A DM who rolls almost nothing but 20s

[Ser Loras]

Hello there!

I wanted to share an odd situation I'm currently involved in, that has soured me on playing with the group I play D&D with weekly.

I've been with the same D&D group now for over a year, and we play once a week together.

Recently I've started to lose interest in the group as the gameplay itself - which, when we started, was highly focused on character interaction and roleplay - has become secondary to the group dynamics and relationship politics playing out between players. There are a couple of instances of this that are extremely grating - including one player who insists on being regarded as the "Party leader", and has had characters simply walk away and out of the game when nobody would take this claim seriously - but the most distracting and immersion-breaking of all has been the behaviour of the DM.

He rolls nothing but 20s, in the open, where everyone can see them. All the damn time.

In four sessions of our latest campaign, we have lost four PCs, because every roll of consequence is an automatic 20. It's not a problem with the dice, either - responding to half-joking allegations of weighted dice he happily traded his set with another players, only for the 20s to keep on coming. It has totally broken the point of the game; every session now is just a sort of cult of personality around the DM and his endless tirade of 20s. We're not really playing Dungeons & Dragons - we're playing a game where we watch dice fall. There's no real concern given over to characters or setting or what's happening - the entire game is about what the physical dice are doing on our physical table. D&D is just the excuse to keep rolling them.

It's...boring And nobody else seems to begrudge the change in the focus of our weekly game from playing Dungeons & Dragons to responding in awe to the endless flood of natural 20s that get rolled over and over and over again no matter what dice set the DM seems to be using.

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for by posting - I guess, just a chance to vent. But any explanation for the impossible odds at play here would be...really gratifying. What the Hell is going on?! And has anybody else experience a situation like this before?!

Thanks guys and gals.

[Louro]

My last session on ToA... My ranger rolled 1 on his two attacks. I used inspiration to reroll one of them and got a 2.
Then the warlock also rolled the snake eyes on his two eldritch blasts. Inspiration and rolled another 1!!!

Defeat!

Tell the DM you're not having fun anymore.

[zinycor]

Well, If this is your bigger problem, then take it easy dude. Luck sometimes can be like that, if you are patient enough you will also get Crits and the GM will end up rolling some 1s.

On the other hand, you could make a build that manipulates odds, like a divination wizard or a bard. Spells like bless, Bane or Guidance can do wonders if you having bad luck.

Look to do actions (such as pushing enemies into the ground) that force your GM to roll with disadvantage and/or you and your companions to roll with advantage.

Lastly, try to force the enemies to do actions which would not be optimal for them, even if they crit.

In the end, this will only be a temporary problem, but having characters with RNG manipulation would be nice for your party nonetheless.

[The Aboleth]

If the DM is rolling out in the open and the 20s are legit, it's hard to be mad at the DM. As others mentioned, that's simply luck.

Something you can do is talk to the DM, tell them the 20s are making play boring, and perhaps suggest they roll behind a screen from now on. That way, if the 20s keep coming the DM can just fudge the rolls and say he rolled a 10 or something. It's not ideal, granted, but if it "resets" the odds then it might be worth a try.

[Keravath]

Honestly, I'd just say it sounds like the game isn't working for you anymore so time to move on. Perhaps to a different group or perhaps to a different game altogether. There are a huge number of interesting role playing games, board games and other similar activities and perhaps your feelings are just an indication that you want a change of pace.

Social interactions are a normal part of gaming and you may not get along with all the other players at the table. If some players are so bad that you can't enjoy the game ... move on. If one player tries to insist on being the party leader and no one else goes along then just ignore them or reply in character that "You don't take orders from nobody" (depending on your character of course ... but such a response could work for any chaotic or even neutral alignment) ... and then get on with the game.

Another comment you make "group dynamics and relationship politics playing out between players", covers a whole lot of ground. It sounds like some real world angst is invading your D&D game which frequently happens when you have a group of people interacting at any social activity. If you find it too much, too bothersome, or if it is an issue because you are involved in it ... then just move on as well. :)


---------------

As for the dice, just remember that unless the dice are rigged the DM has no control over the numbers that he rolls. The dice rolls have nothing to do with DM behaviour.

If you are concerned, I'd suggest just noting ALL the results the DM rolls either in your head or on a piece of paper. In my experience, the "20" results are memorable and often every other result is not. In fact, you note "because every roll of consequence is an automatic 20" ... this implies his other rolls are NOT 20's and rolling 20's in significant situations is simply LUCK (good or bad) and has nothing to do with the DM.

After playing in a game last night, I can recall when both the DM and other players rolled criticals because they were less common and more interesting in long rounds of combat. If I just relied on memory it might seem like criticals were rolled far too often ... but when I consider the hundreds of die rolls made by all the players over 5 or 6 combats ... the number of 20s rolled doesn't seem out of place.

I'd also add that "streaks" in rolling dice aren't uncommon and are a perfectly normal part of random statistics. As an example, during 5 consecutive rounds of combat last night, I rolled a 9 every time for initiative. Five 9's in a row isn't common and neither is 5 20's but both can and do happen.

So unless the DM is using weighted dice, the streak of high rolls at important plot points is just a normal part of rolling dice and over time the DM will eventually roll as much of any other result on the die.


P.S. However, it is the DMs responsibility (job :) ) to create a fun game which most if not all of the players are enjoying (which means making on the fly adjustments to any encounter depending on the flow of luck).

If the players roll poorly or the DM rolls well, the DMs goal should be to create a tense situation in where the players don't know whether they will make it (but the DM knows that they likely will ..).

