Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Yes, you can manipulate the numbers to produce whatever result you wanted. Congrats.
Happy to use any numbers you want. The math is pretty straightforward. The point is that a 33% casualties does not mean a 66% trap detection rate. Assuming the traps are deadly and effective, it suggests a very high rate of detection.
Curiously, @Celebrim came up with very similar numbers, although more analytically. He figured 60 traps per career, whereas I just took a stab at 50. If it's sixty traps then the final figure is....well, a tiny bit closer to 100%.
EDIT: And really the whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate the futility of citing realism in RPGs. Design it the way you like, the way you have the most fun. Realism is quixotic.
Last edited: