Bad Dice Roller - again

I posted about the low rolls ALL of the players in two different games are getting and got this response:4:39PM (20 hours ago) Edited 4:53PM (19 hours ago) Vince Pro Sheet Author Permalink <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/QuantumRoll" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/QuantumRoll</a> and you can view the latest stats on all roll20's d20 rolls here: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/home/quantumQuick" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/home/quantumQuick</a> roll test you can try by Ziechael : <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/permalink/6199641" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/permalink/6199641</a> What this response and the other one from Roll20 that I got is just a cop out. Saying we just remember the low rolls is insulting. Then to state that you have heard this many, many times just confirms that there is a problem you don't want to address. I'd say it is effective proof that there is a problem. All these gamers having the same problem, at least 10 in the two groups I am in on here, should be elegant proof that there is a problem. Denying it doesn't fix it. It just further aggravates players. THERE IS A PROBLEM! I like the maps and some aspects of the site but one of the groups I am talking about ran for 5 years as a play-by-post site on Facebook and I ran another game in the same style for a couple of years also on Facebook Our DM wants to use roll20 but we are already talking about not useing the dice roller because of it's bias or, at best, making it optional.&nbsp; Don't you want people to be happy with your site?

Track every roll made in the game&nbsp;over many hours and average them. The more rolls you get, the more you will see they track to the expected average.

I know that this topic comes up again and again and again. But that doesn't mean necessarily that it is proof for a bugged dice roller engine. That's like saying "There are so many reports of UFOs, so there HAS to aliens landing on earth! Stop denying it!" When my party run into a similar problem a couple of months ago (two party members complained about an unusual amount of 1s), I asked them to go full steam on the engine and roll d20s like crazy. Everybody should roll this a couple of times: /r {999d20}=1 It rolls 999 d20s (the engine caps at 999), and counts the 1s. On average, there should be around 50 (I explained it here a bit more&nbsp; <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5956485/dice-iss" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5956485/dice-iss</a>... ). Then I asked them to use the same rolls, but with "=20" at the end, to count the 20s. And while we did see some slight variation (between 40 and 60, maybe), we couldn't find any evidence for a bigger bias towards one number that would be more than statistic noise.

I might make a suggestion on top of this great advice; Be sure to use /talktomyself before making a huge roll like " /r {999d20}=1 "

Actually, that is the point. They haven't been.That is for 5 gaming sessions in two games. They always start with a string of very low rolls...to the point that all the players and the DMs notice it.

Well, all I see is deniers and offers of "would be" proof which my experience and that of my fellow gamers give the lie to. Here is the real bottom line. Playing with physical dice, the rolls are typically better than this dice roller. The reason we do this is to have fun. The bias I believe this dice roller has is making the gaming experience not-fun. Showing tables where everything is random over the 1-20 spectrum doesn't negate the bad time. It also doesn't justify using the dice roller.&nbsp;

Well, to be honest: The problem is not the dice roller. The (first) problem is your expectations, that after one or two low rolls, there has to be a high roll again. But that's not how randomness works. It is in fact totally plausible that you roll one low roll after the other for quite a while. One roll has no influence on the next one.&nbsp; Consider this: The chance to roll something between a 1 and a 5 is 25%. When you roll again, the chance to roll another 1 to 5 is... 25%. And the chance for the third roll: 25%. The second problem: We tend to see patterns. So if you rolled a 1 three times in a row, you will remember that. You will not remember that directly after that, you rolled a 16, then an 11, then a 15. But then, if you roll another 1, you will think: "Oh, here we go again."

