I recently took a stats class for my psych minor, and I can confirm those numbers are absolutely absurd. The guy’s either a literal leprechaun or he’s cheating. Sure, there is a chance it’s legit, but the chance is so low as to be beyond any reasonable doubt.
Gonna have to disagree there. We've not been given all the info to actually determine what specific bonuses were applying to each or what checks these were or what his other stats are. I would have thought your "stats class" (for psychology, apparently o.O) would have advised you to use ALL data, not only partial/incomplete data to identify the probability.
You're also forgetting a large variety of dice are not real random - different dice roll differently. Dice can have manufacturing faults weighting them improperly skewing rolls to higher or lower. Some people physically roll better - there is such a thing as rolling techniques, rolling in a dice tray where it rebounds on sides is going to be different to rolling on a countertop with no bounce. This is why people complain about online dice rollers - it's a truer random and they don't like it. Even those aren't true random, but they're more so than physical ones.
The results so far given, especially without all the data needed to make fair assessment, do not strike me as absurd beyond reasonable doubt or whatever such hyperbole. They seem slightly above average. And some seem poor if considering a +6 bonus. The assertation of "never missing" and such is baseless, since the target to hit is variable and not given here. I've had dozens of sessions where I hit everything, and dozens where I've missed everything. Many people have.
I mean, you can think what you want, of course, and I'm not really to convince you or anyone. But I'm not going to throw three and a half decades of dice rolling, math classes and college degrees and more all out the window, just because some people want to form their opinions without all the data. You do you. But I'll reserve any chance of siding with Vince and their multiple threads of vitriol until they actually provide all the data, not just some vaguely given numbers and some phrases to make it seem a certain way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Y'all don't be chumps and feed into this negativity. We're given one, extremely emotional side of the story with incomplete data about the character and rolls being performed.
I recently took a stats class for my psych minor, and I can confirm those numbers are absolutely absurd. The guy’s either a literal leprechaun or he’s cheating. Sure, there is a chance it’s legit, but the chance is so low as to be beyond any reasonable doubt.
I mean, you can think what you want, of course, and I'm not really to convince you or anyone. But I'm not going to throw three and a half decades of dice rolling, math classes and college degrees and more all out the window, just because some people want to form their opinions without all the data. You do you. But I'll reserve any chance of siding with Vince and their multiple threads of vitriol until they actually provide all the data, not just some vaguely given numbers and some phrases to make it seem a certain way.
My intent, as you can see from my first post on the thread, isn’t to take sides but to sift the truth from the lies. I’m as frustrated with Vince’s toxicity as you are, but you can’t deny that, assuming he’s being truthful about these rolls, they’re past the point of statistical significance. True, there is the chance that the data is incomplete or slanted, but assuming this is the only time he’s played with the guy and the numbers aren’t cherry-picked, there’s definitely something up. Though you’re right, it could just be a faulty d20 and not actual cheating, and Vince is definitely conflating a number of issues that should be distinct.
May I suggest to approach this from a very different angle?
Shift your focus from monitoring the 'suspect' player and his rolls, and tune more into the story they are telling. This player sounds like they don't care too much about the mechanics of the game, but want to illustrate a fantastical story with outrageous moments.
If you can find it in you to show compassion for someone who finds enjoyment in different aspects of D&D than you do, the experience will become less frustrating to you. I also would recommend letting the DM do the policing of the rolls. Getting that out of your head will also free yourself for other (more enjoyable) things.
I recently took a stats class for my psych minor, and I can confirm those numbers are absolutely absurd. The guy’s either a literal leprechaun or he’s cheating. Sure, there is a chance it’s legit, but the chance is so low as to be beyond any reasonable doubt.
I mean, you can think what you want, of course, and I'm not really to convince you or anyone. But I'm not going to throw three and a half decades of dice rolling, math classes and college degrees and more all out the window, just because some people want to form their opinions without all the data. You do you. But I'll reserve any chance of siding with Vince and their multiple threads of vitriol until they actually provide all the data, not just some vaguely given numbers and some phrases to make it seem a certain way.
My intent, as you can see from my first post on the thread, isn’t to take sides but to sift the truth from the lies. I’m as frustrated with Vince’s toxicity as you are, but you can’t deny that, assuming he’s being truthful about these rolls, they’re past the point of statistical significance. True, there is the chance that the data is incomplete or slanted, but assuming this is the only time he’s played with the guy and the numbers aren’t cherry-picked, there’s definitely something up. Though you’re right, it could just be a faulty d20 and not actual cheating, and Vince is definitely conflating a number of issues that should be distinct.
I guess I should put down my background at this point. I have a degree in Economics, and a 2nd degree in Physics. (Yeah, any anonymous person can say whatever they want on the web). I am very much a numbers guy, and know all about probability distribution, and was coming to the same conclusion as you. I am staring at the sheet right now where I wrote down every number as he called it out, real time. And this was over 1.25 sessions, as I started late in the previous session.
