UPDATE: Dice roller questions (now fixed!)

[Argennian]

How can we be sure that any online die roller application won't be affected by this same issue?

I don't know what language ToniXX used to code the die rolling website, but according to his original post "the problem lies with the way the randomize feature works with the language that I used to write the site."

Will every website that uses the built-in randomize methods of a particular language be victim to this same situation?

I really don't want to go through the hassle of learning the semantics of a new website only to find that it, too, is unreliable. If it can be proven that a different website is unaffected, I will be willing to switch on a temporary basis (until the glitch with the Unseen Servant die roller has been fixed), but my ultimate intention is to remain with Unseen Servant. If that means rolling one die at a time, so be it. For the most part, this will present the biggest challenge during initial player creation where, instead of rolling four six-sided dice at the same time, you'll have to make four individual d6 rolls per ability.

Just my two cents.

+1 and I was thinking the exact same things, Dave.

[dmw71]

+1 and I was thinking the exact same things, Dave.

Great minds.

Only, you would have said "just my two copper pieces."

[Xaxyx]

How can we be sure that any online die roller application won't be affected by this same issue?

Well, to answer your question specifically: it's easy to test if the application is affected by the same issue by rolling [10d2] a bunch of times and viewing the results. If there's a lot of 10's and 20's, then there you have it.

But I think perhaps what you really mean to ask is, how can we be sure that any given online die roller is, in fact, random? Again, we can never be certain. However, consider the following:

1) Invisible Castle has been around for years and is used by quite a number of PbP players. Surely by now if there were any suspicions at all regarding the quality of their dice engine, there'd be wide-spread shrieking across the community. Yet in all my travels, I've only ever heard good things. Mind you, their registration process could obviously use some work...

2) It's not all that implausible to simply test the engine ourselves. We can roll a ton of results, analyze the distribution, and see how it compares to statistical probability. If it falls within an acceptable deviation, then we're home.

[dmw71]

How can we be sure that any online die roller application won't be affected by this same issue?

Well, to answer your question specifically: it's easy to test if the application is affected by the same issue by rolling [10d2] a bunch of times and viewing the results. If there's a lot of 10's and 20's, then there you have it.

Math and statistics were clearly never strengths of mine. What you said makes sense, though. Thanks!

But I think perhaps what you really mean to ask is, how can we be sure that any given online die roller is, in fact, random?

Truthfully, I'm not overly concerned with absolute randomization. A seemingly nice distribution of numbers within the range (be it two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, twenty or one hundred) is good enough for me. That said, the results you discovered were pretty off.

1) Invisible Castle has been around for years and is used by quite a number of PbP players. Surely by now if there were any suspicions at all regarding the quality of their dice engine, there'd be wide-spread shrieking across the community. Yet in all my travels, I've only ever heard good things. Mind you, their registration process could obviously use some work...

I'm new to both Invisible Castle and Unseen Servant. I don't know how long each has been in existence but, until recently, there wasn't any wide-spread shrieking from users of Unseen Servant. Who knows? Well, I plan on testing Invisible Castle later today which should hopefully give me a better idea.

2) It's not all that implausible to simply test the engine ourselves. We can roll a ton of results, analyze the distribution, and see how it compares to statistical probability. If it falls within an acceptable deviation, then we're home.

That is my plan.

I will post my findings in this thread.

[Alethan]

If that means rolling one die at a time, so be it. For the most part, this will present the biggest challenge during initial player creation where, instead of rolling four six-sided dice at the same time, you'll have to make four individual d6 rolls per ability.

Yep, I agree. That is the time when one rolls the most dice together. Shouldn't be too hard to do, though. Just copy/paste the roll in 28 times (if dropping the lowest one). Or 21 if you aren't.

Or... for Character Creation, the GM could easily make your rolls for you (on a table top w/real dice or using a dice roller that doesn't need to have the numbers recorded... hey, if you don't trust the GM to give you honest numbers, then you shouldn't be playing the game with them) and just tell you what the seven numbers are.

On one game I'm in, the GM gives you the three rolls for each stat, then tells you you can replace ONE dice roll (out of the 21 given) with a 6, as long as it doesn't make that stat an 18. I like that method. But might even consider dropping the "as long as it doesn't make that stat an 18" bit. Gives them the chance to create an exceptional character.

[dmw71]

Or... for Character Creation, the GM could easily make your rolls for you (on a table top w/real dice or using a dice roller that doesn't need to have the numbers recorded... hey, if you don't trust the GM to give you honest numbers, then you shouldn't be playing the game with them) and just tell you what the seven numbers are.

If a DM were willing, I would have no problem with this whatsoever.

