Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8416667" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I did, in fact, use the phrase &quot;completely independent&quot; in my post you quoted above, so...yes, I very much meant &quot;independent.&quot;Well, again, we're not talking about my interests, but my understanding of others' interests. But I can tell you, right now, explicitly, that I have been told that if there is literally ANY effect--anything WHATSOEVER, no matter how small, no matter how unpredictable--causes later stats to be better if earlier stats were worse, no matter how probabilistic that effect is, it is unacceptable. There needs to be truly, absolutely ZERO impact on probabilities.Drawing cards without&nbsp; replacement, by definition, generates dependent probabilities. The odds of drawing (say) 4 for your second stat are definitely always changed because of what you drew for your first stat. That's literally what drawing without replacement does, it makes each draw's probabilities depend on which cards have already been removed.If we are actually talking about my tastes, yes, that much variation is unacceptable. I'm fine with some amount of variation, e.g. with 4e PB, counting racial stats, you have a theoretical total sum spread between 73 and 83 (with 73 requiring a hyperfocused human and the 83 being a very suboptimal option and requiring a non-human).If we're talking about the tastes I've been told by others, then yes, to the best of my knowledge, it is not only okay to have such variance, it is mandatory that such variance be at least possible. Otherwise, again, people feel their characters are &quot;born lucky,&quot; and thus uninteresting.Again, for many, this spoils the &quot;surprise&quot; because the probability of drawing (say) 15 goes up if you previously drew a total of 6 for Strength and a total of 7 for Dex (or whatever order one prefers to draw stats in). You haven't actually made the events independent, by definition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8416667, member: 6790260"] I did, in fact, use the phrase "completely independent" in my post you quoted above, so...yes, I very much meant "independent." Well, again, we're not talking about [I]my[/I] interests, but my understanding of others' interests. But I can tell you, right now, explicitly, that I have been told that if there is literally ANY effect--anything WHATSOEVER, no matter how small, no matter how unpredictable--[I]causes[/I] later stats to be better if earlier stats were worse, no matter how probabilistic that effect is, it is unacceptable. There needs to be truly, absolutely ZERO impact on probabilities. Drawing cards without replacement, by definition, generates dependent probabilities. The odds of drawing (say) 4 for your second stat are definitely always changed [I]because[/I] of what you drew for your first stat. That's literally what drawing without replacement does, it makes each draw's probabilities depend on which cards have already been removed. If we are actually talking about [I][B]my[/B][/I] tastes, yes, that much variation is unacceptable. I'm fine with some amount of variation, e.g. with 4e PB, counting racial stats, you have a theoretical total sum spread between 73 and 83 (with 73 requiring a hyperfocused human and the 83 being a very suboptimal option and requiring a non-human). If we're talking about the tastes I've been [I]told[/I] by others, then yes, to the best of my knowledge, it is not only [I]okay[/I] to have such variance, it is mandatory that such variance be at least [I]possible[/I]. Otherwise, again, people feel their characters are "born lucky," and thus uninteresting. Again, for many, this spoils the "surprise" because the probability of drawing (say) 15 goes up if you previously drew a total of 6 for Strength and a total of 7 for Dex (or whatever order one prefers to draw stats in). You haven't actually made the events independent, by definition. [/QUOTE]

Verification