A Player is Being difficult

[WeissAllein]

One of my players is also my roommate and with our most recent game I asked what he was looking for. He told me "I want a challenge, nothing on a meat grinder level but I want combat to be a little difficult."

Since then he has demanded to use physical dice even though we are on Roll20 and even refuses to let me watch him roll. Given the stats he has rolled and the fact all of his rolls since using physical dice have been double digit I suspect he is cheating.

Normally I wouldn't care unless another player had issue with it but given what he told me at the start I feel like I am failing to provide what everyone wants in the game. As such I have asked that he use the virtual dice by telling him it would make the bookkeeping I have to do easier. He agreed to my request but has been giving me no end of grief about it, claiming that the online roller hates him.

Now I fear that forcing him to use the virtual dice might cause more problems but at the same time I want to hold my ground as I am honestly tired of his "woe is me" attitude.

Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with this kind of attitude? I am trying to avoid becoming angry with him because I tend to say things I don't mean when angry.

[zarionofarabel]

I know this probably won't be a well recieved answer, but let him cheat his ass off!

I am one of the weird GMs that ain't got no problem with players that cheat rolls. It's a bloody game! Who cares!

Maybe the player has some psychological issues that they are dealing with and don't want to lose the game cause it makes them depressed or something. Let them cheat! It's a game!

Maybe have a discussion with the other players if you think they might take issue with it. However, reiterate that it is a game, it's meant to be fun!

If one player needs to win all the rolls to have fun, let them. You can always have a dragon eat them if they make you mad.

[Mastikator]

Sometimes a DM's gotta say "my or the highway". Roll like the rest of them or don't roll at all. If he doesn't like your rules he can host his own game.

Edit- sorry after re-reading your post I've changed my mind. Just kick him out, he's bullying you. You shouldn't accept this behavior. If it spills out to his roommate duties then consider not living with him.

[MoiMagnus]

given what he told me at the start I feel like I am failing to provide what everyone wants in the game.

Just because the player says they want something doesn't mean they correctly identified what they want. The player might not be searching for challenge but might instead be searching for high power-level (so powerful him VS powerful foes). Alternatively, he might want to be feel lucky.

That's something that a lot of videogames have understood. Tactical videogames (like Fire Emblem, XCOM) lies on the probabilities they communicate to the player / cheat with rolls, so that the players don't feel too unlucky.
[Their method is instead of rolling the dice, they roll twice and take the average. That's called the 2RN system.]

everyone

Is it a two player games? What are the other feeling? Are they also here for a challenge but cannot get it? The problem number one of cheating is that it's not fair for the other players.

claiming that the online roller hates him.

I don't know if Roll20 has a function for this, but something that had improved "bad luck" situation IRL for some friends was to actually keep track of the results of the d20 and make statistics about it. It leads to two outcomes: (1) the player is not particularly unlucky, and by recording the results will pay attention to the moments where the rolls are in his favour, rather than only remembering the failures (2) the player is actually unlucky, in which case he will be able to share his experience with the table, and the other player will empathise with him rather than saying he is exaggerating.

Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with this kind of attitude? I am trying to avoid becoming angry with him because I tend to say things I don't mean when angry.

Don't forget that you are playing in order to have fun. Don't invest tens and tens of hours in a hobby that ultimately drain and anger you.

[Delta]

Just because the player says they want something doesn't mean they correctly identified what they want. The player might not be searching for challenge but might instead be searching for high power-level (so powerful him VS powerful foes). Alternatively, he might want to be feel lucky.

This so, SO much. People, in general, are absolutely awful at identifying and explaining what they actually want when asked.

I had a player who consistently mentioned all these amazing ideas about exploring social themes, changing the world and so on which sounded really fun. In the end, all she wanted to do is play the gal with the biggest hammer and giggle gleefully when smashing monsters with it and could hardly care less about all the social conflicts going on in the society around her.

For some reason, people love to overthink stuff like this, when asked "What do you want?" they always consider it a trick question and answer what they think they SHOULD want instead of what they actually want. Because instinctively, we consider "I want to smash things!" too simple, too "powergamey" a motivation.

[Delta]

I don't know if Roll20 has a function for this, but something that had improved "bad luck" situation IRL for some friends was to actually keep track of the results of the d20 and make statistics about it. It leads to two outcomes: (1) the player is not particularly unlucky, and by recording the results will pay attention to the moments where the rolls are in his favour, rather than only remembering the failures (2) the player is actually unlucky, in which case he will be able to share his experience with the table, and the other player will empathise with him rather than saying he is exaggerating.