[dmw71]

Okay, I produced the results of 50 sets of 10 coin flips with the results pasted below:

10d2 → [2,2,1,2,1,1,2,2,2,2] = (17)
10d2 → [1,2,2,1,1,2,1,2,1,2] = (15)
10d2 → [2,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,2] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1] = (13)
10d2 → [1,1,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1] = (16)
10d2 → [2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1] = (12)
10d2 → [1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,2] = (14)
10d2 → [2,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,2,1] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,2,2,1,1,2,2,1,1] = (15)
10d2 → [1,2,2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2] = (18)
10d2 → [1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1] = (13)
10d2 → [2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1] = (13)
10d2 → [1,2,2,1,1,2,1,2,2,1] = (15)
10d2 → [2,2,1,2,2,2,1,1,2,1] = (16)
10d2 → [1,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,1] = (14)
10d2 → [2,2,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,1] = (15)
10d2 → [1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,2] = (13)
10d2 → [2,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,2] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,2,1,1,2,2,2,1,1] = (15)
10d2 → [2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,2] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1] = (12)
10d2 → [2,1,2,2,2,2,2,1,2,2] = (18)
10d2 → [1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2] = (14)
10d2 → [1,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2] = (14)
10d2 → [2,2,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,1] = (17)
10d2 → [2,2,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,2] = (15)
10d2 → [2,2,2,1,2,2,2,2,1,1] = (17)
10d2 → [2,2,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,1] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,2] = (15)
10d2 → [2,1,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,2] = (17)
10d2 → [2,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,2] = (15)
10d2 → [2,2,1,2,2,2,1,2,1,2] = (17)
10d2 → [2,2,2,1,2,2,2,1,1,2] = (17)
10d2 → [2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2] = (13)
10d2 → [2,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1] = (14)
10d2 → [1,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,2] = (13)
10d2 → [1,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,2,2] = (17)
10d2 → [1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1] = (12)
10d2 → [1,2,2,1,2,2,1,1,2,1] = (15)
10d2 → [2,1,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,2] = (17)
10d2 → [2,2,2,2,1,2,1,2,2,2] = (18)
10d2 → [1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1] = (14)
10d2 → [2,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1] = (13)
10d2 → [2,2,2,2,1,2,1,2,2,1] = (17)
10d2 → [1,2,1,2,2,2,2,2,1,1] = (16)
10d2 → [1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,2] = (14)
10d2 → [2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1] = (13)
10d2 → [1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,2,2] = (17)
10d2 → [2,1,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1] = (13)
10d2 → [2,1,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2] = (15)


I also produced 50 rolls of 4d6, here:

