Circumventing too much randomness for the DM

File: What we're trying to avoid.png (217KB, 501x421px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 501x421px

>>54134149
> Shameless self-bump

Also, while 3 to 6% of the time is possible, I meant 3 to 7%.

>>54134149

You're better off taking 40 notecards and making cards for 1-20 twice, then drawing off the facedown deck instead of rolling. Once you've drawn all 40, shuffle and go again.

You are now guaranteed a perfect distribution, although I get the feeling that may not be the real problem.

File: daleknight.jpg (40KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x300px

get some new dice and hope karma comes back around?

>>54134149
Tell the GM to stop rolling openly. The screen exists for a few reasons, one of which is to fudge rolls when the need arises.

File: Essentially what I'm doing in this thread.png (34KB, 278x386px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 278x386px

>>54134318
> You're better off taking 40 notecards and making cards for 1-20 twice, then drawing off the facedown deck instead of rolling. Once you've drawn all 40, shuffle and go again.

> You are now guaranteed a perfect distribution, although I get the feeling that may not be the real problem.

Definitely worth a try. Worst case scenario, we're one step closer to the real problem.

>>54134373
Nice try, Chessex sales representative.

>>54134401
DM doesn't want to choose the results nor let pure randomness give it to us too easy or too hard.

>>54134456
>DM doesn't want to choose the results nor let pure randomness give it to us too easy or too hard.
I don't know what to tell you then, other than RPGs might not be for your GM.

>>54134149
Roll 2d20 instead of 1d20. Subtract 20 from the result if it's greater than 20.

Results in the exact same distribution, but if there is a legitimate tendency to get low d20 rolls that'll shift the skewing to somewhere higher.

>>54134491
You might not be wrong, but it's worth pondering over nonetheless. Pre-generated result chart still have some flair to it.

>>54136172
We'll try if the cards prove to be too much work for our GM.

>fairer results
Software? Rolz.org, random.org, roll20 (although it'd be a bit much if you just want the roller), something on a phone? Less tactile but almost guaranteed to be more properly random.

Start recording your dice rolls and get over your superstition (or maybe reveal that you are, in fact, haunted)?

Swap dice constantly?

Realize you can change systems and keep the story, it'll just be a lot of work, and then you can use some system you think is "more fair"? (no, I have no suggestions for a system here, that is fair too dependent on other things)

>'controlled randomness'
Fate/bennies/hero/"magical points that let you re-roll results, and the GM has a pool to use too"?
5e stamps that never-remembered "Inspiration" mechanic on which could be massively fiddled with (allow more than "one" at a time, let the GM have a number of points per session equal to PCs, let players 'count-as' having it, but it gives the DM his own point, etc etc..)

>>54137208
The real problem with Inspiration was that it had to be used before you rolled.
As a result, it was useless as a safety net and was quite likely to be wasted with any given roll it was used on.

>>54134149
>5e
>rolls low

Why don't you guys start using tactics to give advantage to attack rolls? 2d20 pick highest?

>>54138046
When monsters roll low initiative and get 1 or 2 casualties, they don't necessarily get a chance to do so.

DnD is about maximizing resources / managing attrition along the adventure. But if monsters land a hit once every 4 attacks, even though odds should be 1 every 2 attacks, part of the experience is missing.

It is frustrating to a GM to send reasonable challenge only to have your players feel underwhelmed because dice said the monsters were incompetent.

Hence the desire to limit randomness.

>>54138288
Then limit randomness in-game. Set traps, set things on fire, let them roll saving throws. Create illusions that don't require to hit but just mess with players. Think outside of the box, man! 'Hitting things with swords until it dies' is just boring and stale!

>>54138288
Start with a surprise round to give a little disadvantage to the players?

Give the monsters the high ground so there's a tactical aspect to the encounter?

Buff their Strength stats a bit so they hit more often?

DM's have options that players don't need to like or know about. Use that power to your advantage, but don't get crazy with it.

>>54134149
Test your dice, and if they truly are significantly unbalanced (they're probably not), either get different ones or use a dice roller app.

>>54139597
A proper test requires tens of thousands of rolls and is more than enough wear to introduce a bias where none existed.

>>54139882
>A proper test requires tens of thousands of rolls
No it doesn't. Learn some statistics please.

>>54134149
I had the exact opposite of this problem, my players begged me to roll out into the open after I used GM rolls for my encounters ecause they felt like they weren't "doing anything". l:l

>>54134149
The games fine you're just human so suck at calculating probability properly. You only notice when the NPC's do badly and the PC's do well because confirmation bias.

I suggest as a test for your next game record every dice roll the PC' make and the NPC's make and chart them. The distribution over a regular length 4 hour or so game should be even.

>>54139899
Yes it does, learn some statistics please.

Or well, it does for any reasonable degree of confidence.

>>54139987
You are wrong.

>>54139987
You don't have to test it multiple times. You don't even have to test it once because we don't live in a world where our options are limited to "these numbers but not these."
We know that a d20 has 20 sides, and therefore a 5% chance of landing on any one side on a roll.
All d20's abide by this. The only variable is whether or not there are bubbles in the dice or it was weighted on purpose. Otherwise, there is a 5% chance of each side on every roll.
And I didn't even have to test that by rolling 100 times.

>>54140227
So then how exactly do you tell if there are or are not bubbles, other uneven distributions of mass, imperfections in shape, or other such issues with the die that would cause it to deviate from the optimal 5%/side?

>>54140262
You don't. Unless you can mathematically calculate the mass and center of gravity and deformities based on the imperfections and bubbles perfectly. Which is stupid. It's a plastic bit with numbers on it. Besides, any tiny bubble or imperfection that doesn't get the die rejected in the first place isn't enough to change the results that drastically. But that's why the numbers on regular d20's are dotted around it like 2 next to 20 and 19 next to 1.
Sure, the sides may deviate slightly based on small variables, but in the end, it's around 5% chance to land on any one side on every roll. Just because you roll more 1's than 20's doesn't mean that your die is weighted. It just means that you happen to roll more 1's.

OP here. Game session ended. Not enough time to implement >>54134318

>>54139294
> let them roll saving throws
Welp, I am not going to push for that as a solution, as having orcs and minotaurs never attack directly would be annoying at best, and derailing at worst.

>>54139545
> Start with a surprise round to give a little disadvantage to the players?
We take pretty good precautions for this not to happen (too often). If, in spite of this, it happens on a regular basis, it'll just piss us off as efforts and clever ideas are just circumvented off-handedly.

> Give the monsters the high ground so there's a tactical aspect to the encounter?
Doesn't negate the issue, but definitely worth mentioning, as he doesn't use it. Thanks. Keep in mind he doesn't want the encounter harder per se, he want randomness diminished without it being eliminated.

> Buff their Strength stats a bit so they hit more often?
No. See last point.

>>54139597
>>54139882
>>54139933
It's not just a matter of having high / low rolls. The DM could roll 10+ Nat 20s in most battles without ever landing a single hit, as monster acts extremely quickly (initiative), succeed every save, etc.

We are 5 players, we just did 5 battles in a row, level 2, and lost collectively about 25 hp, most of which (between 18 and 20) were temporary hit points our warlock tank had (Armor of Agathys and Blade Wards are 2 extraordinary spells).

Even when the first encounter was 4 adult Worgs and hobgoblin riders. The dude had AC 15 (Mage Armor w/ +3 dex). Dice rolls were ridiculous.

>>54143806
DM isn't making encounters hard enough then. It's not the fault of the dice. Even really bad dice aren't too far off the expected distribution. You're just seeing patterns where there are none.