My intent, as you can see from my first post on the thread, isn’t to take sides but to sift the truth from the lies. I’m as frustrated with Vince’s toxicity as you are, but you can’t deny that, assuming he’s being truthful about these rolls, they’re past the point of statistical significance. True, there is the chance that the data is incomplete or slanted, but assuming this is the only time he’s played with the guy and the numbers aren’t cherry-picked, there’s definitely something up. Though you’re right, it could just be a faulty d20 and not actual cheating, and Vince is definitely conflating a number of issues that should be distinct.
The entire picture is incomplete and slanted. Considering how emotionally invested Vince is in this situation and that he did not let this other player type out their side of the story, that is inevitable. I mean the whole thing just oozes one big bias.
There is only one person at the table that should be worrying about whether people are performing the operations of the game correctly: The DM. It isn't your place as a player to even worry about whether someone else is cheating, because D&D is not a competition. Because it isn't a competition, how well one player rolls does not matter in the slightest to any other player in the game.
The DM seems to see no problems in what has happened with the rolls, or this player's management of spells and abilities, so there is nothing to talk about. They have clearly reined the player in a little bit to match closer to their expectations. If they see a problem with the rolling then they will handle that too. Show your DM respect by having faith in their ability to run the game they want.
And if this is such a miserable experience for you then show the whole table the respect of walking away so that they can enjoy the game in peace. Vince, there is no doubt in my mind that your extreme bitterness surrounding this subject is seeping into the play experience for everyone else. There is no way you're keeping all of that vitriol in during session. It is way too easy for frustration to slip into mannerisms and speech patterns for that to be the case.
Or, you know, learn to enjoy a new way to approach the game.
I recently took a stats class for my psych minor, and I can confirm those numbers are absolutely absurd. The guy’s either a literal leprechaun or he’s cheating. Sure, there is a chance it’s legit, but the chance is so low as to be beyond any reasonable doubt.
Gonna have to disagree there. We've not been given all the info to actually determine what specific bonuses were applying to each or what checks these were or what his other stats are. I would have thought your "stats class" (for psychology, apparently o.O) would have advised you to use ALL data, not only partial/incomplete data to identify the probability.
You're also forgetting a large variety of dice are not real random - different dice roll differently. Dice can have manufacturing faults weighting them improperly skewing rolls to higher or lower. Some people physically roll better - there is such a thing as rolling techniques, rolling in a dice tray where it rebounds on sides is going to be different to rolling on a countertop with no bounce. This is why people complain about online dice rollers - it's a truer random and they don't like it. Even those aren't true random, but they're more so than physical ones.
The results so far given, especially without all the data needed to make fair assessment, do not strike me as absurd beyond reasonable doubt or whatever such hyperbole. They seem slightly above average. And some seem poor if considering a +6 bonus. The assertation of "never missing" and such is baseless, since the target to hit is variable and not given here. I've had dozens of sessions where I hit everything, and dozens where I've missed everything. Many people have.
I mean, you can think what you want, of course, and I'm not really to convince you or anyone. But I'm not going to throw three and a half decades of dice rolling, math classes and college degrees and more all out the window, just because some people want to form their opinions without all the data. You do you. But I'll reserve any chance of siding with Vince and their multiple threads of vitriol until they actually provide all the data, not just some vaguely given numbers and some phrases to make it seem a certain way.
I am not going to dive into the vagaries of dice weights or towers. But if you think that certain people have the ability to control dice rolls, especially on a D20, Vegas would like to have a word with you.
You have 35 years of data management and college degrees, then by all means run the probability distribution on those numbers. And yes, he NEVER missed on an attack, and most of the attacks were with the sword, which would have had a +4. (Prof + Ability). Assume half were at +4, half at +6. That is not the true case, as he had to make Ability checks or saves in everything but CHA. (he was exposed to the same conditions and attacks as I). You don't have to believe me. Your tone makes it clear you don't.
But the fact that I actually made the effort to create this thread indicates one of two things: This really happened and I am incensed, or, I am a troll. You believe what you wish.
Tell you what, why not assume a +6 on every D20 roll, and then calculate the chances. This would be the distribution AFTER subtracting 6 from each roll. But I will add in the all the D20's I tracked over 1.25 sessions. There should be, if my count is correct, 28 rolls in that data. n=30 is what most of my stats classes said was needed for relevant statistical analysis. But I think we can see an extremely wild skew, that any statistician would be throwing all kinds of flags over.
