Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7644309" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;Too much&quot;, &quot;too much&quot; The case expressed earlier seemed to be a series of tests setup by the gm, results where the two skilled&nbsp; two opponents never rolled higher than 10 on die and the unskilled never rolled under 18. I think its safe to say that for most campaign,lengths those are once-in-campaign odds, right? If we assume five tests, the 10s under alone add up to 1 in 1024. Combine that with five consecutive passes on an 85% odds to roll under 18... yeah... &quot;Too much&quot;.As i said in my response, this would be roleplaying gold at my table. And, it coulda happened on 3d6 or 2d10 too - different odds but we are already at once a campaign rarity outlier. Me? I work more on the day to day resolutions&nbsp; and treat the once in a campaign swings as opportunities, not horrors.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7644309, member: 6919838"] "Too much", "too much" The case expressed earlier seemed to be a series of tests setup by the gm, results where the two skilled two opponents never rolled higher than 10 on die and the unskilled never rolled under 18. I think its safe to say that for most campaign,lengths those are once-in-campaign odds, right? If we assume five tests, the 10s under alone add up to 1 in 1024. Combine that with five consecutive passes on an 85% odds to roll under 18... yeah... "Too much". As i said in my response, this would be roleplaying gold at my table. And, it coulda happened on 3d6 or 2d10 too - different odds but we are already at once a campaign rarity outlier. Me? I work more on the day to day resolutions and treat the once in a campaign swings as opportunities, not horrors. [/QUOTE]

Verification