Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6787212" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, and this is where we hit the wall of math.&nbsp; You are running less encounters total than I am.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; That means that you have less rounds as well - simply because unless every one of your encounters is twice or three times as long as my presumed 4 rounds, you have to run less rounds of encounters.Now you are also postulating that it requires more than at least two rounds of bad rolls to make the difference.&nbsp; But, in order to have three or more rounds of bad rolls for the players and good rolls for the DM, you are reducing the chances of that event significantly for every round of combat.&nbsp; First off, you need to have combats that last that long in order to have that many rounds of bad rolls - something that is very problematic in 5e considering that with bounded accuracy, the chances of having multiple rounds of several players including the DM having runs of luck, good or bad, is less and less likely.IOW, this is why I seriously question your perception.&nbsp; The odds say that you should not be having this experience.&nbsp; This should not be happening this often.&nbsp; You simply don't have a large enough sample size for this to occur 2-4 times repeatedly across multiple campaigns.&nbsp; Sure, I'll buy that 1 in 10000 event occurring.&nbsp; That happens.&nbsp; What I don't buy is that 1 in 10000 event occurring multiple times in such a small sample size.&nbsp; There is obviously something else going on here.You are free to believe whatever you like.&nbsp; That's fair enough.&nbsp; But, we're not talking about how hard or easy an encounter is.&nbsp; We're talking about the odds of the events you describe occuring.&nbsp; You are talking about having events that are 1 in about 10000 occurring multiple times in a sample size of hundreds.&nbsp; Thus, the comments of confirmation bias.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6787212, member: 22779"] See, and this is where we hit the wall of math. You are running less encounters total than I am. Fair enough. That means that you have less rounds as well - simply because unless every one of your encounters is twice or three times as long as my presumed 4 rounds, you have to run less rounds of encounters. Now you are also postulating that it requires more than at least two rounds of bad rolls to make the difference. But, in order to have three or more rounds of bad rolls for the players and good rolls for the DM, you are reducing the chances of that event significantly for every round of combat. First off, you need to have combats that last that long in order to have that many rounds of bad rolls - something that is very problematic in 5e considering that with bounded accuracy, the chances of having multiple rounds of several players including the DM having runs of luck, good or bad, is less and less likely. IOW, this is why I seriously question your perception. The odds say that you should not be having this experience. This should not be happening this often. You simply don't have a large enough sample size for this to occur 2-4 times repeatedly across multiple campaigns. Sure, I'll buy that 1 in 10000 event occurring. That happens. What I don't buy is that 1 in 10000 event occurring multiple times in such a small sample size. There is obviously something else going on here. You are free to believe whatever you like. That's fair enough. But, we're not talking about how hard or easy an encounter is. We're talking about the odds of the events you describe occuring. You are talking about having events that are 1 in about 10000 occurring multiple times in a sample size of hundreds. Thus, the comments of confirmation bias. [/QUOTE]

Verification