4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 1, 3, 1], [2, 6, 6, 3], [1, 6, 3, 6], [6, 1, 6, 3], [4, 5, 2, 2], [3, 5, 1, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 6, 5, 1], [4, 3, 1, 3], [4, 4, 4, 5], [5, 1, 4, 5], [4, 5, 1, 1], [4, 5, 4, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 1, 6, 4], [2, 5, 5, 6], [6, 6, 5, 4], [6, 2, 2, 1], [4, 3, 1, 6], [3, 3, 6, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 1, 2, 5], [1, 3, 3, 6], [2, 3, 4, 2], [3, 1, 4, 3], [1, 4, 6, 4], [1, 4, 4, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 2, 1, 1], [5, 6, 3, 6], [4, 4, 2, 2], [6, 5, 4, 4], [5, 2, 6, 1], [2, 5, 3, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 1, 5, 2], [2, 4, 1, 4], [1, 3, 1, 6], [5, 4, 6, 1], [6, 5, 5, 5], [2, 5, 2, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 5, 1, 6], [4, 3, 2, 2], [1, 6, 2, 2], [4, 1, 5, 2], [3, 5, 4, 6], [3, 3, 6, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 6, 6, 1], [4, 3, 5, 6], [5, 3, 6, 5], [5, 3, 1, 6], [2, 6, 2, 2], [2, 1, 1, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 2, 4, 5], [6, 4, 2, 1], [6, 5, 5, 1], [6, 4, 1, 6], [3, 5, 6, 1], [4, 5, 1, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 4, 4, 5], [5, 2, 6, 6], [2, 1, 5, 1], [2, 6, 1, 4], [4, 3, 2, 1], [2, 5, 4, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 5, 6, 6], [5, 3, 3, 1], [6, 6, 2, 1], [5, 6, 5, 3], [5, 4, 2, 5], [3, 4, 3, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 2, 1, 2], [4, 4, 3, 4], [4, 4, 5, 5], [3, 3, 5, 4], [4, 6, 1, 1], [1, 1, 4, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 2, 1, 5], [3, 1, 2, 5], [5, 4, 4, 6], [3, 5, 5, 6], [2, 2, 6, 3], [4, 6, 4, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 2, 1, 2], [3, 6, 1, 6], [6, 3, 6, 2], [2, 4, 3, 6], [5, 4, 1, 6], [3, 5, 2, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 2, 1, 2], [6, 4, 1, 4], [4, 5, 5, 5], [4, 6, 4, 3], [6, 2, 2, 4], [6, 4, 2, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 2, 6, 2], [6, 6, 2, 5], [6, 4, 4, 1], [6, 4, 6, 4], [2, 6, 6, 6], [1, 6, 1, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 2, 3, 6], [2, 6, 4, 2], [3, 6, 6, 2], [5, 5, 6, 1], [1, 6, 5, 6], [5, 1, 5, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([5, 2, 5, 3], [6, 3, 1, 3], [3, 2, 3, 2], [5, 6, 1, 4], [4, 1, 3, 6], [2, 3, 1, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 3, 3, 3], [5, 5, 3, 6], [2, 1, 4, 5], [1, 1, 5, 4], [4, 5, 4, 6], [2, 1, 2, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 2, 1, 1], [5, 6, 6, 1], [5, 1, 4, 6], [6, 3, 3, 6], [2, 5, 1, 3], [1, 4, 4, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 3, 4, 4], [1, 5, 5, 6], [2, 2, 4, 6], [1, 6, 1, 1], [3, 3, 2, 4], [6, 1, 5, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 5, 5, 4], [2, 2, 1, 1], [6, 3, 2, 2], [5, 4, 1, 5], [4, 2, 4, 3], [5, 3, 1, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 2, 4, 5], [4, 5, 3, 6], [1, 6, 2, 4], [2, 6, 5, 3], [4, 5, 6, 6], [4, 3, 1, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 6, 1, 5], [2, 4, 2, 1], [6, 4, 2, 3], [2, 3, 6, 5], [2, 3, 3, 5], [6, 5, 5, 6])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 5, 1, 4], [4, 4, 4, 5], [6, 5, 4, 5], [5, 5, 6, 1], [3, 1, 1, 4], [1, 3, 1, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 2, 6, 1], [6, 2, 1, 1], [2, 5, 6, 3], [1, 4, 2, 6], [1, 5, 4, 4], [2, 2, 5, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 5, 6, 5], [6, 3, 1, 2], [1, 5, 2, 3], [1, 2, 1, 3], [4, 3, 6, 5], [4, 2, 3, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 1, 1, 3], [4, 5, 3, 2], [5, 3, 4, 5], [4, 5, 3, 1], [2, 4, 1, 4], [6, 3, 4, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 4, 5, 3], [2, 5, 5, 3], [1, 6, 1, 4], [6, 3, 3, 1], [1, 5, 1, 6], [5, 6, 2, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 3, 5, 4], [2, 3, 6, 2], [2, 1, 5, 2], [4, 2, 1, 5], [5, 4, 1, 3], [3, 5, 5, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([5, 2, 2, 2], [5, 4, 1, 2], [3, 2, 5, 4], [5, 5, 4, 5], [6, 3, 4, 4], [2, 6, 1, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 1, 2, 5], [6, 5, 3, 5], [3, 6, 2, 3], [1, 3, 2, 2], [4, 5, 1, 5], [3, 1, 4, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 1, 1, 4], [5, 2, 4, 6], [1, 5, 4, 2], [4, 4, 3, 6], [3, 4, 3, 1], [5, 2, 1, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 1, 6, 2], [2, 1, 6, 2], [2, 2, 5, 4], [3, 3, 6, 4], [5, 3, 5, 2], [5, 5, 3, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([3, 1, 1, 1], [3, 2, 5, 1], [5, 5, 1, 1], [5, 4, 3, 4], [5, 1, 6, 1], [1, 6, 1, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([5, 5, 5, 5], [5, 5, 2, 4], [6, 4, 3, 6], [6, 1, 6, 3], [5, 1, 1, 6], [4, 1, 5, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 5, 2, 1], [2, 2, 1, 3], [3, 6, 5, 6], [5, 4, 3, 5], [6, 6, 2, 5], [3, 2, 6, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 1, 1, 2], [6, 5, 1, 4], [3, 2, 1, 3], [3, 1, 5, 1], [4, 2, 2, 1], [1, 3, 4, 6])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([4, 2, 6, 3], [6, 6, 3, 2], [1, 1, 3, 5], [3, 5, 2, 6], [4, 4, 4, 5], [2, 1, 6, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([5, 2, 3, 2], [2, 6, 3, 1], [4, 5, 4, 1], [4, 6, 3, 5], [6, 5, 3, 2], [2, 2, 3, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([2, 3, 6, 3], [3, 1, 4, 1], [3, 2, 4, 6], [1, 3, 1, 2], [3, 1, 2, 3], [4, 6, 6, 6])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([5, 4, 1, 5], [6, 3, 1, 1], [6, 3, 6, 4], [4, 4, 5, 1], [1, 4, 5, 6], [5, 3, 4, 6])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 4, 2, 2], [5, 5, 2, 5], [5, 4, 2, 5], [1, 5, 3, 3], [2, 2, 5, 1], [5, 2, 1, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 2, 3, 1], [2, 6, 3, 5], [6, 4, 3, 2], [6, 5, 4, 1], [5, 6, 1, 3], [2, 3, 3, 4])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 2, 3, 3], [4, 6, 5, 4], [3, 2, 4, 3], [2, 6, 1, 5], [5, 5, 1, 5], [4, 1, 6, 2])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 3, 1, 4], [4, 4, 1, 1], [6, 4, 2, 1], [6, 6, 5, 6], [3, 1, 2, 5], [6, 6, 6, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 4, 4, 3], [6, 4, 5, 6], [3, 3, 5, 2], [3, 2, 6, 3], [5, 4, 3, 2], [2, 2, 2, 3])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 6, 4, 6], [4, 6, 5, 3], [1, 4, 6, 2], [2, 5, 4, 6], [6, 1, 2, 6], [2, 2, 6, 5])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([6, 1, 3, 2], [6, 6, 2, 1], [6, 1, 6, 6], [6, 6, 1, 3], [4, 5, 1, 4], [2, 5, 5, 1])
4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6,4d6 → ([1, 5, 4, 6], [5, 6, 6, 5], [2, 2, 5, 2], [6, 1, 5, 1], [4, 6, 3, 2], [1, 1, 4, 3])