My intent, as you can see from my first post on the thread, isn’t to take sides but to sift the truth from the lies. I’m as frustrated with Vince’s toxicity as you are, but you can’t deny that, assuming he’s being truthful about these rolls, they’re past the point of statistical significance. True, there is the chance that the data is incomplete or slanted, but assuming this is the only time he’s played with the guy and the numbers aren’t cherry-picked, there’s definitely something up. Though you’re right, it could just be a faulty d20 and not actual cheating, and Vince is definitely conflating a number of issues that should be distinct.
The entire picture is incomplete and slanted. Considering how emotionally invested Vince is in this situation and that he did not let this other player type out their side of the story, that is inevitable. I mean the whole thing just oozes one big bias.
There is only one person at the table that should be worrying about whether people are performing the operations of the game correctly: The DM. It isn't your place as a player to even worry about whether someone else is cheating, because D&D is not a competition. Because it isn't a competition, how well one player rolls does not matter in the slightest to any other player in the game.
The DM seems to see no problems in what has happened with the rolls, or this player's management of spells and abilities, so there is nothing to talk about. They have clearly reined the player in a little bit to match closer to their expectations. If they see a problem with the rolling then they will handle that too. Show your DM respect by having faith in their ability to run the game they want.
And if this is such a miserable experience for you then show the whole table the respect of walking away so that they can enjoy the game in peace. Vince, there is no doubt in my mind that your extreme bitterness surrounding this subject is seeping into the play experience for everyone else. There is no way you're keeping all of that vitriol in during session. It is way too easy for frustration to slip into mannerisms and speech patterns for that to be the case.
Or, you know, learn to enjoy a new way to approach the game.
Cheating DOES impact other players.
This guy was wiping the field of all the monsters the DM threw at us. So next session, the DM will absorb that, and crank up the firepower of the encounters. We already had one player hit 0 HP in one of the encounters, while THAT GUY skated through. This is the same situation as one player having higher stats than the rest of the group, outperforming everyone else. The DM has to decide to let the one player dominate the game, or up the challenge ratings. So the choice for the DM is that the rest of the group are cheerleaders, or cannon fodder.
Some people physically roll better - there is such a thing as rolling techniques, rolling in a dice tray where it rebounds on sides is going to be different to rolling on a countertop with no bounce.
Huh?
Why would a dice bouncing off the side of a tray affect its randomness?
The only "rolling technique" I'm aware is dropping the dice with the 20 already upright from a distance of a quarter of an inch onto a felt surface.
Some people physically roll better - there is such a thing as rolling techniques, rolling in a dice tray where it rebounds on sides is going to be different to rolling on a countertop with no bounce.
Huh?
Why would a dice bouncing off the side of a tray affect its randomness?
The only "rolling technique" I'm aware is dropping the dice with the 20 already upright from a distance of a quarter of an inch onto a felt surface.
I only know how to do d6s
It's much harder if it hits a rail or side. That's why Vegas rules say you have to hit the back end.
But like cyber said, it could be a bad die. In high school I had a crit die that rolled an unusual number of 20s. It came from the factory that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
This guy was wiping the field of all the monsters the DM threw at us. So next session, the DM will absorb that, and crank up the firepower of the encounters. We already had one player hit 0 HP in one of the encounters, while THAT GUY skated through. This is the same situation as one player having higher stats than the rest of the group, outperforming everyone else. The DM has to decide to let the one player dominate the game, or up the challenge ratings. So the choice for the DM is that the rest of the group are cheerleaders, or cannon fodder.
There are entirely too many variables in what you just said for this to mean anything.
How does your table roll? Many just have the rolls in the middle or at least in open view, doing so removes all doubt. Alternatively you can use something like Roll20 where the virtual rolls are publicly shown in the chat.
I have heard of new players stuffing up the maths terribly, such as adding the whole stat rather than just the bonus, but I'm pretty sure you said this guy was an experienced player, so that kind of mistake seems unlikely. If you said to the DM you would like player rolls to be public, you wouldn't have to call out that guy, just say its the same rule for everyone.
We are playing online, using Discord, and everyone is rolling at home, on the honour system. Some have more honour than others. This guy have been playing D&D off and on for 40 years. I fear that if asked the DM to have players roll online, that would certainly trigger "why???"
Depending on your setup there are often many benefits that a dedicated VTT brings, from shared art, online character sheets with automation built in, interactive battle maps, virtual dice rolls (faster with the maths handled for you), leveling systems, reference materials, and chat (video, voice and text). And Roll20 is free, so costs nothing to try it out. Usually an easy enough sell and the public dice roll is often a positive too, with everyone cheering for the 20s and groaning at the 1s.
I'm a trained analyst & statistician and I know a lot about probability and I have to say, first glance at those dice results would definitely make me suspicious.
It's not proof though.
Dice are utterly random and the result of an individual die doesn't care what you rolled previously in the session. As a gaming community, we often build up superstition around dice rolls, such as lucky dice, or switching specific dice for certain rolls, even though we know that logically they are just random.
