Slight enhancement to the die-roller

[Surgo]

I noticed while generating a character that editing in additional rolls doesn't seem to work once you've already rolled (possibly, doesn't work with edits at all regardless of whether you rolled or not). Can this be changed to make it work? The current state makes it impossible to due things like "reroll anything less than X" without posting a new post for that purpose.

[Quincunx]

That's the anti-cheating mechanism you're asking to have disabled.

[Surgo]

I'd say if you don't trust your players enough to roll dice, there's a bigger problem going on...but if that's the anti-cheating mechanism that people like, could an enhancement to the syntax be made to have, say, a "discard under X" parameter?

[Douglas]

If by "discard under X" you mean keep rolling over and over again however many times it takes to get X or above, just use a smaller die size and add. 1d6 reroll 1 and 2 so you always get 3 or above is equivalent to 1d4+2.

[Mando Knight]

could an enhancement to the syntax be made to have, say, a "discard under X" parameter?

Myth-Weavers, at least, has in their dice syntax the XdYrZ format, where it rerolls anything equal to or under Z.

Unless Rawhide/Roland/Whoever decides to go in and replace the dice system, you'll just have to use the method Douglas mentioned, or use [rollv] tags and roll larger numbers of dice than you think you'll need.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Probable mod response: A thing we might look into, but currently not a top priority.

[Zeb The Troll]

I disagree, DD. The die roller functionality is a bonus already. The fact that there are other places to go, such as Myth Weavers and Invisible Castle, which also have "no cheat" functionality, as well as an easy in place workaround, tells me that the official response will be something akin to "This is what we have. We do not have any current plans to rework it, and we do not foresee future plans to do so. You are free to not use it if it does not meet your needs. Thank you." Only more kindly worded by Rawhide or Roland. :smallcool:

[Dallas-Dakota]

True, could be.

But then again, I don't really use the dice roller, so you're probably right.

[Random832]

That's the anti-cheating mechanism you're asking to have disabled.

When you quote, the rolls show up as [roll0], [roll1], etc.

It would be _trivial_ for anyone to quote a message to verify there are no missing numbers from the sequence, they are all in order, etc.

Or just allow anyone to view the edit history of any message that's not edited by a mod. (or maybe only ones that contain dice rolls)

Or only allow edits to append (i.e. have an "append" function that doesn't create a new post)

Or don't have the rule against double posting apply in PBP forums.

[Icewalker]

What you should do for situations like that, is roll more times than you need to, with the extras in case the earlier rolls need to be replaced because they are too low.

For example, if you need to roll 1d6, and reroll 1s and 2s, roll 1d6 three times. If the first is a 1 or a 2, take the second roll instead. If the first and second are a 1 or a 2, take the third. If the third is as well, that's quite a low chance, just post again, double posting for purposes like that isn't an issue.

[LordZarth]

Or just allow anyone to view the edit history of any message that's not edited by a mod. (or maybe only ones that contain dice rolls)

Or only allow edits to append (i.e. have an "append" function that doesn't create a new post)

Or don't have the rule against double posting apply in PBP forums.

Not trivial.

[Quincunx]

I'd say if you don't trust your players enough to roll dice, there's a bigger problem going on...

Aye. Being willing to work around the known liars who nonetheless have some value to the PbP is to the DM's disadvantage. Can't let them think they're getting away with it, now can we?

. . .Can we?


but if that's the anti-cheating mechanism that people like, could an enhancement to the syntax be made to have, say, a "discard under X" parameter?

Now that would be nifty. Unfortunately, the mechanism for "keep the best X out of Y rolls" doesn't always* seem to work here despite being listed, so the equally complicated "discard under X" is probably broken by the same problem.

*Since it certainly doesn't work with the separated rolls, it can only be confirmed broken on, say, getting >18 on 4d6, keep 3.

[NerfTW]

When you quote, the rolls show up as [roll0], [roll1], etc.

It would be _trivial_ for anyone to quote a message to verify there are no missing numbers from the sequence, they are all in order, etc.


And it would be trivial for me to write that in manually. [roll0]
edit- Well, what do you know, I confused this with something else where anythign in brackets would be invisible. I'm dumb.


Or don't have the rule against double posting apply in PBP forums.

I don't believe they do.

[lesser_minion]

As far as I'm aware, the rules against double-posting don't apply in RPG PbP games, partly because it sometimes becomes necessary to re-roll dice rolls.

There is a dice rolls forum here, and you could possibly make a thread there. As it's exclusively for dice rolls, there shouldn't be a problem with double-posting.

I guess the ideal would actually be to separate out the method for making requests of the forum dice roller from the BBCode, instead having the rolls attach themselves to the post when they are requested (unfortunately, this would mean re-writing the roller, which would cause trouble).

I don't think improvements are really in the pipeline for the dice roller though - it works fairly well, as long as you don't need to re-roll things. The forum also isn't especially focused on PbP games, unlike MythWeavers.

I wouldn't mind seeing success-counting, although that might be too much to ask (as rollv allows the individual dice rolls to be seen) - if Exalted becomes more popular, it might be worth including though. Looking through twenty numbers on a computer screen, counting successes and remembering to double-count tens could be a bit of a pain.

Does anyone know where the original announcement about the dice roller went?

It included the instructions for using it, and the warning not to preview posts with dice rolls. I think it might also have had some other useful information, and I think quite a few people are having trouble without it.