Too often, some DMs get into the mindset that the monsters and NPCs are "their" team and the PCs are the opposition. The DM sometimes feels that they "win" when their team defeats at least some of the PCs. In my experience, that approach can often result in games that are far less fun in the long run. The DM, in my opinion, is a neutral adjudicator of the player and NPC/monster actions. In any given situation, the creatures have their goals and objectives, as do the PCs ... each side takes actions to achieve those goals. The DM narrates the scene adding colour and spice describing the actions taken and how they interact with both the other NPC/monsters and the PCs. The DMs job is to create a vibrant, "realistic" world where the PCs can do as they choose in response to the events occurring within that world. The DM "wins" if the players have fun not because the players die due to some well crafted encounter.

[DeTess]

You need to get a cursed dice, one of those that tends to roll well below average all the time (make sure it works so on both sides of the table, as a dice that only hates players would only make things worse). Then, you need to put it in the DM's dice stash, preferably without the DM noticing. Over the following days and weeks, this one bad dice will slowly corrupt the DM's entire stash until all of the dice only roll ones.

In all seriousness, I've got nothing. Maybe change things around so the players roll all the dice (rather than the goblin rolling to hit, you roll an active defense, which is 1d20+(AC-10) and need to overcome the goblin's attack DC (attack mod+10)?

[Keltest]

If you don't want to follow The Aboleth's advice, you can also as a group try and plan things out so that there are fewer situations where the DM needs to roll at all. If luck is against you, don't leave things to chance, so to speak. Its not ideal, but if he's just legitimately lucky like that, there aren't a lot of good solutions.

[Sudsboy]

I've felt like a person at our table was a 20-rolling machine. If you take the time to record each roll from a game session though, you'll probably discover what I have - that 20s are exciting and get noticed, and average rolls are quickly forgotten. I'm not questioning your truthfulness, but our perceptions are skewed toward the memorable in hindsight.

On the other hand, if the guy is literally incapable of rolling anything but 20, forget about D&D and take that man to Vegas.

[Potato_Priest]

On the 20s problem- I suggest asking your fellow players and GM to stop making a big deal out of the rolls. You can’t control what the GM rolls, but you can control whether it slows down play with ooing and aweing, which seems to be the crux of your annoyance.

[Unoriginal]

On the other hand, if the guy is literally incapable of rolling anything but 20, forget about D&D and take that man to Vegas.

Make sure his power works with other kinds of dice and random chances, first.

[R.Shackleford]

Hello there!

I wanted to share an odd situation I'm currently involved in, that has soured me on playing with the group I play D&D with weekly.

I've been with the same D&D group now for over a year, and we play once a week together.

Recently I've started to lose interest in the group as the gameplay itself - which, when we started, was highly focused on character interaction and roleplay - has become secondary to the group dynamics and relationship politics playing out between players. There are a couple of instances of this that are extremely grating - including one player who insists on being regarded as the "Party leader", and has had characters simply walk away and out of the game when nobody would take this claim seriously - but the most distracting and immersion-breaking of all has been the behaviour of the DM.

He rolls nothing but 20s, in the open, where everyone can see them. All the damn time.

In four sessions of our latest campaign, we have lost four PCs, because every roll of consequence is an automatic 20. It's not a problem with the dice, either - responding to half-joking allegations of weighted dice he happily traded his set with another players, only for the 20s to keep on coming. It has totally broken the point of the game; every session now is just a sort of cult of personality around the DM and his endless tirade of 20s. We're not really playing Dungeons & Dragons - we're playing a game where we watch dice fall. There's no real concern given over to characters or setting or what's happening - the entire game is about what the physical dice are doing on our physical table. D&D is just the excuse to keep rolling them.

It's...boring And nobody else seems to begrudge the change in the focus of our weekly game from playing Dungeons & Dragons to responding in awe to the endless flood of natural 20s that get rolled over and over and over again no matter what dice set the DM seems to be using.

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for by posting - I guess, just a chance to vent. But any explanation for the impossible odds at play here would be...really gratifying. What the Hell is going on?! And has anybody else experience a situation like this before?!

Thanks guys and gals.

I'm this kind of DM/Player, where nat 20s are second nature. This isn't every time, but when I'm hot... Well, I'm taking 1d6 fire damage every 6 seconds.

I roll out in the open and use other people's dice... Doesn't help.

So I've started doing different things depending on the table and if I'm being stupidly lucky.

As a player...

1: Virtual Dice Roller. Some tables aren't cool with this but usually when I show off my luck/skill with real dice they shut up about it.

2: Lie about dice rolls. For those that don't want virtual dice rollers I'll just lie about the restults. Yup, totally rolled a 2. Totally wasn't another 20, for the 6th time in the last 20 mins, you're seeing things. Typically I'll base it around how dramatic it will be to fail. Rolling against a goblin? I'll keep the crit. Rolling against the BBEG... I rather wiff than make the combat last one round.

As a DM...

I don't roll in front of players. If I'm on a hot streak, I'm not going to let dice rolls dictate the fun of a game. Yeah, a player may get crit, but I'm not going to TPK a party when it isn't their fault. Totally will TPK a party if it is their fault tho.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I hate d20's. I really do.

For precisely the reason mentioned above. Some players/DM's seem to have the uncanny ability to pull a natural 20 out of their butts practically on demand. I just peruse the rulebooks, looking for cool character options, and any time I see something that's triggered by a critical hit or a natural 20, I line it out with a big freakin' black sharpie because it's never gonna happen for my character!!!*

And (don't tell anyone this) sometimes I play other roleplaying games that don't use d20's at all.







*No I don't, not really. This is a joke. I would never actually deface an expensive rpg book in this manner.

[Sudsboy]

And (don't tell anyone this) sometimes I play other roleplaying games that don't use d20's at all.

I love my wizard because of my tendency to roll unlucky. He has the fewest d20 rolls of any of my characters.

[Ganymede]

If there's nothing wrong with the die and nothing wrong with the DM rolling the die, then you don't actually have to do anything. This incredible string of 20s will have no bearing whatsoever on the probability of rolling future 20s, so just play as normal.

[Lille]

Ask your group to switch to Savage Worlds instead. Then you don't have to worry about your DM's D20s.