Arthur B, it is still a fact that the physical dice I use and those used by the players in the F2F game I DM, roll higher and, it seems to me, more randomly than the roll20 dice roller does. Like I said before, it comes down to having fun. If it is killing the fun to use a dice roller I am sure is biases to roll low. especially early in a session, then that, to me, makes all the other arguments either useless or lies. It may just be anecdotal evidence but it is very real to all those experiencing it. By the way, we are not talking about 1 or 2 low rolls. We are talking about between 15 and 20 rolls under 12 spread across several players on multiple gaming sessions. If you notice on the one guys list of how often each number occurs in his log, by far, the highest number tallies are for 10 and lower, with the highest tally being for 1's and the lowest for 20's. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Ok, let me ask you one thing? Can you please make 1000 rolls with your d20, and write it down in an excel file?&nbsp; I'm not mocking you. I'm serious. Let's do that the proper way. We roll 1000 d20 in-game, and IRL. And then we compare the randomness. Because, honestly, a few dozen rolls do not qualify as a proper statistic sample (not even the 1000 would, but I don't want to occupy your whole day).

Let us just suppose that I waste all that time rolling a d20 1000 times and when compared to the dice roller we find that there is a bias in the dice roller for numbers lower than 10? What does that prove? Are you going to rethink the program on the dice roller...or are you just going to say I need to roll another 1000 times. or 2000 times, or whatever until it vindicates the dice roller? Read my previous statement. If the dice roller is killing the fun, then that is the bottom line. It really is for me. To the point that I am talking to the other players about leaving the adventure because of it, even though I enjoy the other players and the DM. That is what this has come to.

Well, I'm not one of the programmers of roll20, so there is nothing I can do about it. I'm just trying to help you understand what the problem is. It's like playing lottery. One guy plays lottery for 20 years, the other one just started 4 weeks ago, and then wins the jackpot: "I don't know what your problem is! My personal experience: For weeks for one jackpot!".&nbsp; Anyway, I understand and feel your complains about this experience killing your fun. I really get that. But if you don't believe us that the dice engine is not broken, then you won't have any other option than choosing another method for rolling your dice. Maybe you roll real dice on skype, but continue on roll20 for the rest. Or you really leave roll20, because there won't be any fix for something that isn't broken.

And as long as you think the broken thing is not broken, then of course it won't be fixed. People have been complaining about it for over 3 years...and all those folks are just deluded. I will probably go to physical dice and try to stay with the group. I am sure others will join me.&nbsp;

Troy D. said: Let us just suppose that I waste all that time rolling a d20 1000 times and when compared to the dice roller we find that there is a bias in Emphasis added by me. You are already assuming that it will be a waste of time. If it proves to you and the other players that the dice roller is fair, it is not a waste of time. I understand your perceptions, but read up more on randomness. There can and will be runs of numbers that appear to our human brains as "non-random," but in fact they are. Randomness cannot be evaluated over a relatively short run of a few dozen rolls. The larger the sample the more accurate the assessment. I still encourage you to log every roll made in your games for the next few sessions and average them over a few weeks. It's a little bit of extra work to jot them down in a spreadsheet or document, but you will be making the rolls in your game anyway. If you do this, I believe you will come away with a true sense of knowing the dice roller is random.

The QuantumRoll page of the Roll20 Wiki is definitely worth checking out. QuantumRoll is actually more random than physical dice . Further discussion and readings on this topic: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/63487/from-the-source-roll20-rng-testing" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/63487/from-the-source-roll20-rng-testing</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4517173/skewed-dice/?pageforid=4517352#post-4517352" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4517173/skewed-dice/?pageforid=4517352#post-4517352</a> <a href="http://cocosci.berkeley.edu/tom/papers/hard.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://cocosci.berkeley.edu/tom/papers/hard.pdf</a> This really has been talked to death. Consider that for the 10-20 posts in the last 5 years where people have suggested that the dice engine is not random, there are hundreds of thousands of games with players that didn't post with that suggestion. Read through those links above. If that doesn't convince you, then switch to physical dice.&nbsp; However, remember that the Gambler's Fallacy, also called the Monte Carlo fallacy, got its second name from a physical world event where the roulette wheel came up black 26 times in a row, a probability around around 1 in 136.8million.&nbsp; You can't escape Gambler's Fallacy.