And for the record, we actually tried this with a player consistently complaining about having such bad luck. Spoiler alert: It will be (1). It's always option 1.

That's not to say ridiculous streaks of bad luck can't happen, but if they do, it's usually immediately obvious to everyone around the table. 99% of the time, it's just observation bias.

[False God]

Just because the player says they want something doesn't mean they correctly identified what they want. The player might not be searching for challenge but might instead be searching for high power-level (so powerful him VS powerful foes). Alternatively, he might want to be feel lucky.

To add: feeling challenged is one of the first things that goes out the window when a player cheats (or is just lucky). Challenge comes from the win/loss ratio of gameplay, and cheating reduces that number to silliness (ie: 90/10) or eliminates it entirely (100/0).

@OP: If your player is cheating, he's mostly cheating himself. Don't cave to the demands for "more challenge" unless you start hearing it from a majority of the group. If the group doesn't mind that Roommate is "winning at D&D" then just carry on with what you've been doing. I have a player who just rolls well, don't know which god he made a deal with but he always rolls well. "More challenge" for him means impossible challenges or death to the rest of the party. It's not worth making the rest of the party unhappy with impossible challenges (based on their more average rolls and more average stats) nor is it worth the fight to tell Good Roller that he needs to tone down his rolls.

Roommate needs only one response:
"We are playing online, and it is only fair that everyone uses the online roller so all rolls are clear and in the open. If you wish to continue playing, you'll need to use the online roller and stop complaining about it."

[Blackhawk748]

I'd go back in the log and see if the Roller actually does hate him. It's unlikely but when I used to play PTU a lot we had a player who the forum roller despised so I let them roll on Roll 20 (which we were using for maps anyway). He got more average rolls there but I've seen the same thing happen on Roll 20 too, though it typically corrects itself after awhile.

Also, he may not actually be cheating with the real dice. We have a player who rolls pretty much any dice, with a roller mat, and he rareloy gets below a 15. I can hand him pretty much any dice and this is what happens.

Its weird.

[WeissAllein]

Thank you all for the advice. It makes it easier for me to keep my ground. I tend to feel unsure of myself around him because he is 90% of my social interaction nowadays and tends to be stubborn in his thinking.

I think I will stick with him using the online roller since it is the only fair thing as everyone else uses it but I will also be keeping track of his online rolls and figure out if it actually "hates him."

On the other players. There are three players all together, my roommate and two friends who used to come over each weekend. The general consensuses was that I should mostly focus on story, which I have and ask them to give me reviews after each game to make sure I can fix any story issues that come up, and to make combat a little challenging.

We have been playing a lot of tabletops that favor the players and I think they were getting tired of the favoritism so they wanted things to be a bit more even playing field wise. I tend to favor strategy over brute force so I have been using enemies that use tactics and such to make things a bit more even. We already ran into a couple problems but it was just because I had not been aware how deadly some of the techniques available to me were.

The players have learned to be cautious and I have learned how much to pull my punches when the time comes. Hopefully after a few games using the roller we can all sit down and just enjoy the game, online dice or not. Honestly can't wait for when we can all get together again but I feel I will miss some of the advanced Roll20 options.

[WeissAllein]

I just thought to update people on what his average rolls were with the online roller.

Average d20 rolls - 10.5
Average Damage (Only calculating the attacks that hit) - 10.3

He used smite fairly often, only used 1 turn to heal during combat, and used Thunderwave during a turn to get some free damage off. Combat lasted roughly 7 rounds. Keep in mind his lowest stat is 15 so most of his bonuses are fairly good and he was able to hit the enemy he was fighting with a 10 on the dice and a little lower if he used his bardic inspiration.

The other players agreed that he was rolling well for most of the game and he continued to complain about rolling low because he missed twice during the fight.

I am starting to think he is just coming up with excuses because he is used to rolling high. Furthermore he has made it really clear he is upset with me because the fight was a close one. Even though he had more health the enemy got one lucky roll and brought him close to half.

Should I continue to have him use the virtual dice or do these numbers support his thought of them hating him? I think these numbers look good but I am used to working with low numbers and making up for it with good bonuses.

[RifleAvenger]

I just thought to update people on what his average rolls were with the online roller.

Average d20 rolls - 10.5

Assuming this is the average of the raw rolls, before modifiers, this is literally average. Exactly where it should be.

