Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 7736052" data-attributes="member: 2629">You don't need a huge pool to validate data is flawed if you get massively inconsistent data.Look at it this way:A new player sits down at your table to play D&D. You're having fun. But a bit into the game, one of the other players says, "Wow, Newbie. You're lucky. You've rolled a d20 only 8 times, and the results were all 11 or above. That is real lucky." You think about it and realize all 8 rolls have been 11 or above. There is a 1 in 250 chance (roughly) that would happen. A lot of people would have worries that the player was cheating... likely with loaded die or faked results.Is it a certainty? No. Do similar streaks happen where no funny business is going On? Yes... about 1 in 250 times it occurs and there are a lot of opportunities for that to happen. However, that doesn't matter. I'm focused on my situation. I see something occuring that should be very unlikely. When does it become more likely there is cheating than that our situation was the oddity of 1 in 250.When is it more likely their statistic is wrong than that my experiences were so uncommon.... especially when you complicate the matter by introducing the common expectation that a significant majority of players use human variants?If all of their sampling and statistics are perfect, there would still be a number of people with my experiences. However, the rational position for them to take, without additional information, is that I experienced either really unlikely results, or the stats are funny. You could also challenge my underlying elements (we're the group's totally independent, etc...), but there are arguments both sides there. My experiences are enough to say, "Those results look shady. Check yourself." Even with only 8 draws from the hat.</blockquote>

Verification