A kinda brief story about some crazy dice rolls
The last game I played in person, around a friend's house, prior to the pandemic, we had the following happen.
First round of combat, my friend immediately before me in combat rolled a nat 1 for his attack. I rolled a nat 20 for mine.
We're all using open dice rolls in a dice tray infront of us. Others in the room can see the dice results, which is part of the fun and anticipation for us, especially watching the dice spin on important "live or die" rolls.
The following round, he rolls a nat 1 and I roll a nat 20. Again. We're all, "huh, what's the odds of that?" and he makes a funny joke about me draining all his luck.
Round three. His character has to make a dex save and rolls a nat 1 for it. Everyone facepalms as his character is ejected over the edge of a cliff. I point out that my character is standing right next to him, so I want to sacrifice my action to dive for the edge of the cliff to see if I can grab him at the last moment as he goes over the edge. The DM rules it's all happening kinda simultaneously (and probably feels sorry for our friend) so tells me I can roll, but it's gonna have to be a really good one. I roll a nat 20. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief.
"Wait isn't that the 3rd straight 20 you've thrown" "yup" "and X has thrown three straight 1s?" "yeah" "damn...."
Not done yet though - following round, for fun, my friend and I swapped our dice over. He rolled a check to climb back up while we were being attacked. He rolled a nat 2 (with my dice) - I remember it clearly because everyone cheered that it wasn't a 1. The DM asked me to make a check to see if I still had hold of his character so he didn't fall. I rolled a nat 20 - on the table, infront of everyone, using my friend's dice. I then had to make a save myself to avoid being kicked off the cliff by the same wind-based monster. I rolled a nat 19 and everyone joked that the luck equilibrium was slowly evening back up.
Let's just take a look at that in isolation though - I rolled a d20 and got the following rolls in sequence: 20, 20, 20, 20, 19
The odds of me being able to roll nat 20 four times in a row are 1 in 160,000 which is pretty unlikely.
The odd of my friend rolling nat 1 four times in a row are the same.
The odds of those things occurring in the pattern they did? 1 in 25,600,000,000
Yup, 1 in 25 billion. Even if we sat and rolled dice for the rest of our lives, it is statistically unlikely we'd ever get those same results again. Similarly, however unlikely, it could happen the very next set of rolls (it didn't).
My point is, no matter how unlikely it seems, statistics only indicates that there MIGHT be a pattern or a problem - it only informs on the likelyhood, rather than telling you that something definitely happened.
tl;dr
However unlikely it is, that player may have legitimately rolled those dice and got those results, it is not evidence of cheating. There is however a strong indication that it's likely.
If we're going to have this thread, I'm not sure if there's much point to discussing statistical probabilities. Then again, I'm not sure what the intended point of the thread is in the first place. Is the OP just meant to vent? Are we looking for a way forward with this group? Is this about moral support or vindication? Or is it about scoring some nebulous point by tarring everyone with a fast and loose rule of cool playstyle with the same "probably a cheater" brush?
If the first, presumably it's mission accomplished. If the second, this is something that needs to be taken up with the group, not with us random internet strangers. If the third, trying for the second would be more productive towards getting support. If the fourth, I'm out of here now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
@ Stormknight: OK, the numbers I presented in my last post (I skipped the all the non-d20's, which were all higher then expected value) made a data set of 28. That is not large enough for a true statistical analysis. We were to have a session today, where I would add to the data set, but that session is cancelled. What can you do with 28 numbers? I did a simple binomial distribution, assuming a d20 was a coin flip, with 1-10 as heads, 11-20 as tails, and also assuming every roll had the best case +6 modifer. (They most certainly did not.) That gave results that were very imperfect, obviously.
How do I model this? How do I calculate the probability of that list of numbers, giving the most generous assumptions to the player?
@panjuran: Yeah, I was venting a bit, and my views of rule of cool are confirmed by THAT GUY. I have seen a correlation over the decades with people openly bending the rules in one area of a game and outright breaking them when they can. I am talking across not just 5e, but any other board game on the planet that allows for that kind of chicanery.
But at this point, see above. I do want to make this a mathematical exercise to actually build a model, and one that I can add more numbers to, which I can present to the DM. The chances of this guy stopping are about as likely as the rolls he has professed to make.
But at this point, see above. I do want to make this a mathematical exercise to actually build a model, and one that I can add more numbers to, which I can present to the DM. The chances of this guy stopping are about as likely as the rolls he has professed to make.
Chances are that your DM either accepts your word for it or wants to see for himself. I'd suggest addressing it sooner rather than later, if that's what you want to do, but that's just my take.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But at this point, see above. I do want to make this a mathematical exercise to actually build a model, and one that I can add more numbers to, which I can present to the DM. The chances of this guy stopping are about as likely as the rolls he has professed to make.
