. :P)

gargs454

Jun 29, 2009 11:30:16

Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability. 4th ed. has obviously made it much more generous. So, if I am reading, and recalling, everything correctly, the DM is actually creating a system that is more generous than the RAW (even though it may not be quite as generous as he thinks).

As to the issues with regard to having to both find and then disarm the trap . . . ummmmm well, again those are the rules. Even in 4th you still have to find the trap (though there are some traps that are not exactly hidden now) and then roll again to disarm it. As late as 3.5, Move Silently and Hide were also two skills that required separate rolls. So, the drunk might not hear you, but he could see you. 4th Ed has condensed this to one skill though.

So yeah, I'm really not sure I understand the rant since like it or not, I believe that the DM has created a more generous system than the RAW and is not in fact gimping the characters. 3.x and 4th Ed have definitely made PC's more powerful than they were in the past (in terms of ability scores), but it sounds as though the OP is not playing 3.x or 4th Ed. I suppose you could request to change editions.

As for dice, yeah they go hot, and they go cold (like when I failed 7 consecutive saving throws in my 4th ed game yesterday). :P

#10

lordmarek

Jun 29, 2009 12:13:54

I suspect your DM knows more about statistics than he's letting on. I'm assuming that he's not just a killer DM that gets jollies from offing characters, as most players wouldn't stay 7 years in such a campaign. What may be going on here though is you have a control freak DM who is deathly afraid of high level characters breaking his campaign.

I've never heard of a resurrection limit in AD&D (other than the constitution score limit), and quite frankly with the system shock rules it's unnecessary. Also 10k gold for a raise dead is ridiculous.

If your fellow players are as tired of dying as you are it's probably time for a player revolt. Have the characters split up their gold and buy some land, and roleplay sitting around in idle retirement. Then explain to the DM that the dungeon risks far outweigh the rewards, and that the probability of perma-death is so high that no one in their right minds should be adventuring.

#11

kevrock

Jun 29, 2009 13:10:16

Actually, each die roll is completely independent of the next. You have the same probability every roll of rolling any number on the die. Yes, the probability gets worse if you look at sets of numbers (e.g., 4 consecutive 20s), but the target number is of no concern (e.g., a set of 4 20's vs. a set of 4 1's has the same probability of occurring).

But again, that increase in difficulty only exists b/c you choose group them; it doesn't change the underlying fact that everyone has the same probability on every roll. By assigning "meaning" to the numbers (e.g., a 20 is a critical hit), then you are perceiving those rolls as being more "valuable" when in reality they are all equally as common.

If someone has historically had a non-random sampling of numbers, I would evaluate the dice themselves (i.e., their flawed) or their rolling technique (i.e., they're cheating).

#12

CCS

Jun 29, 2009 14:00:20

Actually, each die roll is completely independent of the next. You have the same probability every roll of rolling any number on the die. Yes, the probability gets worse if you look at sets of numbers (e.g., 4 consecutive 20s), but the target number is of no concern (e.g., a set of 4 20's vs. a set of 4 1's has the same probability of occurring).

But again, that increase in difficulty only exists b/c you choose group them; it doesn't change the underlying fact that everyone has the same probability on every roll. By assigning "meaning" to the numbers (e.g., a 20 is a critical hit), then you are perceiving those rolls as being more "valuable" when in reality they are all equally as common.

Exactly.

If someone has historically had a non-random sampling of numbers, I would evaluate the dice themselves (i.e., their flawed) or their rolling technique (i.e., they're cheating).

There is another possibility.... That they've just gotten lucky so far. For all anyone knows (in the absence of flaws/cheating) the next time they roll they could start an equel trend of low rolls. Or mixed rolls.

#13

entropy_judge

Jun 29, 2009 17:45:38

Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability.

RE: Stats creation: Default, yeah that was it. IIRC, there were also three or four other methods in the DMG, and a fifth in the Unearthed Arcana book.

RE: Ability Increase: No. It was in AD&D, again in the Unearthed Arcana book. The Cavalier (and the Paladin, as it was changed to a subclass of the Cavalier instead of the Fighter) was able to roll percentile dice for DEX, STR, and CON (although I don't remember at what levels ... I think it was on even levels, or something), and you could increase those three stats (up to 18 or 18/00). Extra percentiles did roll over, IIRC, and of course didn't matter unless it was STR 18/XX.

#14

stealthmarmot

Jun 30, 2009 5:27:55

Wasn't the default in 1st edition to roll 3d6 for your abilities? As I recall, it was 3rd ed that introduced the concept of increasing an ability as you levelled, but even then it was only every 4th level, and you only got to increase 1 ability. 4th ed. has obviously made it much more generous. So, if I am reading, and recalling, everything correctly, the DM is actually creating a system that is more generous than the RAW (even though it may not be quite as generous as he thinks).