But seriously, just talk to the DM about it, explain that you're not having fun like this.

While you're at it, talk to the DM about the "party leader" player as well. I would say "talk to the person in question rather than going to the DM", but the person in question doesn't sound like they'd care how you feel. As such, the DM would be the best person to talk to about it.

[Pelle]

Hello there!

I wanted to share an odd situation I'm currently involved in, that has soured me on playing with the group I play D&D with weekly.

I've been with the same D&D group now for over a year, and we play once a week together.

Recently I've started to lose interest in the group as the gameplay itself - which, when we started, was highly focused on character interaction and roleplay - has become secondary to the group dynamics and relationship politics playing out between players. There are a couple of instances of this that are extremely grating - including one player who insists on being regarded as the "Party leader", and has had characters simply walk away and out of the game when nobody would take this claim seriously - but the most distracting and immersion-breaking of all has been the behaviour of the DM.

He rolls nothing but 20s, in the open, where everyone can see them. All the damn time.

In four sessions of our latest campaign, we have lost four PCs, because every roll of consequence is an automatic 20. It's not a problem with the dice, either - responding to half-joking allegations of weighted dice he happily traded his set with another players, only for the 20s to keep on coming. It has totally broken the point of the game; every session now is just a sort of cult of personality around the DM and his endless tirade of 20s. We're not really playing Dungeons & Dragons - we're playing a game where we watch dice fall. There's no real concern given over to characters or setting or what's happening - the entire game is about what the physical dice are doing on our physical table. D&D is just the excuse to keep rolling them.

It's...boring And nobody else seems to begrudge the change in the focus of our weekly game from playing Dungeons & Dragons to responding in awe to the endless flood of natural 20s that get rolled over and over and over again no matter what dice set the DM seems to be using.

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for by posting - I guess, just a chance to vent. But any explanation for the impossible odds at play here would be...really gratifying. What the Hell is going on?! And has anybody else experience a situation like this before?!

Thanks guys and gals.

Fyi, sarcasm is supposed to be blue text, it's silly I agree.

If this is really not a joke thread; confirmation bias.

[LudicSavant]

Most incidences of “probability is bull****” style posts results from people having selective memories about roll patterns they don’t like coming up.

The rest are rigged dice.

Statistically the chances of any gamer in the entire history of dnd “always rolling 20s” throughout a campaign of any non-negligible length are so low that the expected number of people who have experienced this in the entire history of the hobby is around... zero.

[stoutstien]

What about the reverse rogue roll?

[sithlordnergal]

Brownwyn, is that you? O-O

In all seriousness, I am a DM and I have this exact thing where I get on massive hot streaks all of the time. I may not roll 20 100% of the time...but for those of you who think it is just confirmation bias...well...after my fourth crit with disadvantage in a single combat encounter, and after critting a majority of the NPCs initiative...I know it is more that. And that is a regular occurrence for me, both as a player and a DM.

Its not even that I make a big deal about crits. The issue comes with the fact that crits tend to do much more damage, and makes monsters deadlier.

Some of my players have suggested using a confirmation roll: I.E. if I crit with an attack I have to roll again to confirm the crit hit. I have thus far said no, as combat takes far too long as it is and I want to cut down on dice rolling as much as possible.

Edit: I also roll in the open, though I DM on roll20 so I am not rolling a physical dice.

[sithlordnergal]

Most incidences of “probability is bull****” style posts results from people having selective memories about roll patterns they don’t like coming up.

The rest are rigged dice.

Statistically the chances of any gamer in the entire history of dnd “always rolling 20s” throughout a campaign of any non-negligible length are so low that the expected number of people who have experienced this in the entire history of the hobby is around... zero.

You can increase that number by 1. I DM on roll20, and the players can freely see my rolls for saving throws and attack rolls. I have, on many occasions, gotten multiple crits off despite having disadvantage to attack rolls. I can name multiple times where I crit on initative for a majority of the NPC enemy combatants, and still got well above an average number of crits on attack rolls during the combat encounters.

And it isn't like I have advantage. I rarely use NPCs that gain advantage on attacks.

[LudicSavant]

Crit chains are common enough that they are to be expected on occasion in extended campaigns due to sheer number of rolls. Hot streaks are simply normal. High level strategy gamers and gamblers actually plan for them (and low streaks too). It’s why the charop boards have lingo like “IP proofing.”

Confirmation bias can blow pretty normal or only slightly unusual things out of proportion.

There is a massive, massive difference in probability between “I get crit chains” and “I always roll 20s.”

[zinycor]

You can increase that number by 1. I DM on roll20, and the players can freely see my rolls for saving throws and attack rolls. I have, on many occasions, gotten multiple crits off despite having disadvantage to attack rolls. I can name multiple times where I crit on initative for a majority of the NPC enemy combatants, and still got well above an average number of crits on attack rolls during the combat encounters.

And it isn't like I have advantage. I rarely use NPCs that gain advantage on attacks.

Have you actually measured it? the statistics of your rolls would tell you if you are indeed this lucky.

[ImproperJustice]

Some people are just statistical anomalies.

My wife rolls 20’s so many times, it’s obscene.
We once watched her roll 3 in a row, and 6 more later that session.

By contrast, my best friend is a great player whom the dice just hate. I have seen him go entire sessions without a single successful roll.
In our last session, his Champion attacked 3 times at advantage with a +11 hit, and still missed all 3 attacks against an opponent with a 16 AC.

It’s part of the nature of random chance I suppose.

[LudicSavant]

Some people are just statistical anomalies.

My wife rolls 20’s so many times, it’s obscene.
We once watched her roll 3 in a row, and 6 more later that session.

By contrast, my best friend is a great player whom the dice just hate. I have seen him go entire sessions without a single successful roll.
In our last session, his Champion attacked 3 times at advantage with a +11 hit, and still missed all 3 attacks against an opponent with a 16 AC.