Chances are that your DM either accepts your word for it or wants to see for himself. I'd suggest addressing it sooner rather than later, if that's what you want to do, but that's just my take.
The bigger the sample size, the stronger the evidence. If I can make a construct that I can add data to, that is what I want.
1) Cheating is everyone’s problem. No player should have to put up with it and it should be called out. Whether your friends play the Rule of Cool or meta game their asses off, cheating is disrespectful to every other player. If dice rolls don’t matter, then remove them from the game you’re playing and just use prose to explain the action.
2) Those rolls (if true) are definitely suspicious. With the most generous +6 allowance, the data you provided totals 351, and that skews to a 3.19% chance of that type of skew happening in any 28-number d20 sample.
If we consider half and half being +4 and +6, the total would be 14 higher at 365 and the chances are now 1.01% chance.
If we consider all of these to be +4, the total would be 379 and a 0.26% chance.
“But 3% means it’s entirely possible!” - yes, but it’s also extremely unlikely over 28 rolls and definitely should encourage everyone around the table to adopt an Avrae roller or even use the dnd beyond game log for these rolls. Anyone who looks at these numbers and tries to make an argument about “but it could happen!”... why? Just why? Are you basing your opinion on the data that skews extremely in favour of a player or just because you didn’t like Vince’s other post?
3) People spouting off about “some online rollers aren’t truly random” have no idea what they’re talking about. The kind of statistical research that looks into this level of randomness will never impact your dice rolling statistics in any meaningful way as this usually only faces scrutiny when looking at encryption of data.
I'm amused, mainly because we have seen many threads, with t same (often less) detail about cheating rolls. In pretty much every one, when the rolls go from "honor system" to "everyone sees" the lucky roller SUDDENLY has more normal results. Yet still, most who have a personal vendetta against Vince and his rants (about half of which I find to have any real meat) will say repeatedly that lucky rolls are simply a thing and that's all they see.
I'm interested and have been following this string, to see how it all sorts out. I am especially interested now, to see if the rolls can be take online and visible to all, if they settle back to normal levels, with a few notable "lucky streaks" popping up. The consistency is the biggest issue. Our own group who faced the same thing (not a single missed attack from one player over 3 sessions) went to online rolls and SHOCK!!!! suddenly there were misses and far fewer crits. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck, those who hate you will still try to say it's a chicken. Those who actually think will agree it is MOST LIKELY a duck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I will point out - without malice, and with the intention of helping - that as a DM, if one player came to me after a session with a long list of page references about rules I'd screwed up and where I'd allowed other players to "do D&D wrong", and then a few sessions later that same player came to me with several pages of statistical maths pointing out that die rolls from another player in the group were trending towards suspicious and started instructing me on what to do about it?
I would have a sit-down with that player and ask him why he's playing at my table when he clearly does not trust me to run the game.
Now, I absolutely welcome players to take up issues with me when I'm running games, and I think any DM who doesn't do that should immediately stop being a DM. But there's a difference between someone talking to me over an issue they're having and making sure they loop the DM into their thoughts and someone writing up a treatise trying to demonstrably prove why I'm wrong, they're right, and I need to take the actions outlined in Section 5, Paragraph 3 if I want my game to start working properly again.
Perhaps this would work better, Vince, if you were to abort the Game Auditor approach and simply talk to the DM like a player talking to the DM. Bring up your concerns, show them a few of your screengrabs as supporting evidence as needed, and then thank the DM for his time and attention before letting the DM decide how to proceed. You're too wrapped up in getting one over on this player and proving that he's a cheater and only True Adherence to RAW is the way forward, when you should maybe, instead, focus simply on having fun with your D&D game you like.
You won't fix your game by going Imperial Inquisition on it, man.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gonna have to disagree there. We've not been given all the info to actually determine what specific bonuses were applying to each or what checks these were or what his other stats are. I would have thought your "stats class" (for psychology, apparently o.O) would have advised you to use ALL data, not only partial/incomplete data to identify the probability.
You're also forgetting a large variety of dice are not real random - different dice roll differently. Dice can have manufacturing faults weighting them improperly skewing rolls to higher or lower. Some people physically roll better - there is such a thing as rolling techniques, rolling in a dice tray where it rebounds on sides is going to be different to rolling on a countertop with no bounce. This is why people complain about online dice rollers - it's a truer random and they don't like it. Even those aren't true random, but they're more so than physical ones.
The results so far given, especially without all the data needed to make fair assessment, do not strike me as absurd beyond reasonable doubt or whatever such hyperbole. They seem slightly above average. And some seem poor if considering a +6 bonus. The assertation of "never missing" and such is baseless, since the target to hit is variable and not given here. I've had dozens of sessions where I hit everything, and dozens where I've missed everything. Many people have.