As to the issues with regard to having to both find and then disarm the trap . . . ummmmm well, again those are the rules. Even in 4th you still have to find the trap (though there are some traps that are not exactly hidden now) and then roll again to disarm it. As late as 3.5, Move Silently and Hide were also two skills that required separate rolls. So, the drunk might not hear you, but he could see you. 4th Ed has condensed this to one skill though.

So yeah, I'm really not sure I understand the rant since like it or not, I believe that the DM has created a more generous system than the RAW and is not in fact gimping the characters. 3.x and 4th Ed have definitely made PC's more powerful than they were in the past (in terms of ability scores), but it sounds as though the OP is not playing 3.x or 4th Ed. I suppose you could request to change editions.

As for dice, yeah they go hot, and they go cold (like when I failed 7 consecutive saving throws in my 4th ed game yesterday). :P

You have to remember first edition also claimed more character lives more often than most modern serious Call of Cthulu games. In reality, if he did have us play by the default rules, I would have quit LONG ago. Even with the adapted rules I have found myself quite often very jaded when playing in his game.

As far as the separate rolls for finding and disarming traps goes, well the problem is that instead of scaling your chance starts at a flat low percentage. So at first level instead of a 65% chance on 2 rolls, it is a 40% chance. How's 16% strike you as a chance for overall removal? But the real bad part is the whole missing by 1% on the removal means the trap goes off. Would you be interested in disarming traps if they had a 60% chance of going off? If I ever decide to play a First edition thief again, I will simply refuse to disarm traps. Find them sure, but disarm no.

It would be one thing if the campaign started over with these rules, but instead one of my characters is playing with a group of a total of 9 characters where 7 of them are using the old system of 4d6 drop 1.

And there is more than one fighter type with 18(50+) strength. I think one has 18(00).

Oh, forgot to mention, while both builds were give one wholesale swap of 2 stats (rest of the stats in order of rolls) the other characters were given 2 for 1 (you could reallocate stats at a cost of 2 for 1) and if you recall in 1st edition, there was a whole lot of stats you could drain with no mechanical effect when they were in mid range.

Well it doesn't seem to matter any more. We are playing a whole new game with a whole new system called Lords of Creation.

Funnily enough in THIS game you have to roll LOW on your d20s to succeed, and now my dice can't seem to roll below a 14.

After some reflection I am seriously considering quitting that Sunday group. I honestly can't remember the last time I actually cared about what was going on. For Christs sake my DM actually had a quiz on his game, asking about some more obscure things about his game, and one of the questions was to name the current main villain!

And I didn't honestly know! Granted I am bad with names, but one would think you would at least know the BBEG's name when you met him around 4 times!

It isn't entirely the DMs fault. The other players are just, well, stupid. What can I say, I enjoy having some intelligence in a D&D game, and the DM tries to give it some, but it falls on deaf ears as the players end up with characters who would make the Joker vomit.

I can't tell if I am currently spoiled by my new DMs (the ones I've been playing with on Saturday for about a half year) or whether I just had bad luck in the past getting DMs, but I have come to expect NPCs to actually engage in the game, and players to actually roleplay in a way that I want to remember.

#15

entropy_judge

Jun 30, 2009 9:57:20

You have to remember first edition also claimed more character lives more often than most modern serious Call of Cthulu games.

Stats on this?

#16

voska66

Jun 30, 2009 10:10:17

Um really? If it were that easy to balance systems then why do so many games have balance issues?

The reason is they are not balanced is because things can work differently then you might expect. This is why games go through extensive testing before being released to the public and even then it is not always balanced. If anything his group is the test subjects of this setup so their likely to see it's flaws close up.

Just because all the other players have similar limitations in their stat gaining doesn't mean the system is balanced. Just look at 4e and how they had to release all those "patch feats" to counter act the math fail on WoTC part for late game stuff. The monsters gain faster than the players so without those feats over time the monsters are harder to hit and hit more often.

Well it is 1st edition and the 3D6 stat creation method is a valid method for generating stats. So I don't see the problem. Actually all the stuff this DM is doing is 1st edition rules. I remember how painful it was for thief in 1st edition. 2nd edition fix that by allow you to focus on specific thief skills by assigning points.

#17

gargs454

Jun 30, 2009 15:01:07

It would be one thing if the campaign started over with these rules, but instead one of my characters is playing with a group of a total of 9 characters where 7 of them are using the old system of 4d6 drop 1.

This is an entirely different issue, and I agree with you that all PCs should use the same creation method. I would never DM a game where different PCs were given different creation methods. (However, I have given my players the choice of rolling or point buy in the past, but everyone had the choice).

It sounds though that your main complaint (mechanics-wise) is a rule set issue and not a DM issue. I can certainly understand the idea that you like other RPGs or other editions of D&D better than 1st Ed. That being said though, its not your DM's fault per se that his generosity is not as big as you would like.

On the plus side, it does sound as though you have found a better group, and under those circumstances I would recommend dropping the first group and just sticking with the new group. The point of D&D is to have fun after all, and if you are not having fun with one group, its time to move on.

