Random Magic Paths - is it truly random?

[Arralen]

Ongoing game, Jotunheim, 6 turns.

1st turn - building a Vaetti Hag: Blood-1
2nd turn - doing the same ..... Blood-1
3rd turn - same again .. Blood-1
4th turn - Gyjgya : Blood-1, Nature-1
5th turn - Vaetti : Nature-1
6th turn - Skratti Blood-1

So with 7 random sorcery pics, I got 5x Blood and 2x Nature...

[Bummer_Duck]

Arralen said:
So with 7 random sorcery pics, I got 5x Blood and 2x Nature...

I'm sure you will get the same sort of answer I recieved... I have to say that back in the board game days, these sorts of results would end in the offending dice getting banned. Apparently, though, once games moved to the computer, results are no longer questioned as closely. :-)

[FrankTrollman]

That's completely statistically meaningless. And I mean completely meaningless. Not "vaguely meaningful", but total devoid of information of any worth whatsoever.

You built three Vaetti Hags in a row that had 2 repeats, and the chances of that happening are only 1 in 16. But honestly, that means that if everyone on the thread performed this test, several of us would expect to get a similar result.

But then you went on and built other stuff and didn't get the same stuff, but different stuff instead. Woot. What does that mean? Nothing.

You got no Astral or Death in 7 picks. That's a 1 in 128 chance. But the thing is, it would be just as "notable" if you got no Blood or Nature in 7 picks. And it would likewise be just as notable if you missed out on Blood and Death, or Blood and Astral, or Astral and Nature, or Nature and Death. From the standpoint of you coming to us and pointing out how weird it was, it would in fact be the same exact event.

So really, that's a simple 3/64 chance to get some 6 turn run that is functionally like that in terms of you pointing out how non-random it looks. In fact, in any particular 7 pick block, the chances of it not producing any discernable pattern are very low - it's only 13% just to not have any consecutive repeats. The chances of actually having at least one of each magic type in 4 picks is only 9%.

By showing us a block of seven consecutive picks (not even really in order, because one of the sets is "choose two", so you can't tell which order it came in) with a discernable pattern, you haven't showed us a damned thing.

When I posted up 63 picks under controlled circumstances, that was small time. 7 picks is a joke.

-Frank

-Frank

[Saber Cherry]

Bummer_Duck said: I'm sure you will get the same sort of answer I recieved... I have to say that back in the board game days, these sorts of results would end in the offending dice getting banned. Apparently, though, once games moved to the computer, results are no longer questioned as closely. :-)

Too soft! In my day, the offending hand of the offending dice-roller would be cut off. Sometimes, to add to the randomness, we would make a pact to only perform crucial rolls during earthquakes or after the injection of adrenaline directly into the heart muscle. A simple replacement of the die giving bad rolls... SOLVES NOTHING!

[Bummer_Duck]

Saber Cherry said:Sometimes, to add to the randomness, we would make a pact to only perform crucial rolls during earthquakes

We thought about that one, but don't live in an earthquake zone. Our solution was to attach a bunch of orbital sanders under the gaming table... Worked great!