I mean, you can think what you want, of course, and I'm not really to convince you or anyone. But I'm not going to throw three and a half decades of dice rolling, math classes and college degrees and more all out the window, just because some people want to form their opinions without all the data. You do you. But I'll reserve any chance of siding with Vince and their multiple threads of vitriol until they actually provide all the data, not just some vaguely given numbers and some phrases to make it seem a certain way.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Very well said Cyb3rM1nd. 👏🏼
Y'all don't be chumps and feed into this negativity. We're given one, extremely emotional side of the story with incomplete data about the character and rolls being performed.
My intent, as you can see from my first post on the thread, isn’t to take sides but to sift the truth from the lies. I’m as frustrated with Vince’s toxicity as you are, but you can’t deny that, assuming he’s being truthful about these rolls, they’re past the point of statistical significance. True, there is the chance that the data is incomplete or slanted, but assuming this is the only time he’s played with the guy and the numbers aren’t cherry-picked, there’s definitely something up. Though you’re right, it could just be a faulty d20 and not actual cheating, and Vince is definitely conflating a number of issues that should be distinct.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
May I suggest to approach this from a very different angle?
Shift your focus from monitoring the 'suspect' player and his rolls, and tune more into the story they are telling. This player sounds like they don't care too much about the mechanics of the game, but want to illustrate a fantastical story with outrageous moments.
If you can find it in you to show compassion for someone who finds enjoyment in different aspects of D&D than you do, the experience will become less frustrating to you. I also would recommend letting the DM do the policing of the rolls. Getting that out of your head will also free yourself for other (more enjoyable) things.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I guess I should put down my background at this point. I have a degree in Economics, and a 2nd degree in Physics. (Yeah, any anonymous person can say whatever they want on the web). I am very much a numbers guy, and know all about probability distribution, and was coming to the same conclusion as you. I am staring at the sheet right now where I wrote down every number as he called it out, real time. And this was over 1.25 sessions, as I started late in the previous session.
The raw data is sound.
The entire picture is incomplete and slanted. Considering how emotionally invested Vince is in this situation and that he did not let this other player type out their side of the story, that is inevitable. I mean the whole thing just oozes one big bias.
There is only one person at the table that should be worrying about whether people are performing the operations of the game correctly: The DM. It isn't your place as a player to even worry about whether someone else is cheating, because D&D is not a competition. Because it isn't a competition, how well one player rolls does not matter in the slightest to any other player in the game.
The DM seems to see no problems in what has happened with the rolls, or this player's management of spells and abilities, so there is nothing to talk about. They have clearly reined the player in a little bit to match closer to their expectations. If they see a problem with the rolling then they will handle that too. Show your DM respect by having faith in their ability to run the game they want.
And if this is such a miserable experience for you then show the whole table the respect of walking away so that they can enjoy the game in peace. Vince, there is no doubt in my mind that your extreme bitterness surrounding this subject is seeping into the play experience for everyone else. There is no way you're keeping all of that vitriol in during session. It is way too easy for frustration to slip into mannerisms and speech patterns for that to be the case.
Or, you know, learn to enjoy a new way to approach the game.
I am not going to dive into the vagaries of dice weights or towers. But if you think that certain people have the ability to control dice rolls, especially on a D20, Vegas would like to have a word with you.
You have 35 years of data management and college degrees, then by all means run the probability distribution on those numbers. And yes, he NEVER missed on an attack, and most of the attacks were with the sword, which would have had a +4. (Prof + Ability). Assume half were at +4, half at +6. That is not the true case, as he had to make Ability checks or saves in everything but CHA. (he was exposed to the same conditions and attacks as I). You don't have to believe me. Your tone makes it clear you don't.
But the fact that I actually made the effort to create this thread indicates one of two things: This really happened and I am incensed, or, I am a troll. You believe what you wish.
Tell you what, why not assume a +6 on every D20 roll, and then calculate the chances. This would be the distribution AFTER subtracting 6 from each roll. But I will add in the all the D20's I tracked over 1.25 sessions. There should be, if my count is correct, 28 rolls in that data. n=30 is what most of my stats classes said was needed for relevant statistical analysis. But I think we can see an extremely wild skew, that any statistician would be throwing all kinds of flags over.
1: zero 2: zero 3: zero
4: 1
5: zero 6: zero 7: zero
8: 1
9: 2
10: 4
11: 3
12: 1
13: 4
14: 5
15: 4
16: 1
17: 0
18: 1
19: 0
20: 1
Cheating DOES impact other players.