The other players agreed that he was rolling well for most of the game and he continued to complain about rolling low because he missed twice during the fight.

I am starting to think he is just coming up with excuses because he is used to rolling high. Furthermore he has made it really clear he is upset with me because the fight was a close one. Even though he had more health the enemy got one lucky roll and brought him close to half.

Indeed, sounds like he doesn't like it when he doesn't continually succeed. There's a fear of loss here, compounded with the loss of his privileged ability to make up whatever roll he wanted roll his own dice (loss of privilege feeling like oppression and such). It's also clear he doesn't actually value a challenge, as the existence of a realistic chance of failure is essential to the maintence of challenge and the tension it provides.

Should I continue to have him use the virtual dice or do these numbers support his thought of them hating him? I think these numbers look good but I am used to working with low numbers and making up for it with good bonuses.

These numbers show he's no different than anyone else. So yes, in my opinion either he uses the virtual roller OR everyone else (GM included) can use unseen dice and lie if they want to.

Either way, he doesn't get to have an exceptional privilege over the rest of the players.

Honestly, if he presses the issue and you think he's been cheating, part of me feels you should call him out on it. I used to have a strong compulsion to cheat at cards, and more rarely in TTRPGs; it stemmed from a fear not necessarily of losing, but appearing incompetent. What snapped me out of the habit was getting called out by an opponent, who stopped short of reporting me to the judge, but did take a few minutes to chew me out about it.

Getting caught helped me. I'm not a fan of punitive justice in a broad sense, but facing some form of consequences for one's actions is key to rehabilitation (as is positive reinforcement; I was helped in easing myself out of feeling compelled to cheat in Magic by opponents willing to play free matches w/o stakes, allowing proxies so I could practice w/ Tier 1 decks. This reminded me that it feels better to play and win legitimately).

Of course, you also have to live with this person, and it would be erroneous to assume he'd respond in the same way I did. For starters, I'd already harbored guilt about my cheating for years before getting caught, whereas it's possible he feels justified in his behavior instead of feeling that it's a desperate necessity.

[Fred V]

You can always have a dragon eat them if they make you mad.

Haha, u're damn right. We have an experienced gm in our game and that what happened to me once :D
Im not that experienced but i can say for sure, being a good gm is like to be a good teacher, u have to be creative!

[Delta]

Should I continue to have him use the virtual dice or do these numbers support his thought of them hating him? I think these numbers look good but I am used to working with low numbers and making up for it with good bonuses.

First of all: Make him use the dice roller, period. Nothing good can come of letting him use physical dice in the long run, that is my honest conviction. He'll either openly derail the game by cheating or just get on the nerves of the other players (or you) by consistently cheating.

Second of all: Do NOT engage this argument. It's just plain wrong. I feel silly for having to point this out: Dice rollers don't hate anyone, they are for obvious reasons incapable of hate, you know that, he knows that, everyone knows that on a rational level. Just by entering this discussion you give his argument some validity, which it does not have.

This is NOT a discussion about the dice roller hating him, because it does not do that, period. This is a discussion about him wanting to use physical dice instead of virtual, for which I guess there can be reasons (you can argue the sheer physical sensation of rolling dice is fulfilling and gives you a part of your gaming enjoyment which is missing otherwise, for example. While some will consider this silly, it is a MUCH more valid argument than "the dice roller hates me", we, after all, game for fun, and fun is an essentially subjective thing), but this is not one of them, so talk to him about the actual issue instead, you consider it a matter of fairness (you don't have to bring up the actual issue of cheating directly if you don't want to accuse him personally) for everyone to use the same dice roller, that is a very valid argument, while his... well, isn't.

[kyoryu]

Yeah for sure the dude is cheating.

I think you're handling it well.

One of the things I learned as a CS person for EverQuest was that some people view getting what they want as a game. They'll try any tactic that they can to get what they want, and when one fails, they'll just move on to the next one, until they find one that sticks. So, he just wants to roll his dice so he can cheat, and the "the online roller hates me" is just a tactic - one that found a little ground. Honestly, by mathing it out you've done nothing but encourage him, as you've shown it's something you're sympathetic to. I highly suspect he'll switch to a different argument in the future.

This so, SO much. People, in general, are absolutely awful at identifying and explaining what they actually want when asked.

