Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6875265" data-attributes="member: 6799649">No, the observed average of previously generated rolls that are not discarded would be higher, but the roll itself will be the same average!1d6 generates an average of 3.5.1d6, re-roll 5 or less; what's the average?Well, which average? The average result? Exactly 6. The average number generated? That stays at 3.5!If you have 1d6 and discard any result of 2 or less, the average number generated by that 1d6 remains 3.5. It still has a 1 in 6 chance to generate each of the six results. If you roll a 1 or 2 and re-roll, the average number generated is still 3.5! If you roll a 3, 4, 5 or 6, you don't re-roll at all, and whether or not this is your first roll or your 50th, the average result of the die you rolled will still be 3.5. You don't have a higher chance of rolling a 3, 4, 5, or 6, just because you choose to roll again if you roll 1 or 2!And that is the reality of generating a set of six stats! No re-roll changes the expected number generated by that method, and it is the set you generate which becomes your used set. That set has no expectation of generating a higher set than was expected previously.Any average you observe after the fact has absolutely no impact on the average you are expected to generate.In fact, the actual rolls of a group may be higher or lower than the expected average, but this doesn't mean that the rules you used to generate those sets were expected to be higher using that method; it just turned out that way. You wouldn't make the mistake of looking at a high set of results and say that the method used must therefore have expected this average, would you? And yet this is what you're doing with discards; seeing the results of the average sets after discarding, and erroneously concluding that the method of generation must have changed the expected average generated by that method!</blockquote>

Verification