Unfortunately, you can't use generate and sum the six rolls, automatically cutting the lowest roll because the method you have to use (4d6.takeHighest(3)) will only fit three times (not six) in the 'Dice' box. Because of this, I manually generated the six ability scores for 50 characters, the results of which can be found here:

7 - 10 - 14 - 16 - 7 - 10
13 - 15 - 14 - 12 - 13 - 9
16 - 17 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 14
13 - 8 - 17 - 15 - 12 - 12
7 - 10 - 7 - 8 - 13 - 15
13 - 16 - 11 - 13 - 11 - 11
6 - 17 - 12 - 12 - 17 - 9
11 - 14 - 15 - 13 - 17 - 17
17 - 11 - 11 - 11 - 14 - 16
15 - 13 - 13 - 14 - 10 - 15
17 - 14 - 8 - 14 - 16 - 8
14 - 14 - 14 - 15 - 18 - 18
8 - 10 - 14 - 13 - 13 - 11
9 - 14 - 15 - 12 - 9 - 16
9 - 11 - 14 - 11 - 11 - 13
15 - 14 - 10 - 15 - 13 - 12
11 - 9 - 3 - 13 - 9 - 13
9 - 11 - 11 - 11 - 14 - 14
17 - 8 - 12 - 10 - 12 - 12
12 - 13 - 12 - 10 - 11 - 17
13 - 7 - 16 - 16 - 8 - 15
12 - 16 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 14
15 - 13 - 15 - 16 - 12 - 15
8 - 4 - 12 - 10 - 14 - 14
10 - 11 - 8 - 16 - 8 - 13
10 - 13 - 12 - 9 - 10 - 11
14 - 14 - 12 - 7 - 6 - 11
16 - 16 - 12 - 15 - 13 - 11
12 - 7 - 9 - 11 - 15 - 16
14 - 12 - 16 - 10 - 13 - 17
12 - 18 - 14 - 10 - 15 - 11
12 - 16 - 16 - 14 - 12 - 11
13 - 13 - 13 - 13 - 10 - 11
13 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 15 - 11
9 - 8 - 15 - 9 - 15 - 13
16 - 14 - 8 - 6 - 6 - 7
9 - 15 - 9 - 4 - 15 - 8
11 - 16 - 14 - 17 - 13 - 14
10 - 8 - 13 - 14 - 12 - 7
9 - 10 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 16
14 - 15 - 7 - 13 - 13 - 11
11 - 15 - 14 - 9 - 14 - 15
17 - 15 - 12 - 17 - 14 - 12
6 - 9 - 13 - 8 - 10 - 12
14 - 10 - 16 - 16 - 14 - 15
9 - 12 - 16 - 18 - 11 - 9
13 - 10 - 4 - 15 - 10 - 11
12 - 11 - 16 - 14 - 10 - 10
13 - 9 - 9 - 15 - 11 - 10
12 - 9 - 5 - 10 - 12 - 17


In an attempt to be able to present some raw data to the viewing public, all I've done to this point is copy-and-paste the results and supporting links without any analysis. At a quick glance, they look okay... but as previously stated, statistics was never really a strength of mine.