It’s part of the nature of random chance I suppose.

This is a good example of people thinking that a fairly normal occurrence is anomalous.

It’s like how people on xcom forums say “I missed a 95% shot three times in a row! Beating Legendary Ironman is just luck!” And all the people who consistently beat Legendary Ironman have to get on and try to explain to them how statistics works and why they dug their own graves.

[sithlordnergal]

Have you actually measured it? the statistics of your rolls would tell you if you are indeed this lucky.

I have not taken proper metrics, I only have my own memory to go by. And while I do understand confirmation bias exists...when all of my players come to me with the issue that I roll too many nat 20s, and I can give tons of examples as both a player and a dm of me rolling an above average amount of 20s, I at least have good reason to suspect I am lucky.

I may start taking metrics though. As a person who will minor in math, it would be very interesting

[LudicSavant]

I have not taken proper metrics, I only have my own memory to go by. And while I do understand confirmation bias exists...when all of my players come to me with the issue that I roll too many nat 20s, and I can give tons of examples as both a player and a dm of me rolling an above average amount of 20s, I at least have good reason to suspect I am lucky.

I may start taking metrics though. As a person who will minor in math, it would be very interesting

I have seen people making such comments in dozens of groups. Confirmation bias and exaggeration of rarity based on streaks is super common. Actual statistical anomalies are not. Streaks are normal and expected to happen to someone in a group from time to time.

Also, in every group, someone will naturally be the “luckiest” over any number of trials. This too is normal as can be. It’s just how distribution works.

[gameogre]

No person on the planet is going to have 20 come up a much larger percentage of the time compared to any other person over a years time unless the dice are off.

That said, I have seen people roll 20's a lot when it really mattered and 1's when it didn't and the reverse of that for much longer periods of time. During H.O.T.D.Q. we had a wizard (Divination) who rolled a crap lot of nat 20's on his portent ability and making saves ect...and a lot of 1's on almost needless perception checks and saves when it didn't really matter all that much. Eventually his luck ran out but good lord it took a long while. Even then it didn't turn bad just not the astounding good luck he had been having.

During one weekend my warrior failed to hit like 90% of the time even with advantage and a huge bonus to hit. I just couldn't seem to roll over 7 the entire weekend. We just laughed about it and then Died horrible deaths. Shrug, it happens.

[Ganymede]

No person on the planet is going to have 20 come up a much larger percentage of the time compared to any other person over a years time unless the dice are off.

This is another probability myth. Yes, the probability of these events theoretically approach a normal curve over time, but that does not constrain any individual result. The DM could roll 100 20s in a row. A normal distribution makes this result incredibly unlikely, but it doesn't make it impossible nor does it create a countervailing force that compels the dice to roll more non-20s in the future to balance things out.

[holywhippet]

Two thoughts:

a) Get him a dice tower to use. See if that shifts his rolls at all.

b) Similar to a) but, whenever he is about to make a roll with significant consequences if he rolls a natural 20, have one of the players drop the d20 in the tower for him.

[ad_hoc]

Humans in general don't understand probabilities.

This is why gambling is so profitable for those who do.

No one has more or less luck than anyone else.

OP: Never play poker.

[LudicSavant]

This is another probability myth. Yes, the probability of these events theoretically approach a normal curve over time, but that does not constrain any individual result. The DM could roll 100 20s in a row. A normal distribution makes this result incredibly unlikely, but it doesn't make it impossible nor does it create a countervailing force that compels the dice to roll more non-20s in the future to balance things out.

Yep, that’s right.

[Theodoric]

My players insist I role behind a screen for exactly this reason. They'd rather I fudge the occasional die than having it all play out fatalistically in their face. A bit of mystery here can do wonders.

[ad_hoc]

My players insist I role behind a screen for exactly this reason. They'd rather I fudge the occasional die than having it all play out fatalistically in their face. A bit of mystery here can do wonders.

Why do you bother rolling at all then?

[The Aboleth]

Why do you bother rolling at all then?

Keyword was occasional. It's one thing if a DM is fudging most rolls, but if it's only an occasional occurrence then I don't personally see an issue with it.

[Zilong]

Why do you bother rolling at all then?

Because I like the sound?

[R.Shackleford]

Humans in general don't understand probabilities.

This is why gambling is so profitable for those who do.

No one has more or less luck than anyone else.

OP: Never play poker.

Scientists do not agree with you.

Initial Reading: https://www.popsci.com/luck-real

Some neat reading and you can grab some names from that article and look more into it.

But the coolest part of it is that...


Luck doesn’t just “happen,” even for people who consider themselves lucky. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire in England, has done a number of studies to figure out what distinguishes a lucky person from an unlucky one. In one study, he asked people who identified as luck and as unlucky to read a newspaper. On one half page of a newspaper, he wrote in large letters: “Tell the experimenter you have seen this and win £250.” The people who said they were lucky were more likely to see the ad, Wiseman wrote, and the “unlucky” people seemed to demonstrate more anxiety, which detracted from their powers of observation. Now, Wiseman has “four principles” of luck on his web site, and they all have to do with being open to new experiences and observing opportunities as they present themselves.

So if someone is rolling a lot of 20's on a die, it could be a number of things. It could be that they have subconsciously found that holding the d20 a certain way means that the way it's weighted will come up as a 20 more often. Most d20s are mass produced and I don't know if there's a lot of regulations on them :P.

[Keltest]

Scientists do not agree with you.

Initial Reading: https://www.popsci.com/luck-real

Some neat reading and you can grab some names from that article and look more into it.

But the coolest part of it is that...


Luck doesn’t just “happen,” even for people who consider themselves lucky. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire in England, has done a number of studies to figure out what distinguishes a lucky person from an unlucky one. In one study, he asked people who identified as luck and as unlucky to read a newspaper. On one half page of a newspaper, he wrote in large letters: “Tell the experimenter you have seen this and win £250.” The people who said they were lucky were more likely to see the ad, Wiseman wrote, and the “unlucky” people seemed to demonstrate more anxiety, which detracted from their powers of observation. Now, Wiseman has “four principles” of luck on his web site, and they all have to do with being open to new experiences and observing opportunities as they present themselves.