#18

stealthmarmot

Jun 30, 2009 15:47:48

I wouldn't have minded the DM reducing character power as much if he knew he was doing it, but his inability to understand statistics and averages makes it so he doesn't even realize it.

#19

salla

Jun 30, 2009 16:00:16

Stats on this?

In CoC, you impotently go insane rather than dying.

Anyway, does a DM of the opinion that a 10% chance to succeed at any task, whether it be climbing an icy wall or jumping a foot-wide mud puddle, qualify for this thread?

#20

stealthmarmot

Jun 30, 2009 16:30:47

In CoC, you impotently go insane rather than dying.

Anyway, does a DM of the opinion that a 10% chance to succeed at any task, whether it be climbing an icy wall or jumping a foot-wide mud puddle, qualify for this thread?

Not as such, that isn't so much a problem of bad math and statistics as a case of bad judgment. But I think it qualifies in the fact that his rule setup is causing you to dislike the game.

In all seriousness, I like the idea of not having to make a check unless the task is either particularly tough, or there are consequences for failure, or the player is pressured for time.

One of 3rd edition's best moves was inventing taking 10 and taking 20. (If they invented it, maybe someone else did first, but it was the first I ever heard of it).

#21

trinoya

Jun 30, 2009 18:15:17

Whoa... Just.... Whoa...

.... You should totally give your DM my number and I'll talk to him about the concept of play testing...

#22

stealthmarmot

Jun 30, 2009 21:00:23

Whoa... Just.... Whoa...

.... You should totally give your DM my number and I'll talk to him about the concept of play testing...

Yeah well I also have this other DM who thinks that when a guard's listen check perfectly equals your invisible tiny familiar's move silently check that not only does he know something is there, he immediately identifies it, alerts every guard there who fall in line, and when they search for it and don't find it immediately assume that the creature is invisible and thus call in a wizard who happens to have see invisibility ready for use.

So when the guard hears a slight scratch and doesn't find anything, he immediately figures it is a wizard's invisible familiar instead of, you know, a mouse that has since left.

Yeah, that guy.... :P

#23

mock26

Jun 30, 2009 22:12:16

Example, he thinks of a fighters hit points he thinks that a fighter could have a possible 100 hit points without a con bonus at level 10. He does NOT however understand that the possibility of him getting that many hit points is 1 in 10 million.

Well, actually the possibility is 50%.

#24

stealthmarmot

Jun 30, 2009 22:23:28

Well, actually the possibility is 50%.

......wut?

#25

entropy_judge

Jul 01, 2009 1:12:53

Because the other 50% of the time he won't have 100 HP. Set it up as an either/or.
Yes, I know it doesn't work that way. Mock26 does as well.

#26

yellowdingo

Jul 01, 2009 4:48:14

I need to rant a bit here because I seem to be facing a problem with one of my DMs. He is a good DM, scratch that a great one, when it comes to concepts and storytelling and even in theoretical game mechanics that he is able to successfully flesh out custom built classes that actually work.

However he has such a huge weakness that I end up wanting to hit my head against a brick wall every time I try to explain this to him.

He sucks with numbers. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of statistics. Scratch that, he sucks with the concept of PROBABILITY.

Actually the concept of Random Numbers and Probability ended with Stringtheory. The Universe is debris of change in possibility.

The Eye of Ra
1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 +... + {1/n} + r(1/n)

#27

mock26

Jul 01, 2009 22:48:18

......wut?

50% chance. It either happens or it does not happen! :D

==============================================

Because the other 50% of the time he won't have 100 HP. Set it up as an either/or.
Yes, I know it doesn't work that way. Mock26 does as well.

#28

pyromancer2k

Jul 02, 2009 10:08:31

50% chance. It either happens or it does not happen! :D

I think yellowdingo is talking multiple dimensions where everything that can happen does happen therefore the probability of something happening is always 100%. So in some alternate reality you rolled a 20 but here you maybe only rolled a 4. Sucks to be here ;).

#29

stealthmarmot

Jul 03, 2009 15:13:46

Well this Sunday will be the test, if I don't have an at least memorable time this Sunday, I'm going to gracefully leave the group.

If I do quit, it will be nice having a full day to dedicate to the things I have been meaning to do for a while (finish watching all the lost episodes, time to work on tyhat youtube series I want to start, play some video games I've completely missed out on like Chrono Trigger...)

#30

alric

Jul 04, 2009 0:44:37

Well he is right, it is possible. In d&d you roll so many dice, its almost guaranteed, you will see someone great rolling. Especially when your probably rolling hundreds of dice per game, and then playing many games in a row.

That said I always hated rolling for stats. It makes it so unbalanced. Especially between players. Who wants to be the player that gets below average stats when everyone else gets above average stats? It just sucks.

#31

arderkrag

Jul 04, 2009 0:58:13

Tell him, point blank, "It does not matter how many times you have seen it happen. The ODDS are what matter."

If he still won't back down, he's a tard.