[Alethan]

Well, still nothing from the Invisible Castle (and still unable to send them any on-site e-mails). I tried to use links to get to the parent company, but it's all in... Japanese, maybe? I wonder if it is a broken link. Quite a few of the external links on the site are dead.

It appears the site is working fine, if you already have an account. But it is quite useless otherwise. One would think the server errors would have been addressed by this time. I guess we'll have to hope the Site Admin checks site stats and at some point realizes he has no new users past a certain date.

I'm not so sure about Das Metstübchen Die Roller. I guess it is usable, but terribly clunky, imo. Certainly not written for ease of use.

Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with continuing to use the US Dice roller and making sure I only do one dice roll at a time.

[dmw71]

Well, still nothing from the Invisible Castle (and still unable to send them any on-site e-mails).

Interesting, I actually just created two dummy accounts ('us1' and 'us2') without issue; using a Gmail account for 'us1' and a Yahoo! e-mail account for 'us2.' In both instances, the activation e-mail (from: 'mailman@invisiblecastle.com') was received within seconds.

For those who have had issues registering, my recommendation would be to try and register for an account from scratch (maybe use a Gmail or Yahoo! e-mail account if you have one).


The site does have its glitches. Beyond the activation e-mail issues some of you are reporting, the 'profile' link is defintiely broken. What this means is that users cannot update any information about the account (e.g. change the e-mail address or password, etc...) even after their account has been created.

However, in the event anyone still is unable to get an account activated, I have some thoughts:

One solution would be for me to simply create a bunch of dummy accounts and distribute the login information (username and password) to different users via PM. I already have two of them.

A more personalized solution is possible as well as I would be willing to register for accounts on your behalf, using my e-mail address (if yours doesn't work) and the username you provide me with.

However, because the 'profile' link is broken, the initial password selected cannot be changed. In other words, at least until the 'profile' link is fixed, I would be privy to what your password is. I wouldn't use it (why would I?), but there would need to be a level of trust in place in order for this to work.

And, yes, I've already thought about the "reset password" option. Unfortunately, on this website it is tied to the e-mail address used (not the unique username selected). In other words, if I'm creating a bunch of accounts using my e-mail address, I have no idea how changing the password for one account would impact the rest of the accounts created using that e-mail address (including my actual account).


All that said, I do have two dummy accounts created and I could provide the username and password for them to different users if they'd like. If you still can't register for an account and desire a more personalized account (e.g. you want to pick your own username and password), feel free to send me a PM and I can have the accounts created in no time.


Thanks,
- Dave

[Alethan]

Well, I just tried it again and... it finally worked. Not sure why it didn't before and it does now. Be sure to check your spam folder; mine went straight into it. I had to use a different user name, though, since it said "Alethan" was already taken (which would fail the test of the confirmation e-mail I just received that said the account would expire in three days if it wasn't validated, since I never validated the first attempt.).

Yeah, looks like there are several broken pages on the site at this time:
Profile page
Forum page
Campaign pages

But it would still be usable, I guess.

[dmw71]

Well, I just tried it again and... it finally worked. Not sure why it didn't before and it does now. Be sure to check your spam folder; mine went straight into it. I had to use a different user name, though, since it said "Alethan" was already taken (which would fail the test of the confirmation e-mail I just received that said the account would expire in three days if it wasn't validated, since I never validated the first attempt.).

Hmmm... maybe your original attempt to create an account did work (even though it was never officially activated). Did you try to log in using 'Alethan' and the password you selected the first time? I know that has happened to me before on the RolePlay onLine website. I've been participating in a game on that website for a few months now but my account still shows up as being "unverified."

Yeah, looks like there are several broken pages on the site at this time:
Profile page
Forum page
Campaign pages

But it would still be usable, I guess.

I much prefer the Unseen Servant die roller here, and will continue to use it for the most part, but I will probably use Invisible Castle for just initial player creation steps where multiple dice are required (e.g. 4d6).

[Alethan]

Hmmm... maybe your original attempt to create an account did work (even though it was never officially activated). Did you try to log in using 'Alethan' and the password you selected the first time? I know that has happened to me before on the RolePlay onLine website. I've been participating in a game on that website for a few months now but my account still shows up as being "unverified."

Yep, on the off-chance that it worked, even without the confirmation e-mail. But it didn't.

I much prefer the Unseen Servant die roller here, and will continue to use it for the most part, but I will probably use Invisible Castle for just initial player creation steps where multiple dice are required (e.g. 4d6).

I concur. If it is necessary for me to roll up character stats, I'll use IC. But I'll switch back over to US after that and simply keep my rolls down to one at a time to avoid the issue.