So if someone is rolling a lot of 20's on a die, it could be a number of things. It could be that they have subconsciously found that holding the d20 a certain way means that the way it's weighted will come up as a 20 more often. Most d20s are mass produced and I don't know if there's a lot of regulations on them :P.

I believe very cheap dice tend to not be well balanced, but higher quality dice have a lot more effort put into making them fair. Go figure.

There is actually some science behind putting in the numbers without throwing the balance of the die totally off, and cutting some of those corners helps to make the dice cheaper to produce.

[ImproperJustice]

Or, is it not possible in this great, near infinite universe of ours that some people may actually just roll higher or lower than others on average simply due to the fact that probability by it’s very nature is an unpredictable force in the universe?


Sure, we can draw conclusions on what is most likely, but every once in a while, the coin lands on its edge...

[ad_hoc]

Scientists do not agree with you.

Initial Reading: https://www.popsci.com/luck-real

Some neat reading and you can grab some names from that article and look more into it.

But the coolest part of it is that...


Luck doesn’t just “happen,” even for people who consider themselves lucky. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire in England, has done a number of studies to figure out what distinguishes a lucky person from an unlucky one. In one study, he asked people who identified as luck and as unlucky to read a newspaper. On one half page of a newspaper, he wrote in large letters: “Tell the experimenter you have seen this and win £250.” The people who said they were lucky were more likely to see the ad, Wiseman wrote, and the “unlucky” people seemed to demonstrate more anxiety, which detracted from their powers of observation. Now, Wiseman has “four principles” of luck on his web site, and they all have to do with being open to new experiences and observing opportunities as they present themselves.

So if someone is rolling a lot of 20's on a die, it could be a number of things. It could be that they have subconsciously found that holding the d20 a certain way means that the way it's weighted will come up as a 20 more often. Most d20s are mass produced and I don't know if there's a lot of regulations on them :P.

You don't understand that.

Believing you are lucky is entirely different than being lucky.

Having confidence will likely have a big effect on a person's life, that is different than being lucky.

The best poker players aren't ones who just believe they will be luckier and thus the cards are better for them. They know they have just as much chance of winning any given hand at showdown as anyone else. Though, against you they might claim to be lucky so you will be scared of their cards and fold when you shouldn't. That is different than actually being lucky.

It is well documented how faulty human thinking is esp. when concerning patterns and such.

[ad_hoc]

Or, is it not possible in this great, near infinite universe of ours that some people may actually just roll higher or lower than others on average simply due to the fact that probability by it’s very nature is an unpredictable force in the universe?


Sure, we can draw conclusions on what is most likely, but every once in a while, the coin lands on its edge...

No.

It is not only possible but certain that some people will have had greater or inferior results in games of chance and the like. Once we start measuring them their likelihood of getting a particular result is the same as everyone else.

Here's a thing that is asked by many amateur poker players: "My results are running far below my expected results, how many hands will it take for that to even out on average?" The answer is never. The new expected results will always now be below average when adding in their current low results.

That doesn't mean they are lucky or unlucky. They are neither. Do you understand?

[ImproperJustice]

No.

It is not only possible but certain that some people will have had greater or inferior results in games of chance and the like. Once we start measuring them their likelihood of getting a particular result is the same as everyone else.

Here's a thing that is asked by many amateur poker players: "My results are running far below my expected results, how many hands will it take for that to even out on average?" The answer is never. The new expected results will always now be below average when adding in their current low results.

That doesn't mean they are lucky or unlucky. They are neither. Do you understand?

I keep feeling like we may be dancing around the same concept but disagreeing on the terminology.

You seem to be acknowledging that some people will have abover or below average successful results, while denying the vernacuyof lucky and unlucky.

I think that the inherent chaotic uncertainty that probability brings allows for the possibility that some individuals will be more or less lucky than others.
I see the presence of this post, and my own experience as evidence of these phenomenon.

[R.Shackleford]

You don't understand that.

Believing you are lucky is entirely different than being lucky.

Having confidence will likely have a big effect on a person's life, that is different than being lucky.

The best poker players aren't ones who just believe they will be luckier and thus the cards are better for them. They know they have just as much chance of winning any given hand at showdown as anyone else. Though, against you they might claim to be lucky so you will be scared of their cards and fold when you shouldn't. That is different than actually being lucky.

It is well documented how faulty human thinking is esp. when concerning patterns and such.

Believing you are lucky has been shown to "increase" luck due to subconscious efforts. You're basically saying that someone who studied luck for a 10 year project is just flat wrong...

I'll take all the documented scientists over a random internet stranger.

They've found that talent has less to do with success than luck. Thus some people are just luckier than others.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

[ad_hoc]

I keep feeling like we may be dancing around the same concept but disagreeing on the terminology.

You seem to be acknowledging that some people will have abover or below average successful results, while denying the vernacuyof lucky and unlucky.

I think that the inherent chaotic uncertainty that probability brings allows for the possibility that some individuals will be more or less lucky than others.
I see the presence of this post, and my own experience as evidence of these phenomenon.

It has nothing to do with the individual and past results don't have bearing on future results.

Someone who had fortunate prior results is not more or less likely to have future fortunate results.

[Ganymede]

Believing you are lucky has been shown to "increase" luck due to subconscious efforts. You're basically saying that someone who studied luck for a 10 year project is just flat wrong...

I'll take all the documented scientists over a random internet stranger.

They've found that talent has less to do with success than luck. Thus some people are just luckier than others.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

I'm really not sure you're interpreting that blog entry correctly as its conclusions are not particularly relevant to the generation of random numbers, or whether some people are prone to generate better or worse random numbers.