I had a player who consistently mentioned all these amazing ideas about exploring social themes, changing the world and so on which sounded really fun. In the end, all she wanted to do is play the gal with the biggest hammer and giggle gleefully when smashing monsters with it and could hardly care less about all the social conflicts going on in the society around her.

For some reason, people love to overthink stuff like this, when asked "What do you want?" they always consider it a trick question and answer what they think they SHOULD want instead of what they actually want. Because instinctively, we consider "I want to smash things!" too simple, too "powergamey" a motivation.

Well, there's two things here.

1) People often don't know what they want. They think they want Thing A, but when given it, they realize that's not the thing they actually want. Solution: Pay attention to what they respond to in-game. Don't play too much up front for the first few sessions to get a feel for what people actually do enjoy, and continually modify to give them what they get excited for and what they tell you was good.

2) People are awful at communicating things. So when people tell you what they want (social intrigue!) that may be true, but it's also ridiculously vague. It's entirely possible that you hear those words and imagine one thing, while they mean something else when saying them.

So get specific. Say "okay, then, so how would you feel about if we had sections of the game where for 3 or 4 sessions, it was all communicating with NPCs, getting information by talking to people, and working through webs of connections, with zero combat?" See how they respond to that. If they balk, ask them "okay, so in this type of game, how do you see an ideal session playing out?" Specific things always trump vague generalizations.

Actually, this is good for the OP as well - when he says he wants "challenge", what does that mean? "How often do you expect to lose a fight?" is a good starting place, as well as "how often do you expect to get knocked out", and so on.

[Quertus]

Where to start?

Personally, I *love* the feel of dice, love the sound they make, love watching them roll... I just love rolling physical dice. I even pick dice based on the character I am playing whenever possible (red dice with gold numbers for Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named), for example). I, personally, would totally be for using physical dice over a dice roller.

However, "I love dice / get value from the Sensation aesthetic" is not the argument that the player made.

So, I would back the "force him to use the virtual dice roller" crowd, except...

This player said that they wanted a challenge, but clearly did not. Meaning that (like most people) they fail at communication.

So...

I would open with discussing how they asked for a challenge, but don't seem to actually want one. I would (kindly!) throw their words back at them, and (kindly!) ask them to explain the seeming dissonance between their request and their feedback.

I would use this conversation to measure just what type of communicator, and what type of person they were. Depending on the results of my analysis of this conversation, I would choose whether / how to approach the issue of the die roller.

(EDIT: For the right type of person, I would then simply show them the data that their results were, in fact, statistically average, and that their argument that the die roller "hates them" or that they "don't roll well" doesn't hold water. But... I doubt you're working with the right type of person here)

Clear as mud?

-----

On another note, "rolling dice well" is a real thing. My dice are... not rigged, but I definitely have some that roll well / poorly (especially the d8s). *And* I've been taught by those who claim that one can control the outcome of their dice - I learned enough to convince myself that I could make... statistically improbable sets of rolls, and left my skills at that.

So, he might or might not be consciously "cheating" - he might just have "lucky dice" and some degree of skill at choosing their outcome. Arangee knows I do.

[Delta]

So, he might or might not be consciously "cheating" - he might just have "lucky dice" and some degree of skill at choosing their outcome. Arangee knows I do.

Um... I gotta admit, I kind of fail to see the practical difference between "rolling the die in a specific way to get the result you want" (the simplest form is just not rolling the die at all and putting it down showing the number you want, everything else is just adding some fancy sleight of hand to make it look more convincing) and "rolling the die and claim it showed the result you want", as far as everyone else is concerned, that is pretty much the same thing. And no, there are no "lucky dice", there are loaded dice, obviously, but that's just another more or less fancy way of doing the same thing, cheating.

[Mastikator]

On another note, "rolling dice well" is a real thing. My dice are... not rigged, but I definitely have some that roll well / poorly (especially the d8s). *And* I've been taught by those who claim that one can control the outcome of their dice - I learned enough to convince myself that I could make... statistically improbable sets of rolls, and left my skills at that.

So, he might or might not be consciously "cheating" - he might just have "lucky dice" and some degree of skill at choosing their outcome. Arangee knows I do.

If I heard one of my players talking like that they'd lose their dice privileges immediately. I don't mind superstitious talk about unlucky dice or whatever but affecting the outcome of the dice is cheating. Admitting that you're trying to do that is admitting that you're cheating, lack of success is no excuse.