I can try that, but if I come away with what I see as proof that the dice roller is NOT random, what then? You guys won't even consider the possibility that there is a problem. People have been seeing a bias with it for over 3 years. Doesn't that give you pause even a little? Is it that, should a problem be found, that you have nothing better? I have been playing AD&D since 1979 because it is fun and exciting. As I said, the dice roller is killing the fun, and not just for me. I have gone as a player for 3 gaming sessions in a row without hitting. using physical dice. but that, while disappointing, never left me with the felling that the dice were rigged. There was enough near misses and "randomness" if you will to give me hope. That is not the case with the roll20 dice roller.&nbsp;

Well, all the evidence shows that the engine is working fine, but you won't believe us:&nbsp; Roll20 keeps a monitoring page where you can see the randomness as table (which you reject as evidence), Rolling the dice yourself (with my command from above) will let you test the randomness of the dice engine yourself (which you also rejected as evidence) Explanations why you "see" high amounts of low rolls (it's called&nbsp; illusory pattern perception , or&nbsp; clustering illusion ) I just did 18 of these 999 rolls I mentioned earlier (so essentially nearly 18.000 rolls), and counted the 1s. I rolled a "one" 880 times. So I rolled a "one" with a probability of 4,893%, while it should be 5,0%, statistically. This is evidence enough for me that the dice engine is working: One out of twenty rolls gives me a "one", verified over 18.000 test rolls. So excuse me, but you will need more than a bad luck streak over a couple of rolls to change my opinion here.

The Aaron. I read through those already. There are a lot more folks who have written in about it that 4 or 5. They have done it under several topics. Read my previous statement. If you WILL not even consider the possibility that there could be a problem...then what is the point. The point, as I have said, is to have fun. Your supposedly unbiased dice roller is killing the fun, where physical dice do not. To me that is a fact and the point that is the bottom line.

Arthur B. I appreciate the effort you are making to "set me straight" but consider that as long as you are using the roll20 dice roller, you may be perpetuating the same bias just by using that engine. Have you tried using another dice roller engine and comparing those? A friend and fellow gamer says she knows of another one and is trying to get the info. She plays with us on here, so it may be another option. The bottom line is still the same. If it isn't fun, why do it?

If it kills the fun for you, don't use it.&nbsp; There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is random, more random than physical dice.&nbsp; You have anecdotal evidence of a few experiences with bad rolls.&nbsp; You're simply not going to convince us there is a problem with that.&nbsp; Do a few hundred rolls in the chat where you predict what the number will be as part of the roll.&nbsp; [[1d20]] will be 7 Get that right more than 10% of the time across at least 500 rolls and I'll consider that there might be a problem.

"My neighbour's son got vaccinated as baby, and he has &lt;insert random sickness here&gt; now!" Sorry to be so rude, but that is the same type of argumentation. You ignore the results of a huge, verified evaluation because of your personal, random experience. Fact is: Everybody believes you that you had a low roll streak. We all experienced that, and not only once. But that is how randomness works. If your dice produce different results, then maybe your dice are the problem ;) Seriously, if you don't trust the engine, use physical dice instead. But all real evidence shows that the engine is working just fine.

Troy D. said: Arthur B. I appreciate the effort you are making to "set me straight" but consider that as long as you are using the roll20 dice roller, you may be perpetuating the same bias just by using that engine. Have you tried using another dice roller engine and comparing those? A friend and fellow gamer says she knows of another one and is trying to get the info. She plays with us on here, so it may be another option. The bottom line is still the same. If it isn't fun, why do it? Well, the point is: A d20 should show us, statistically and over a long run, each side in 5% of the throws. I just did that test for you with 18.000 (well, 17.982) rolls, and came up with 4.9% for the side 1. So there's no need to compare it to another dice engine, because we see that roll20's dice engine gives us the expected results.

I have been using this site for multiple campaigns over the last 3 years and have never noticed a severe issue one way or the other. Have never had a player complain about the dice roller being "rigged" against them.