Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 7736059" data-attributes="member: 18646"><p>Hm. So I'll take one last shot at this? </p><p></p><p>1) Your observation that you found 8 groups in which some players used feats is irrelevant. Jeremy is stating that the majority of players don't use feats, not that the majority of groups don't. I suspect if you did the analysis at the level of individuals you would find that the composition of your sample isn't all that anomalous, even if the majority in your sample happened to use feats. </p><p></p><p>2) Even if Jeremy had been making a claim about groups, the fact that your eight happen to use feats would not, from the perspective of the population, be that out of the ordinary. </p><p></p><p>3) To put it another way, using your example of a player that rolled a bunch of numbers above 11 several times in a row. Sure, you might ask-- Is he cheating? Are his dice weighted? Then you might say, 'Let's commission a study to find out by getting a much larger sample.' At the end of that study, if you found that the larger sample indicated that the player wasn't cheating and the dice weren't weighted, you would conclude that the streak was just something that happened by chance. You would certainly NOT decide that your larger sample must be 'shady' because they don't conform to the results of your much, much smaller sample. Similarly, if you discovered that a study already existed (say the Crawford Study) that already looked at your question, you would again conclude that the small sample result was a matter of chance. You would not conclude that the larger study must be 'shady'. </p><p></p><p>And on a side note-- In random samples, streaks are quite common. If you look at two sets of numbers drawn on a chalkboard-- one pulled at random and one concocted by a person trying to create a random set of numbers-- the quickest way to tell which group of numbers is random is that the random group of numbers will have streaks. People tend to think that 'random' actually means uniform. So, when they try to generate random numbers, they try not to have streaks. Which gives them away. </p><p></p><p>So if you gave me a list of numbers rolled on a 20 sided and it didn't have streaks where most of the rolls were above 11, I'd suspect you had just made the list of numbers up.</p><p></p><p>AD</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lkj, post: 7736059, member: 18646"] Hm. So I'll take one last shot at this? 1) Your observation that you found 8 groups in which some players used feats is irrelevant. Jeremy is stating that the majority of players don't use feats, not that the majority of groups don't. I suspect if you did the analysis at the level of individuals you would find that the composition of your sample isn't all that anomalous, even if the majority in your sample happened to use feats. 2) Even if Jeremy had been making a claim about groups, the fact that your eight happen to use feats would not, from the perspective of the population, be that out of the ordinary. 3) To put it another way, using your example of a player that rolled a bunch of numbers above 11 several times in a row. Sure, you might ask-- Is he cheating? Are his dice weighted? Then you might say, 'Let's commission a study to find out by getting a much larger sample.' At the end of that study, if you found that the larger sample indicated that the player wasn't cheating and the dice weren't weighted, you would conclude that the streak was just something that happened by chance. You would certainly NOT decide that your larger sample must be 'shady' because they don't conform to the results of your much, much smaller sample. Similarly, if you discovered that a study already existed (say the Crawford Study) that already looked at your question, you would again conclude that the small sample result was a matter of chance. You would not conclude that the larger study must be 'shady'. And on a side note-- In random samples, streaks are quite common. If you look at two sets of numbers drawn on a chalkboard-- one pulled at random and one concocted by a person trying to create a random set of numbers-- the quickest way to tell which group of numbers is random is that the random group of numbers will have streaks. People tend to think that 'random' actually means uniform. So, when they try to generate random numbers, they try not to have streaks. Which gives them away. So if you gave me a list of numbers rolled on a 20 sided and it didn't have streaks where most of the rolls were above 11, I'd suspect you had just made the list of numbers up. AD [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!
Top