This guy was wiping the field of all the monsters the DM threw at us. So next session, the DM will absorb that, and crank up the firepower of the encounters. We already had one player hit 0 HP in one of the encounters, while THAT GUY skated through. This is the same situation as one player having higher stats than the rest of the group, outperforming everyone else. The DM has to decide to let the one player dominate the game, or up the challenge ratings. So the choice for the DM is that the rest of the group are cheerleaders, or cannon fodder.
Huh?
Why would a dice bouncing off the side of a tray affect its randomness?
The only "rolling technique" I'm aware is dropping the dice with the 20 already upright from a distance of a quarter of an inch onto a felt surface.
I only know how to do d6s
It's much harder if it hits a rail or side. That's why Vegas rules say you have to hit the back end.
But like cyber said, it could be a bad die. In high school I had a crit die that rolled an unusual number of 20s. It came from the factory that way.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There are entirely too many variables in what you just said for this to mean anything.
Depending on your setup there are often many benefits that a dedicated VTT brings, from shared art, online character sheets with automation built in, interactive battle maps, virtual dice rolls (faster with the maths handled for you), leveling systems, reference materials, and chat (video, voice and text). And Roll20 is free, so costs nothing to try it out. Usually an easy enough sell and the public dice roll is often a positive too, with everyone cheering for the 20s and groaning at the 1s.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI'm a trained analyst & statistician and I know a lot about probability and I have to say, first glance at those dice results would definitely make me suspicious.
It's not proof though.
Dice are utterly random and the result of an individual die doesn't care what you rolled previously in the session. As a gaming community, we often build up superstition around dice rolls, such as lucky dice, or switching specific dice for certain rolls, even though we know that logically they are just random.
A kinda brief story about some crazy dice rolls
The last game I played in person, around a friend's house, prior to the pandemic, we had the following happen.
First round of combat, my friend immediately before me in combat rolled a nat 1 for his attack. I rolled a nat 20 for mine.
We're all using open dice rolls in a dice tray infront of us. Others in the room can see the dice results, which is part of the fun and anticipation for us, especially watching the dice spin on important "live or die" rolls.
The following round, he rolls a nat 1 and I roll a nat 20. Again. We're all, "huh, what's the odds of that?" and he makes a funny joke about me draining all his luck.
Round three. His character has to make a dex save and rolls a nat 1 for it. Everyone facepalms as his character is ejected over the edge of a cliff. I point out that my character is standing right next to him, so I want to sacrifice my action to dive for the edge of the cliff to see if I can grab him at the last moment as he goes over the edge. The DM rules it's all happening kinda simultaneously (and probably feels sorry for our friend) so tells me I can roll, but it's gonna have to be a really good one. I roll a nat 20. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief.
"Wait isn't that the 3rd straight 20 you've thrown" "yup" "and X has thrown three straight 1s?" "yeah" "damn...."
Not done yet though - following round, for fun, my friend and I swapped our dice over. He rolled a check to climb back up while we were being attacked. He rolled a nat 2 (with my dice) - I remember it clearly because everyone cheered that it wasn't a 1. The DM asked me to make a check to see if I still had hold of his character so he didn't fall. I rolled a nat 20 - on the table, infront of everyone, using my friend's dice. I then had to make a save myself to avoid being kicked off the cliff by the same wind-based monster. I rolled a nat 19 and everyone joked that the luck equilibrium was slowly evening back up.
Let's just take a look at that in isolation though - I rolled a d20 and got the following rolls in sequence: 20, 20, 20, 20, 19
The odds of me being able to roll nat 20 four times in a row are 1 in 160,000 which is pretty unlikely.
The odd of my friend rolling nat 1 four times in a row are the same.
The odds of those things occurring in the pattern they did? 1 in 25,600,000,000
Yup, 1 in 25 billion. Even if we sat and rolled dice for the rest of our lives, it is statistically unlikely we'd ever get those same results again. Similarly, however unlikely, it could happen the very next set of rolls (it didn't).
My point is, no matter how unlikely it seems, statistics only indicates that there MIGHT be a pattern or a problem - it only informs on the likelyhood, rather than telling you that something definitely happened.
tl;dr
However unlikely it is, that player may have legitimately rolled those dice and got those results, it is not evidence of cheating. There is however a strong indication that it's likely.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
If we're going to have this thread, I'm not sure if there's much point to discussing statistical probabilities. Then again, I'm not sure what the intended point of the thread is in the first place. Is the OP just meant to vent? Are we looking for a way forward with this group? Is this about moral support or vindication? Or is it about scoring some nebulous point by tarring everyone with a fast and loose rule of cool playstyle with the same "probably a cheater" brush?