That article is talking about the effect of fortunate circumstances in a person's life and how they can compound into future fortunate circumstances.

[ad_hoc]

Believing you are lucky has been shown to "increase" luck due to subconscious efforts. You're basically saying that someone who studied luck for a 10 year project is just flat wrong...

I'll take all the documented scientists over a random internet stranger.

They've found that talent has less to do with success than luck. Thus some people are just luckier than others.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/

You don't understand what they mean by "luck". I guarantee that no peer reviewed study has shown that magical thinking increases the likelihood of a fortunate random draw.

Gambling is a multi-billion dollar industry. People study this. There aren't people out there who just believe they are lucky and then beat the house because of that. It just doesn't happen.

[ad_hoc]

Anecdotally, FWIW, I've played and analyzed over a million poker hands. That's a small number compared to many professionals but is still large enough to have seen some stuff. I've also frequented a forum where 10-20 of these posts were created every day and then the patient people would use the poster's graph/history to break down exactly why they are wrong about being a 'lucky' or 'unlucky' person.

A person rolling some 20s in a few rolls is nothing (esp. when basically nothing is on the line and no one is tracking the data for accuracy anyway).

[Algeh]

If we're going to link to things about probability, this: https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/11/11/the-patterns-in-the-stonework/ is a good article to help get the idea of streaks within large samples being normal across.

[greenfunkman]

I mostly DM and have a reputation for rolling like that. It's totally not true though.
;)


the most distracting and immersion-breaking of all has been the behaviour of the DM.

He rolls nothing but 20s, in the open, where everyone can see them. All the damn time.

In four sessions of our latest campaign, we have lost four PCs, because every roll of consequence is an automatic 20. It's not a problem with the dice, either - responding to half-joking allegations of weighted dice he happily traded his set with another players, only for the 20s to keep on coming. It has totally broken the point of the game; every session now is just a sort of cult of personality around the DM and his endless tirade of 20s.



It sounds to me like the problem isn't the rolling 20s but that the DM might be continually gloating about it or being overbearing at the table? If that's the case you should discuss it with him privately - he probably doesn't realise he's overdoing it. Sometimes people get carried away. If he's just celebrating like everyone else at the table though then let him have some fun. In the long term the 1s and the 20s always even out, even if in the short term you can have a run that feels like a long run.

How many characters did you personally lose? I always find that if I've put a lot of work into a character it hurts to see it go down. Especially if you never got the time to develop the character. Character deaths mean a lot more when they are part of a story arc (even a tragic one), not simply falling by the roll of the die. But, it happens.

[Pelle]

I keep feeling like we may be dancing around the same concept but disagreeing on the terminology.

You seem to be acknowledging that some people will have abover or below average successful results, while denying the vernacuyof lucky and unlucky.

I think that the inherent chaotic uncertainty that probability brings allows for the possibility that some individuals will be more or less lucky than others.
I see the presence of this post, and my own experience as evidence of these phenomenon.

Looking at a person's history, you can say they have been lucky for winning the lottery. Someone has to win it, so someone is bound to be lucky there. So yes, some people will end up having been lucky, that's the outcome of a random process.

But you can't say someone are lucky, that they have an innate magical property. Winning once doesn't make you more likely to win the lottery again, or keep rolling 20s. That's superstition, and I think it can be classified as the reversed gambler's fallacy.

[ImproperJustice]

Looking at a person's history, you can say they have been lucky for winning the lottery. Someone has to win it, so someone is bound to be lucky there. So yes, some people will end up having been lucky, that's the outcome of a random process.

But you can't say someone are lucky, that they have an innate magical property. Winning once doesn't make you more likely to win the lottery again, or keep rolling 20s. That's superstition, and I think it can be classified as the reversed gambler's fallacy.

There was the Yellowstone park Ranger who was struck by Lightning 14 times in his lifetime.

We can safely call him “unlucky”.

I get it. You don’t like the terms.
Probability is chaotic and does not conform to the cold rules of logic. It is unpredictable.
It’s why it’s neat.
Our universe is full of extraordinary, unlikely coincidences that produce observable results. You can reject the vernacular terms of lucky and unlucky if you want, but they are an easy means to recognize that some people can and do fall outside statistical norms at times.

You can say that everyone averages out their lucky rolls all you want. But there is no way for absolute certain that you can rule out that a person may roll an above or below average number of d20s for the two years or so that they play D&D.

And if during that time people observe that phenomenon, they can call those people lucky or unlucky all they want.

[jdolch]

LoL, are we actually talking about some magical ability to roll perfect dice? Why the heck are you playing D&D? Take the guy, go to Vegas and get rich.

[ad_hoc]

There was the Yellowstone park Ranger who was struck by Lightning 14 times in his lifetime.

We can safely call him “unlucky”.

No, we can't.



Our universe is full of extraordinary, unlikely coincidences that produce observable results. You can reject the vernacular terms of lucky and unlucky if you want, but they are an easy means to recognize that some people can and do fall outside statistical norms at times.

But they don't fall outside of statistical norms. You just don't understand the math.



You can say that everyone averages out their lucky rolls all you want. But there is no way for absolute certain that you can rule out that a person may roll an above or below average number of d20s for the two years or so that they play D&D.

You're still not understanding.

Individual people don't 'average out'.

Before they roll their d20s we can't predict what the numbers will be. We can look at results after, but that won't tell us about future results.

That part of it is simple.

[Ganders]

You don't have to quit if you can get the game back on track. This group of people have proven they're capable of, and interested in, roleplaying because they used to do it at low level. So the potential is there.

You could just ask them to get back to that playstyle. Just mentioning it might be enough -- sure it might turn into a whole long talk, but it also could be a really short talk. You shouldn't phrase it as 'do this or I quit' right away -- but it may come to that eventually. Really, you would be doing them a favor, because if the 20s stop coming (and they probably will), they're setting themselves up for a lot of disappointment.