However in my experience the most common form of cheating is just immediately picking up the dice, holding it away from other players/DM and declaring that they rolled just right every single time. I only witness it as a player because when I DM dice rolls need at least a second reliable witness, preferably me.

Allowing a player to cheat is disrespectful to the other players and to yourself.

[Talakeal]

My roommate also claims that dice hate him. It got to the point where I eventually kept track of every roll for an entire session, and found a mostly equal distribution of all numbers except half the normal number of 12s and double the expected number of 3s. Of course, then the complaining just switched to saying that he failed every “important” roll.

I also have one player who rolls first and then announces his action, which would make cheating spectacularly easy. I never really much minded, but then I had a new player join the group and he had a huge problem with it.

[Quertus]

Um... I gotta admit, I kind of fail to see the practical difference between "rolling the die in a specific way to get the result you want" and "rolling the die and claim it showed the result you want", as far as everyone else is concerned, that is pretty much the same thing. And no, there are no "lucky dice", there are loaded dice, obviously, but that's just another more or less fancy way of doing the same thing, cheating.

If I heard one of my players talking like that they'd lose their dice privileges immediately. I don't mind superstitious talk about unlucky dice or whatever but affecting the outcome of the dice is cheating. Admitting that you're trying to do that is admitting that you're cheating, lack of success is no excuse.

Cool I get a new experience - usually, I'm arguing different vectors here.

So, the point that it seems I didn't get across is that the player might not *know* that he is "cheating". I've played with *plenty* of people who had really good - or really bad - luck with dice. Didn't matter who rolled which dice (it does matter which dice *I* roll - and, no, my dice have been checked with others rolling them, and they are "mildly lucky", but certainly not so much so as to be considered rigged), certain players / GMs are just (UN)lucky. Rather predictably so. (And, yes, they're rolling in the open). Not a one (besides me) has admitted to believing that they could be (sub)consciously controlling / manipulating the outcome of their rolls.

So, again, my point was that a player who has "lucky dice" and/or is subconsciously influencing the outcome may be unaware that they are "cheating", and may find a "normal" distribution to feel "unlucky" - *especially* if their subconscious control manifests more strongly for more important rolls.

But good luck proving any of that scientifically. Which just adds to how… complicated… such a conversation can be. Thus my recommendation to start on safer ground, where there's no potential for accusations of "cheating" to start flying.

[Delta]

So, the point that it seems I didn't get across is that the player might not *know* that he is "cheating". I've played with *plenty* of people who had really good - or really bad - luck with dice. Didn't matter who rolled which dice (it does matter which dice *I* roll - and, no, my dice have been checked with others rolling them, and they are "mildly lucky", but certainly not so much so as to be considered rigged), certain players / GMs are just (UN)lucky. Rather predictably so. (And, yes, they're rolling in the open). Not a one (besides me) has admitted to believing that they could be (sub)consciously controlling / manipulating the outcome of their rolls.

Okay, then this is what we disagree on. I think that what you are describing is not actually possible. You absolutely cannot "subconsciously" improve your rolls by any degree that would be in any way noticeable. This is just not a thing that happens, ever. And I still stand by my opinion that a thing such as "mildly lucky dice" is just observation bias and superstition, any set of dice weighted enough towards positive results to be noticeable in the very limited series of rolls you do around a gaming table will be very obviously flawed in one way or another to anyone picking it up and rolling it more than once or twice.

[Quertus]

Okay, then this is what we disagree on. I think that what you are describing is not actually possible. You absolutely cannot "subconsciously" improve your rolls by any degree that would be in any way noticeable. This is just not a thing that happens, ever.

Very well: what is your theory to explain how two people, using the same dice, can get very noticeably different (and statistically-verifiably different) results?

And I still stand by my opinion that a thing such as "mildly lucky dice" is just observation bias and superstition,

No, results recorded and "lucky" confirmed. This was statistics, not superstition.

any set of dice weighted enough towards positive results to be noticeable in the very limited series of rolls you do around a gaming table will be very obviously flawed in one way or another to anyone picking it up and rolling it more than once or twice.

Limited? No, it was tested for hundreds of rolls, and, while the distribution was not uniform, it was determined to be shy of being considered "weighted" (by whatever metric they found when they Googled).

*My* results with it were actually more biased than those of the individual who tested it; also, notably, *what* I was rolling for affected its performance.

Telling this story is what led one individual to teach me how dice could be consciously manipulated; testing this theory has led to my belief that many people subconsciously manipulate their rolls.