[Norjax]

I found this. Haven't tried it myself:

http://www.rpglibrary.org/software/securedice/

[Alethan]

I found this. Haven't tried it myself:

http://www.rpglibrary.org/software/securedice/

Well... his last name is "Blackmoor" and that isn't a bad sign. And it appears to be a quick and easy way of just rolling STAT generation. You guarantee authenticity by e-mailing the GM, as well as yourself, when you make the roll. I guess it would take some testing to confirm validity.

[dmw71]

I guess it would take some testing to confirm validity.

I actually just tested it. At first, I thought the rolls would just be e-mailed to the addresses listed (presumably the player and DM), and they are, but the rolls can also be verified by entering the 'Roll ID' and 'MD5 checksum' values from the e-mailed results into the verification page of the website.

It does store rolls, but it's not as convenient to verify. I also just noticed there is other software listed on the website as well which I will need to look into at some point.


Good find.

[migellito]

These claims about the Unseen Servant dice roller are complete and utter hogwash. I have used it for over 2 years in my Greyhawk PbP on another site with NO problems, and I DEFINITELY want to continue using it.

I have tried others, including Inivisible Castle and all the other mentioned, plus more, and I DO NOT like them. At all. This includes the dice-rolling tool on Wizards of the Coast's own site (which really, do we need to have something 'more accurate' than what WoTC provides? Kind of silly.)

For someone familiar with maths theory, the so-called tests above prove nothing whatsoever. The Unseen Servant dice roller is as random as any computer randomiser, and in any case PLENTY random for our uses here. We're not building airliners folks

[Xaxyx]

These claims about the Unseen Servant dice roller are complete and utter hogwash. I have used it for over 2 years in my Greyhawk PbP on another site with NO problems, and I DEFINITELY want to continue using it.

If using loaded dice doesn't bother you, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion and your stance. I, however, vehemently oppose such practices, whether at a physical table or at a virtual one.

For someone familiar with maths theory, the so-called tests above prove nothing whatsoever. The Unseen Servant dice roller is as random as any computer randomiser, and in any case PLENTY random for our uses here. We're not building airliners folks

I have demonstrated quite clearly and repeatedly that the Unseen Servant dice roller is not, in fact, random for dice rolls after the first. If it were random, then rolling [1d100][1d100], for example, would not absolutely guarantee that the second roll is always precisely 8 or 9 less than the first roll, wrapping around at 0 back to 100. No "math theory" is required to observe this phenomenon. Just simple observation. I invite you to try it yourself. Roll [1d100][1d100] and post your results. Do it as many times as you want.

Indeed: I challenge you to roll [1d100][1d100] on a single line, just like that, and produce results where the second number isn't either 8 or 9 less than the first, with wraparound.

[ToniXX]

I have updated the code and while I haven't had time to test it fully, I believe it should be more random than before. I am now using the HTTP API supplied by http://www.random.org/. It seems to be working, but I'd like it if you guys could test it out. I still need to hammer out a few issues to comply with their API guidelines, but I think that we will be making few requests per day (after we complete testing) and it should be all good. So, please use some macros that have multiple dice rolls in them and see what happens, but don't stress the system out too much (whatever that means; I don't really know at this time)

Please post if you encounter anything odd, such as:
- Results out of the range that they should be
- Result of 0 for any roll
- Time out errors
- Other script errors,
- and, the same or similar patterns that Xaxyx was noticing

[dmw71]

1) Here's just [10d2], rolled over and over again:

11, 14, 14, 10, 19, 12, 11, 18, 15, 15, 15, 10, 18, 10, 17, 15, 20, 10, 20, 14, 15, 10, 19, 11, 16, 12, 10, 17, 19, 11, 20, 20, 20, 11, 10, 16

Seem all right at first glance? 1d2 is a coin flip. 10d2 is ten coin flips. To roll a 20 on 10d2 means to flip heads on a coin ten times in a row. To manage that, the odds are 1 in 1024. The odds of rolling a 10 -- that's ten tails in a row -- is similarly 1 in 1024. Yet in the above 36 attempts, I managed to roll either 10 or 20 twelve times -- 33% of the time! Of the remainder, 11 or 19 -- results of comparable supposed rarity -- showed up eight times.

I duplicated the above with the following results:

18, 13, 20, 19, 17, 19, 12, 19, 11, 18, 15, 16, 13, 14, 15, 14, 16, 20, 18, 11, 11, 16, 12, 18, 11, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 15, 18, 11, 18, 16, 19

Result - Count
10 - 0
11 - 5
12 - 2
13 - 5
14 - 2
15 - 4
16 - 5
17 - 1
18 - 6
19 - 4
20 - 2

Truthfully, I'm not sure what to make of the above results. The fact that there were no 10's generated jumps out at me, but there appears to be a somewhat decent distribution of the remaining values.