If the 20s are just too distracting, a house rule might help. You could stop giving double-damage on critical hits (for players too). Or you could stop using the houserule that 20 on skill checks always succeeds. Or both.

[Pelle]

There was the Yellowstone park Ranger who was struck by Lightning 14 times in his lifetime.

We can safely call him “unlucky”.

I get it. You don’t like the terms.
Probability is chaotic and does not conform to the cold rules of logic. It is unpredictable.
It’s why it’s neat.
Our universe is full of extraordinary, unlikely coincidences that produce observable results. You can reject the vernacular terms of lucky and unlucky if you want, but they are an easy means to recognize that some people can and do fall outside statistical norms at times.


No, you clearly don't get it. Using the vernacular terms is ok. Calling that park ranger 'unlucky' is ok. But it is not ok saying that just because he is 'unlucky', with no other explanation provided, he is more likely in the future to be hit by lightning again than someone else. Him being outside more often, sure, him having a skin condition or something, sure. Not knowing what it is, but there has to be something with this individual that can explain it rationally, sure. But being magically 'lucky', that's pure superstition.



You can say that everyone averages out their lucky rolls all you want. But there is no way for absolute certain that you can rule out that a person may roll an above or below average number of d20s for the two years or so that they play D&D.


No, that's not how probabilty works. Everyone does not average out their rolls. Because it's random, there is a possbility of only rolling 1s or 20s. Before you start rolling, only the expected value of many rolls is the average, but it's just an expectation. It is totally possible, and expected, that someone may roll above or below the average.

The point is, before rolling you can't say who that will be. If you bet money on Bob rolling above average, because Bob is 'lucky', expect to lose half of the time. If by 'lucky' you really mean Bob has some funky technique, unbalanced dice or is (subconsciously) cheating, fair enough. But without some form of rational explanation, just magic luck, nope.



And if during that time people observe that phenomenon, they can call those people lucky or unlucky all they want.

Sure they can, but if they think it has any bearing on their future performance they are mistaken.

[ImproperJustice]

No, you clearly don't get it. Using the vernacular terms is ok. Calling that park ranger 'unlucky' is ok. But it is not ok saying that just because he is 'unlucky', with no other explanation provided, he is more likely in the future to be hit by lightning again than someone else. Him being outside more often, sure, him having a skin condition or something, sure. Not knowing what it is, but there has to be something with this individual that can explain it rationally, sure. But being magically 'lucky', that's pure superstition.



No, that's not how probabilty works. Everyone does not average out their rolls. Because it's random, there is a possbility of only rolling 1s or 20s. Before you start rolling, only the expected value of many rolls is the average, but it's just an expectation. It is totally possible, and expected, that someone may roll above or below the average.

The point is, before rolling you can't say who that will be. If you bet money on Bob rolling above average, because Bob is 'lucky', expect to lose half of the time. If by 'lucky' you really mean Bob has some funky technique, unbalanced dice or is (subconsciously) cheating, fair enough. But without some form of rational explanation, just magic luck, nope.



Sure they can, but if they think it has any bearing on their future performance they are mistaken.

Re the Park Ranger: even if there is a rational explanation for his Lightning propensity, I guess he was “unlucky” enough to be born with all those factors huh?


As for the remainder of your very detailed post. I see you struggling very hard to dance around the idea that someone can’t be lucky or unlucky while at the same time acknowledging that someone can have a history of above or below average results at things, and even be more likely to do so in the future.
That’s the definition of Lucky and Unlucky, your just using a lot more words to try and acheive the same result, because they sound “Superstitous”.

[darknite]

Sounds like your DM needs to take a break ... in Fabulous Las Vegas! :smalltongue:

[Pelle]

Re the Park Ranger: even if there is a rational explanation for his Lightning propensity, I guess he was “unlucky” enough to be born with all those factors huh?


Sure.



As for the remainder of your very detailed post. I see you struggling very hard to dance around the idea that someone can’t be lucky or unlucky while at the same time acknowledging that someone can have a history of above or below average results at things, and even be more likely to do so in the future.
That’s the definition of Lucky and Unlucky, your just using a lot more words to try and acheive the same result, because they sound “Superstitous”.

Sigh. I'm clearly struggling to explain so that you can understand what random mean. When you roll a d20, every outcome 1-20 is equally likely, barring any shenanigans. I may get a 20 and you may get a 1, both outcomes are natural and equally likely. You might call me 'lucky' for getting a 20, that's fine. When rolling again however, if it is random, I still only have 1/20 chance in rolling a new 20. It might happen though, if I'm 'lucky' I get a 20. But I don't know if I am until after rolling and seeing the outcome. Yes, someone will be 'lucky' and win the lottery, but we don't know who that is until after the fact. And that person is 'lucky' because they won, not the other way around.

You think that because I am 'lucky', I have a higher chance of rolling a new 20. If that was so, it would not be random. And if you don't have any explanations for why I should have a higher chance than normal, that certainly is the definition superstition, even if you don't like the word.

[Theodoric]

Why do you bother rolling at all then?
:smallconfused: I don't actually fudge any rolls in most sessions (practically none after first level). It's mostly to keep the illusion of 'DM magic'. I'm not following your thought processes here. Why does it have to be an absolute in either direction? Is it a slippery-slope argument?

[TheYell]

If you think poker is a game of luck you mustn't play it with people who know the real deal.

I keep seeing these threads about die rolls in the 20s, and I will gladly take your dice fellas. That will solve the problem.

[Bloodcloud]

You need to pray to Rngesus my friend.

[Particle_Man]

Unless the dice are actually weighted, then the mere fact that the Dm has rolled 20s doesn't mean that this will continue into the future.

If you fear the dice are actually weighted, buy the Dm some new dice. Or offer a "players roll all the dice" rules variant where players roll for monsters/opponents instead of the DM.

