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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5390255" data-attributes="member: 3400">The difference here is that you're talking about a competitive zero-sum game when the difference between two PCs, one with a +1 and one without, is not. You're also setting the terms of the number of coin flips. If I had the choice of whether to continue after each flip, as a gambler would have in a casino, I might well take up the offer even with this arrangement, hoping for a streak and a chance to stop before losses caught up. That's why games with even worse payoffs for the player can still work in a casino environment.Now, if we were to roll d20s and every time we rolled over 10, we got $1 from the DM, and you had a +1 compared to me, would I still play and expect to do quite well compared to you? Yes. But at any particular snapshot in time throughout those 1000 die throws, would an observer be able to easily tell you have an edge over me based on the piles of money we've amassed? That's really what the question of statistical significance is about. What + do you have to have for the observer, looking at our money piles, to be confident he's correctly identifying which of us has the better odds of making the money.In the end, the +1 is a nice benefit, but it's not a game breaker. Missing one or two +1s in character development compared to your peers isn't likely to make a huge difference in any particular encounter. Each +1 is likely make the difference between success and failure for only 5% of the rolls. If you  happen to roll the (success number-1) a lot in a fight, then the +1 is a huge benefit. But that's not likely to happen. It's far more likely for any single roll, given 19 other numbers on the die, that the +1 has no effect whatsoever.</blockquote>

Verification