With unweighted (tested to produce an approximately normal distribution) dice, I can consciously manipulate the outcome to be... noticeably different, in the aggregate. Certainly not something you want to bet your bottom dollar on, but something that someone tracking rolls over a campaign might want to check my dice over. I intentionally did not build my skills to the point where my control was anything close to absolute, or even better (by itself) than "lucky" (but not weighted) dice. And I don't intentionally manipulate rolls, but I imagine that I unintentionally manipulate them even more than I used to, now that I know more about it.

Clear as mud?

-----

Now, there are other theories that could explain pieces of this, but... some would say that, in the end, they amount to the same thing. Which, of course they do, if they have the same end result - that's kinda tautologically true. But I, personally, like the aesthetic of "conscious and subconscious manipulation of the outcome".

[MoiMagnus]

Very well: what is your theory to explain how two people, using the same dice, can get very noticeably different (and statistically-verifiably different) results?

Probably denying that this is real until presented a peer-reviewed article by researchers studying this phenomenon, and actually showing that this indeed happen in a statistically significant way.
[And probably some stronger standard than just a single paper, since there is a lot of crap published that are accepted because the reviewers and journals didn't make their job correctly.]

That's why he said "superstition". He literally doubt that there is any reality to this.

[zinycor]

Very well: what is your theory to explain how two people, using the same dice, can get very noticeably different (and statistically-verifiably different) results?



No, results recorded and "lucky" confirmed. This was statistics, not superstition.



Limited? No, it was tested for hundreds of rolls, and, while the distribution was not uniform, it was determined to be shy of being considered "weighted" (by whatever metric they found when they Googled).

*My* results with it were actually more biased than those of the individual who tested it; also, notably, *what* I was rolling for affected its performance.

Telling this story is what led one individual to teach me how dice could be consciously manipulated; testing this theory has led to my belief that many people subconsciously manipulate their rolls.

With unweighted (tested to produce an approximately normal distribution) dice, I can consciously manipulate the outcome to be... noticeably different, in the aggregate. Certainly not something you want to bet your bottom dollar on, but something that someone tracking rolls over a campaign might want to check my dice over. I intentionally did not build my skills to the point where my control was anything close to absolute, or even better (by itself) than "lucky" (but not weighted) dice. And I don't intentionally manipulate rolls, but I imagine that I unintentionally manipulate them even more than I used to, now that I know more about it.

Clear as mud?

-----

Now, there are other theories that could explain pieces of this, but... some would say that, in the end, they amount to the same thing. Which, of course they do, if they have the same end result - that's kinda tautologically true. But I, personally, like the aesthetic of "conscious and subconscious manipulation of the outcome".

Sorry Quertus... this is a bunch of BS and completely useless information.

More than likely you designed your experiment wrongly.

[Delta]

Very well: what is your theory to explain how two people, using the same dice, can get very noticeably different (and statistically-verifiably different) results?

I have already answered that: Observation bias and superstition.

No, results recorded and "lucky" confirmed. This was statistics, not superstition.

If it was statistically sound that one person truly rolled better with the same set of dice, then one of the two was cheating.

Limited? No, it was tested for hundreds of rolls, and, while the distribution was not uniform, it was determined to be shy of being considered "weighted" (by whatever metric they found when they Googled).

A couple hundreds of rolls is nothing. That's not statistical, that's anecdotal, that's exactly my point. The series of rolls we do around a table is so limited that totally normal deviations from standard distribution suddenly seem like significant trends while really they aren't, if you roll only a couple hundred times, some series will be significantly better than others, that's to be expected. Someone who wins the lottery wasn't "subconsciously" picking better numbers, they just got lucky.

With unweighted (tested to produce an approximately normal distribution) dice, I can consciously manipulate the outcome to be... noticeably different, in the aggregate. Certainly not something you want to bet your bottom dollar on, but something that someone tracking rolls over a campaign might want to check my dice over. I intentionally did not build my skills to the point where my control was anything close to absolute, or even better (by itself) than "lucky" (but not weighted) dice. And I don't intentionally manipulate rolls, but I imagine that I unintentionally manipulate them even more than I used to, now that I know more about it.

Clear as mud?

Okay, if we boil it down to "Someone with enough training in sleight of hand to consciously cheat at dice might sometimes cheat at it without thinking about it", that might be true, but again, if it's significant enough to make him look "lucky" in a standard RPG session, sorry, this isn't subconscious, that person knows what they are doing.