[ad_hoc]

If you think poker is a game of luck you mustn't play it with people who know the real deal.

I keep seeing these threads about die rolls in the 20s, and I will gladly take your dice fellas. That will solve the problem.

The cards are a matter of luck.

The betting is the skill.

[Trustypeaches]

The number of people who genuinely believe they have some kind of supernatural luck in this thread is really funny.

[ad_hoc]

The number of people who genuinely believe they have some kind of supernatural luck in this thread is really funny.

It's actually very typical.

Humans are prone to this sort of magical thinking.

It takes a method of observation and analysis in order to remove human bias to see otherwise.

[Resileaf]

My DM tends to have uncanny luck with dices as well.
The solution is to not let him roll, obviously! Ambush everything! Interrupt the villain in his speech! If what you want to do lets the enemy do a contested roll, do something else!
(Only slightly facetious)

[ImproperJustice]

It's actually very typical.

Humans are prone to this sort of magical thinking.

It takes a method of observation and analysis in order to remove human bias to see otherwise.

Yes. Silly peasants and their inability to grasp the cold light of pure reason.
Relying on their past experiences to draw reasonable conclusions about future outcomes.
What fools!
There have never been any examples of anyone being lucky ever in the history of humankind.

Thank goodness there is an endless supply of erudites to enlighten us.....::::

[gameogre]

Yes. Silly peasants and their inability to grasp the cold light of pure reason.
Relying on their past experiences to draw reasonable conclusions about future outcomes.
What fools!
There have never been any examples of anyone being lucky ever in the history of humankind.

Thank goodness there is an endless supply of erudites to enlighten us.....::::

Your Welcome?

Also- Getting Struck by Lightning once is bad luck,Twice is...stop doing whatever you are doing. Three times is ok buddy pull that lightning rod out of your pocket and come talk to the nice people. No matter what you would call it...Lucky simply wouldn't be a word I would use.

[DerficusRex]

Your Welcome?

Also- Getting Struck by Lightning once is bad luck,Twice is...stop doing whatever you are doing. Three times is ok buddy pull that lightning rod out of your pocket and come talk to the nice people. No matter what you would call it...Lucky simply wouldn't be a word I would use.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is druidic action.

[Particle_Man]

There is nothing wrong with saying that people have been lucky. With enough people playing and DMing and all rolling dice, there will be cases where an individual has a long run of either high rolls or low rolls, and thus can be said to have been lucky or unlucky with the dice.

However, having been lucky in the past does not mean that one will be lucky in the future when it comes to dice rolling. So there is no reason to believe (barring weighted dice) that the DM that rolled 20s in the past will roll them as frequently in the future.

That said, sometimes people remember extreme rolls more than average rolls, and so someone might seem to have had a run of good or bad luck, when they actually haven't.

[Kaibis]

There are a couple of instances of this that are extremely grating - including one player who insists on being regarded as the "Party leader", and has had characters simply walk away and out of the game when nobody would take this claim seriously - but the most distracting and immersion-breaking of all has been the behaviour of the DM.

I am sure you are talking about the same game I left early last year. :smallbiggrin:

I do not understand when a person calls themselves the 'face' or the 'party leader' and then thinks that that translates into more spotlight for their character. I once spoke to a GM about a player who never. ever. stopped. talking. This guy would talk engage in side conversations during other players moments, and comment on his actions during other players combat rounds (once he ate and apple, and commentated that, during my round of combat... fml). The GM told me that he was the party face, and seemed to think that was enough of an explanation.

I walked away. Some players are good, some just are not worth the hours spent at the table.

[Dark Schneider]

If that repeats many times, how about letting a player roll the DM open rolls?

Don't discard even if sounds absurd that the technique influences. With a face of the die to up in the hand, oriented in some way, and doing the proper wrist twist you could increase the chances of rolling a value. Probably, never tried :P
Try also if DM is going to roll, do it with fingers and making the die roll in its own axis, like making a spin top to spin on the table with the hand starting with some elevation (so the die bounces in the table also).

[Pelle]

The bottom line is, the DM should be ashamed of his atrocious behaviour. Having the nerve to roll multiple 20s in a row (in the open, using other players' dice), that's clearly antagonistic DMing, and he should change this willfully spiteful behaviour as soon as possible.

[AHF]

It feels like a good percentage of this thread is people talking past eachother because they are using different definitions of the word “lucky.”

Poster #1 - Rolls are random and probability tells us that the results of a large number of players will generate a bell curve which in turn will have outliers and those on one end can be said to be lucky and those on the other end unlucky.

Poster #2 - Nope. Lucky means a different likelihood of a favorable outcome on futures rolls so you are wrong as each roll is an independent event the outcome of which is not any more or less likely based on prior results.

Seems like a lot of the posts here aren’t actually disagreeing. Just posters using different definitions for your terms.

[Marywn]

I don't know what's happening, but I always recommond just confronting him if your not having fun.
I hate, HATE, when no one tells me I'm doing something wrong and I don't notice it.
But that's my opinion.
Do you enjoy your group and dm? If you do, just have a conversation. It shouldn't be too hard to solve the issue.

[Particle_Man]

It feels like a good percentage of this thread is people talking past eachother because they are using different definitions of the word “lucky.”

Poster #1 - Rolls are random and probability tells us that the results of a large number of players will generate a bell curve which in turn will have outliers and those on one end can be said to be lucky and those on the other end unlucky.

Poster #2 - Nope. Lucky means a different likelihood of a favorable outcome on futures rolls so you are wrong as each roll is an independent event the outcome of which is not any more or less likely based on prior results.

Seems like a lot of the posts here aren’t actually disagreeing. Just posters using different definitions for your terms.

The trick is realizing that someone who was an outlier on the bell curve last week (or all of last month, or even all of last year) does not have any more likelihood of being an outlier next week than someone that was smack dab in the middle of the bell curve last week (month, year, etc.).