Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9680244" data-attributes="member: 71699">One way I think about it is appearances over sessions. That is because the probability alone doesn't tell us much unless we also consider the frequency of tests against it.Say a group likes to roll dice a lot so they have a roll of the sort we're thinking about every 5 minutes for 4 hours = 48 per session. 1:400 means they will experience the feared result about once over ten sessions. If they play weekly, that's about once a quarter year (taking into account what I've experienced as the normal ratios of skipped sessions).That's a palpable degree less than 1:20 where they'll experience it twice a session. Would it make much difference if it were halved again? I think that depends mostly on the third factor that should ordinarily be considered, which is severity. Here the severity is character death if I'm reading correctly.It seems to me that character death from a cause like this any more than twice a year might feel rather too much! On that basis I'd agree with [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER]. One response would be to suppose the group roll far less often for this sort of thing, e.g. if it's once an hour of play the observed incidences per year decline dramatically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9680244, member: 71699"] One way I think about it is appearances over sessions. That is because the probability alone doesn't tell us much unless we also consider the frequency of tests against it. Say a group likes to roll dice a lot so they have a roll of the sort we're thinking about every 5 minutes for 4 hours = 48 per session. 1:400 means they will experience the feared result about once over ten sessions. If they play weekly, that's about once a quarter year (taking into account what I've experienced as the normal ratios of skipped sessions). That's a palpable degree less than 1:20 where they'll experience it twice a session. Would it make much difference if it were halved again? I think that depends mostly on the third factor that should ordinarily be considered, which is severity. Here the severity is character death if I'm reading correctly. It seems to me that character death from a cause like this any more than twice a year might feel rather too much! On that basis I'd agree with [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER]. One response would be to suppose the group roll far less often for this sort of thing, e.g. if it's once an hour of play the observed incidences per year decline dramatically. [/QUOTE]

Verification