Now, there are other theories that could explain pieces of this

Yeah, I already did: Observation bias and superstition explains every single piece of it just fine.

The problem is that we do not like randomness. On an instinctive basis, we hate it and try to explain it away, finding patterns, trends and so on, when really, there aren't any. Dice rolls, for everyone not actively cheating at it, are random (yes, your standard non-casino spec dice are imperfect, but for the couple dozen or maybe few hundred or so rolls you do with them in any given period, that will not be noticable). Any decent virtual dice roller is (pseudo-)random to such a degree there won't ever be noticable, statistically relevant deviations. And even if you use a dice roller with a bad RNG, then some significant deviations might show up, but they will most definitely not be tied to a specific person triggering the rolls, for reaons that should be painfully trivial.

[Mastikator]

Very well: what is your theory to explain how two people, using the same dice, can get very noticeably different (and statistically-verifiably different) results?.

Not that you asked me... possible explanations
a) with a bigger sample size those differences will become smaller
b) at least one of the two can affect the outcome: they are cheating
c) one of them is benefiting from a magic luck fairy, or being cursed by a magic luck fairy

If it's C then you would be able to test it, I could write a script that randomly generates a number between 1 and 6 and gives you the average. Then run that a billion times and any statistical fluke is washed out (the script handles the rolls, average, you just push a button). The luck fairy would give one player a noticeably different value every time.

Actually I wrote the script: https://jsfiddle.net/wocbum2h/ (may take several seconds to roll a billion dice )

[Quertus]

Sorry Quertus... this is a bunch of BS and completely useless information.

More than likely you designed your experiment wrongly.

Hilarious.

So, design the experiment, and the criteria for "lucky" and "weighted". I'll get myself and a few others to roll some dice, and report the results.

(Sadly, I don't have access to most of the players from my previous experiments, though).

[Tawmis]

The other players agreed that he was rolling well for most of the game and he continued to complain about rolling low because he missed twice during the fight.
Should I continue to have him use the virtual dice or do these numbers support his thought of them hating him? I think these numbers look good but I am used to working with low numbers and making up for it with good bonuses.

Yes, continue with the virtual dice. Explain that it's random.
And the fact that they WANTED a challenge but they're upset because they missed TWICE?
That's not someone who wants a challenge.

[Darth Credence]

Hilarious.

So, design the experiment, and the criteria for "lucky" and "weighted". I'll get myself and a few others to roll some dice, and report the results.

(Sadly, I don't have access to most of the players from my previous experiments, though).

What exactly is your claim, here? Are we talking d6, d20, something else? How different do you claim it to be? Are you getting a specific number more often than normal, or just one of the numbers on the die more often than normal? How much more often is more often? 1%, 5%, 10%?

In order to design a proper test, we would need to know the answer to all of these, and probably more. A quick look tells me that you will probably be looking at around 2000 rolls, minimum, to be able to tease out a difference.

[zinycor]

What exactly is your claim, here? Are we talking d6, d20, something else? How different do you claim it to be? Are you getting a specific number more often than normal, or just one of the numbers on the die more often than normal? How much more often is more often? 1%, 5%, 10%?

In order to design a proper test, we would need to know the answer to all of these, and probably more. A quick look tells me that you will probably be looking at around 2000 rolls, minimum, to be able to tease out a difference.

And am not sure how many people would need to take the test? 30 maybe? Maybe even 300...

And you while you are at it. Tell the testers that they are going for high numbers, while the actual target is different for each roll. Sonce we are measuring "luck" intention shouldn't be a factor.

Edit: while am thinking about this.. it occurs to me that even those people who got better results wouldn't prove that they are generally more lucky. Just that they got more lucky on that ocassion. So you would need tobrepeat the experiment again and again. Maybe 30 times?

Edit 2: If you don't care about the science of it all, and you are certain of your luck, go to a casino and win tons of money on a luck game. Let us know if you become excedingly wealthy.

[Delta]

Hilarious.

Yes, you claiming that people subconsciously improve their dice rolls because you and your friend rolled some dice a couple dozen times is indeed pretty hilarious.

I'm sorry but I can only repeat myself (in more than one way, because I think this is not the first time talking about your use of "experiments" like this to prove your point), all you are showing is a severe, textbook case of observation bias, nothing else. Also, desiring a specific outcome, and then collecting data until it fits your expectation to then conclude you are correct is not an "experiment" in any scientific or casual use of the word, it's just showing off.