Roll links:

[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 13
[10d2] = 20
[10d2] = 19
[10d2] = 17
[10d2] = 19
[10d2] = 12
[10d2] = 19
[10d2] = 11
[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 15
[10d2] = 16
[10d2] = 13
[10d2] = 14
[10d2] = 15
[10d2] = 14
[10d2] = 16
[10d2] = 20
[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 11
[10d2] = 11
[10d2] = 16
[10d2] = 12
[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 11
[10d2] = 13
[10d2] = 13
[10d2] = 15
[10d2] = 16
[10d2] = 13
[10d2] = 15
[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 11
[10d2] = 18
[10d2] = 16
[10d2] = 19

3) Using [3d6][3d6][3d6][3d6][3d6][3d6]:

07 05 18 08 05 18 -- Two 18's
05 03 16 06 03 16 -- Two 3's
03 18 14 05 18 15 -- Two 18's and 3
18 17 13 04 17 14 -- 18/17/17 and a 4
14 13 09 16 13 10 -- Average Joe

With rolls like these I should be playing the lottery. Really, really wild results here.

Again, I duplicated the above test with the following results:
05 11 16 09 09 07 -- Two 9's, but that's the expected "average" roll
04 14 03 08 14 16 -- Two 14's
09 11 12 03 12 11 -- All average rolls, plus a 3
06 18 07 16 09 10 -- A 16 and an 18 coupled with a 6 and 7 and two average rolls
14 08 08 17 15 07 -- Again, pretty average rolls with one good (15) and one very good (17) roll

Roll links:

[3d6] = 5[3d6] = 11[3d6] = 16[3d6] = 9[3d6] = 9[3d6] = 7
[3d6] = 4[3d6] = 14[3d6] = 3[3d6] = 8[3d6] = 14[3d6] = 16
[3d6] = 9[3d6] = 11[3d6] = 12[3d6] = 3[3d6] = 13[3d6] = 11
[3d6] = 6[3d6] = 18[3d6] = 7[3d6] = 16[3d6] = 9[3d6] = 10
[3d6] = 14[3d6] = 8[3d6] = 8[3d6] = 17[3d6] = 15[3d6] = 7

4) Using [1d100][1d100][1d100][1d100][1d100][1d100], I generated several sets of numbers. Then I took those sets and sorted them by the first number in each set. Here are the results, along with the steps between each number in the series:

02 93 71 11 92 75: -9, -22, -60, -19, -17
06 97 75 15 96 78: -9, -22, -60, -19, -18
15 07 85 24 06 88: -8, -22, -61, -18, -18
21 12 90 30 11 93: -9, -22, -60, -19, -18
30 22 00 40 21 03: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
41 33 11 51 32 14: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
42 34 12 52 33 15: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
44 35 13 53 34 17: -9, -22, -60, -19, -17
50 41 19 59 40 23: -9, -22, -60, -19, -17
52 44 22 62 43 25: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
53 45 23 63 44 26: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
65 57 35 75 56 38: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18
85 76 54 94 75 57: -9, -22, -60, -19, -17
86 78 56 95 77 59: -8, -22, -60, -18, -18
89 80 58 98 79 62: -9, -22, -60, -19, -17
96 88 66 06 87 69: -8, -22, -60, -19, -18

In other words, the second number is always 8 or 9 less than the first number; the third number is always 22 less than the second number; and so forth.

My results:

2, 17, 28, 40, 48, 78: -15, -11, -12, -8, -30
2, 9, 33, 60, 76, 86: -7, -24, -27, -16, -10
15, 28, 29, 54, 61, 78: -13, -1, -25, -7, -17

I'm not going to continue to process the remaining 16 rolls as the first three already illustrate, at least in my mind, that there isn't a pattern, and a seed value does not appear to play a roll in future roll results.

Roll links:

[1d100] = 48[1d100] = 2[1d100] = 28[1d100] = 78[1d100] = 40[1d100] = 17
[1d100] = 2[1d100] = 76[1d100] = 60[1d100] = 9[1d100] = 86[1d100] = 33
[1d100] = 54[1d100] = 28[1d100] = 15[1d100] = 29[1d100] = 61[1d100] = 78
[1d100] = 26[1d100] = 79[1d100] = 57[1d100] = 62[1d100] = 60[1d100] = 42
[1d100] = 54[1d100] = 59[1d100] = 38[1d100] = 11[1d100] = 3[1d100] = 76
[1d100] = 69[1d100] = 79[1d100] = 47[1d100] = 13[1d100] = 13[1d100] = 67
[1d100] = 71[1d100] = 95[1d100] = 26[1d100] = 77[1d100] = 33[1d100] = 20
[1d100] = 81[1d100] = 39[1d100] = 23[1d100] = 25[1d100] = 76[1d100] = 51
[1d100] = 7[1d100] = 47[1d100] = 59[1d100] = 92[1d100] = 48[1d100] = 63
[1d100] = 70[1d100] = 37[1d100] = 55[1d100] = 56[1d100] = 35[1d100] = 14
[1d100] = 54[1d100] = 43[1d100] = 5[1d100] = 57[1d100] = 1[1d100] = 89
[1d100] = 35[1d100] = 11[1d100] = 30[1d100] = 2[1d100] = 18[1d100] = 8
[1d100] = 63[1d100] = 14[1d100] = 73[1d100] = 79[1d100] = 88[1d100] = 59
[1d100] = 99[1d100] = 52[1d100] = 95[1d100] = 13[1d100] = 93[1d100] = 79
[1d100] = 75[1d100] = 61[1d100] = 35[1d100] = 49[1d100] = 20[1d100] = 95
[1d100] = 68[1d100] = 99[1d100] = 77[1d100] = 14[1d100] = 43[1d100] = 46

