Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8314365" data-attributes="member: 72555">This is about "The GWF post used simulated rolls over a mathematical model specifically to keep from arguing about the model."Which is harmful nonsense.Then add in your dismissal of using math to understand things.I included concrete problems in your simulation, as revealed by your post.Look, I get that throwing together a simulation is often easier than making a model.  But pretending it is better is nonsense.   They tend to have different kinds of errors, so cross validating them is good.Mathematical models describe their assumptions and are usually simple enough for people to understand.  Simulations tend not to be, which is why arguing about their assumptions happens less.  Does not men0an their assumptions are more valid.It is the bikeshed problem.  <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality" target="_blank">Law of triviality - Wikipedia</a> And I agree that GWF takes up too much time for its impact.  I just think your model isn't convincing.--Anyhow, reroll 1s has definite psychological impact.  It does make a detectible difference in results.And yes, it should be "reroll 1s until you donpt get a 1".  That adds 0.5 points to every die.(1d8 becomes 1d7+1, as the result is still uniform.  1d8 average is (8+1)/2; 1d7+1 is (8+2)/2.  This holds for every die size, a half point.)Rolling dice is something people enjoy.  Making it the mechanically inferior choice sucks for them.It would be interesting to wok</blockquote>

Verification