If the first, presumably it's mission accomplished. If the second, this is something that needs to be taken up with the group, not with us random internet strangers. If the third, trying for the second would be more productive towards getting support. If the fourth, I'm out of here now.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
@ Stormknight: OK, the numbers I presented in my last post (I skipped the all the non-d20's, which were all higher then expected value) made a data set of 28. That is not large enough for a true statistical analysis. We were to have a session today, where I would add to the data set, but that session is cancelled. What can you do with 28 numbers? I did a simple binomial distribution, assuming a d20 was a coin flip, with 1-10 as heads, 11-20 as tails, and also assuming every roll had the best case +6 modifer. (They most certainly did not.) That gave results that were very imperfect, obviously.
How do I model this? How do I calculate the probability of that list of numbers, giving the most generous assumptions to the player?
@panjuran: Yeah, I was venting a bit, and my views of rule of cool are confirmed by THAT GUY. I have seen a correlation over the decades with people openly bending the rules in one area of a game and outright breaking them when they can. I am talking across not just 5e, but any other board game on the planet that allows for that kind of chicanery.
But at this point, see above. I do want to make this a mathematical exercise to actually build a model, and one that I can add more numbers to, which I can present to the DM. The chances of this guy stopping are about as likely as the rolls he has professed to make.
Chances are that your DM either accepts your word for it or wants to see for himself. I'd suggest addressing it sooner rather than later, if that's what you want to do, but that's just my take.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The bigger the sample size, the stronger the evidence. If I can make a construct that I can add data to, that is what I want.
1) Cheating is everyone’s problem. No player should have to put up with it and it should be called out. Whether your friends play the Rule of Cool or meta game their asses off, cheating is disrespectful to every other player. If dice rolls don’t matter, then remove them from the game you’re playing and just use prose to explain the action.
2) Those rolls (if true) are definitely suspicious. With the most generous +6 allowance, the data you provided totals 351, and that skews to a 3.19% chance of that type of skew happening in any 28-number d20 sample.
https://anydice.com/program/1602
If we consider half and half being +4 and +6, the total would be 14 higher at 365 and the chances are now 1.01% chance.
If we consider all of these to be +4, the total would be 379 and a 0.26% chance.
“But 3% means it’s entirely possible!” - yes, but it’s also extremely unlikely over 28 rolls and definitely should encourage everyone around the table to adopt an Avrae roller or even use the dnd beyond game log for these rolls. Anyone who looks at these numbers and tries to make an argument about “but it could happen!”... why? Just why? Are you basing your opinion on the data that skews extremely in favour of a player or just because you didn’t like Vince’s other post?
3) People spouting off about “some online rollers aren’t truly random” have no idea what they’re talking about. The kind of statistical research that looks into this level of randomness will never impact your dice rolling statistics in any meaningful way as this usually only faces scrutiny when looking at encryption of data.
I'm amused, mainly because we have seen many threads, with t same (often less) detail about cheating rolls. In pretty much every one, when the rolls go from "honor system" to "everyone sees" the lucky roller SUDDENLY has more normal results. Yet still, most who have a personal vendetta against Vince and his rants (about half of which I find to have any real meat) will say repeatedly that lucky rolls are simply a thing and that's all they see.
I'm interested and have been following this string, to see how it all sorts out. I am especially interested now, to see if the rolls can be take online and visible to all, if they settle back to normal levels, with a few notable "lucky streaks" popping up. The consistency is the biggest issue. Our own group who faced the same thing (not a single missed attack from one player over 3 sessions) went to online rolls and SHOCK!!!! suddenly there were misses and far fewer crits. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and quacks like a duck, those who hate you will still try to say it's a chicken. Those who actually think will agree it is MOST LIKELY a duck.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I will point out - without malice, and with the intention of helping - that as a DM, if one player came to me after a session with a long list of page references about rules I'd screwed up and where I'd allowed other players to "do D&D wrong", and then a few sessions later that same player came to me with several pages of statistical maths pointing out that die rolls from another player in the group were trending towards suspicious and started instructing me on what to do about it?
I would have a sit-down with that player and ask him why he's playing at my table when he clearly does not trust me to run the game.
Now, I absolutely welcome players to take up issues with me when I'm running games, and I think any DM who doesn't do that should immediately stop being a DM. But there's a difference between someone talking to me over an issue they're having and making sure they loop the DM into their thoughts and someone writing up a treatise trying to demonstrably prove why I'm wrong, they're right, and I need to take the actions outlined in Section 5, Paragraph 3 if I want my game to start working properly again.
Perhaps this would work better, Vince, if you were to abort the Game Auditor approach and simply talk to the DM like a player talking to the DM. Bring up your concerns, show them a few of your screengrabs as supporting evidence as needed, and then thank the DM for his time and attention before letting the DM decide how to proceed. You're too wrapped up in getting one over on this player and proving that he's a cheater and only True Adherence to RAW is the way forward, when you should maybe, instead, focus simply on having fun with your D&D game you like.
You won't fix your game by going Imperial Inquisition on it, man.
Please do not contact or message me.