I also rolled up ten random characters with the following results:

[4d6c1] = 335 = 11
[4d6c1] = 566 = 17
[4d6c1] = 566 = 17
[4d6c1] = 566 = 17
[4d6c1] = 224 = 8
[4d6c1] = 256 = 13
Comments: The 5-5-6 combination three times in a row obviously concerns me (see my notes below)


[4d6c1] = 456 = 15
[4d6c1] = 335 = 11
[4d6c1] = 223 = 7
[4d6c1] = 345 = 12
[4d6c1] = 226 = 10
[4d6c1] = 115 = 7
Comments: These results appear okay to me.

[4d6c1] = 356 = 14
[4d6c1] = 356 = 14
[4d6c1] = 234 = 9
[4d6c1] = 115 = 7
[4d6c1] = 356 = 14
[4d6c1] = 236 = 11
Comments: Again, the 3-5-6 combination appears three times; although, not consecutively.

[4d6c1] = 245 = 11
[4d6c1] = 466 = 16
[4d6c1] = 356 = 14
[4d6c1] = 466 = 16
[4d6c1] = 123 = 6
[4d6c1] = 355 = 13
Comments: Two 4-6-6 rolls, but not completely unheard of.

[4d6c1] = 156 = 12
[4d6c1] = 233 = 8
[4d6c1] = 235 = 10
[4d6c1] = 333 = 9
[4d6c1] = 124 = 7
[4d6c1] = 356 = 14
Comments: These results look good to me.

[4d6c1] = 134 = 8
[4d6c1] = 566 = 17
[4d6c1] = 124 = 7
[4d6c1] = 333 = 9
[4d6c1] = 156 = 12
[4d6c1] = 136 = 10
Comments: These results look good to me.

[4d6c1] = 245 = 11
[4d6c1] = 455 = 14
[4d6c1] = 246 = 12
[4d6c1] = 556 = 16
[4d6c1] = 366 = 15
[4d6c1] = 346 = 13
Comments: Results of 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Maybe there's nothing to it, but this sequence just jumped out at me.

[4d6c1] = 256 = 13
[4d6c1] = 226 = 10
[4d6c1] = 246 = 12
[4d6c1] = 155 = 11
[4d6c1] = 256 = 13
[4d6c1] = 334 = 10
Comments: Very average rolls, but nothing unexpected.

[4d6c1] = 126 = 9
[4d6c1] = 466 = 16
[4d6c1] = 266 = 14
[4d6c1] = 124 = 7
[4d6c1] = 244 = 10
[4d6c1] = 233 = 8
Comments: These results look good to me.

[4d6c1] = 456 = 15
[4d6c1] = 334 = 10
[4d6c1] = 446 = 14
[4d6c1] = 455 = 14
[4d6c1] = 336 = 12
[4d6c1] = 236 = 11
Comments: These results look good to me.



Additional Thoughts
* The results are no longer automatically summed, just the top three results are displayed.

* I was initially concerned with the number of sequential sets of returns (e.g. 2,3,4 and 4,5,6) but I realize all the results appear to be sorted in ascending order so this would make sense. It might be helpful, at least from a testing/validation perspective, if the results were not automatically sorted (and if all four die results were displayed, instead of hiding the result of the lowest roll).

For instance, for the first character above, there were three consecutive 5-6-6 results. Those are extremely good rolls, and it's odd that the rolls happened consecutively, but what if the actual four d6 rolls were:

1) 5-6-6-1
2) 2-6-5-6
3) 5-5-6-6
4) 6-3-6-5

The end result would be the same for each of the above (5-6-6), but the rolls are each very different.

Hope this helps.


No matter what, your work to address the issue is greatly appreciated ToniXX!


Thanks,
- Dave

[ToniXX]

Good stuff, Dave. I don't know why the results are not summed... Looking into that now.

** edit ** easy fix... should be working now.