3D dice results are not random

[DevildrummerX]

It breaks everything connected to automation and dice rolling in general.


If the game deterministically messes with your die rolls then playing the game can very much be less enjoyable. Game-systems like DnD5E and Pathfinder 2 mechanically put a *lot* of emphasize on the die result.


No disrespect to the user base meant and I definitively do not (think to) speak for the vast majority. I put these things to discussion...


.. and (strongly) suggest to replace a broken core mechanic with an already present better working one until the bugs are fixed.


3D dice are not "not random enough", /die are "not random enough". 3D physical dice don't seem to be random at all. You decide how much it matters for you, but currently our group cannot decide for themselves, because there is no option to turn it off.

How do you know it is "broken." Seriously explain how a physics based system not matching up with a non-physics based system takes anything away from the enjoyment of using FGU for a VTT? You are suggesting that the Devs waste the time to disable a core feature because you and your users have convinced yourselves that the game "may" be "cheating" you because it "may" be deterministically affecting your dice rolls? Are you intimately aware of how the Dev's are using Unity's physics engine to create a physics based simulation of the dice rolling? Are you aware of the amount of variables they are telling the physics engine to take into account? I'm assuming the answers are no. So again, how do you conclude the the system is broken based on a test the Dev's seem to feel is flawed from the start, and also how can you reach a valid conclusion when you do not know the exact setup of the physics simulation?

Again, Based on what Smelton posted eariler it appears that the Devs do not expect the physics based rolls to be comparable with the non-physics based system.

[DevildrummerX]

Does this not come down to whether there is sufficient variation in the 3D roll when triggered by double clicking on the dice box, as opposed to actually dragging and 'throwing' the dice using the mouse? If the 3D dice results are acceptably 'random' when 'thrown' is that carried over to rolls triggered by a double click, which would, indeed (to my totally unqualified eyes), seem to include much less physical variables? Is that the nub of the argument?

Frankly I'm not sure. Its hard to speculate much less draw objective conclusions about a physics based simulation without knowing how the simulation has been setup to begin with. The Dev's are the only one's that could possibly know how the simulation is being done. Honestly I'm not sure this discussion even belongs in the support section at this point. On first glance smelton did not seem to believe the two systems should even be compared to each other so I really don't see how this qualifies as a technical flaw in the program at this point.

[Weissrolf]

Can someone set out, in simple terms such that someone who hates Maths and does not understand a word of this thread, can get a handle on what is being proposed by the OP (other than simply saying the dice are broken).

- OP expected 3D dice thrown by double-clicks and automation to be random, as such randomness was stated in the past. OP even expected 3D rolls to be superior in randomness to /die rolls.

- Developer "Dupre" stated that 3D dice thrown by double-clicks and automation ought to be just as random as dice thrown by mouse-movement.

- OP proved that 3D dice thrown by double-clicks are not random, but follow a strong periodic distribution. OP further proves that /die rolls (while flawed) are much more random than 3D rolls.

- OP suggest to fix the bug leading to non-random 3D rolls and advises to even turn off the 3D dice engine in exchange for the /die engine until then. OP also suggest an option for users to turn 3D dice off in the future and to replace the current /die engine with a better one.

- Developer "smelton" denies OP's assumption that 3D dice were ever meant to create random results.

- OP is at a loss.

I'd like to try and understand why that conclusion has been reached and also why the current implementation has any effect on the games we play.

The current implementation does not create nearly sufficient random results. Everyone can draw their own conclusion about that, but currently no one can opt out of the worse die rolling mechanic.

[Weissrolf]

How do you know it is "broken."

It does not create random results.

On first glance smelton did not seem to believe the two systems should even be compared to each other so I really don't see how this qualifies as a technical flaw in the program at this point.

The reason why I specifically compared 3D dice to /die was to demonstrate that FGU is at least capable of producing much better random results. The reason for visually comparing 3D dice generally to PCG, random.org was to demonstrate what random results should look like, /die comes much closer to this.

You could just ignore any comparison to /die, my original statement that 3D dice rolling in FGU is broken because it does not create close to random results still stands. Of course that is build on the assumption that 3D dice are even meant to create random results, which we surprisingly just learned is not the case. Well, I was surprised, other may not have been.

[Jiminimonka]

How many dice rolls did you make manually?

I suggest you leave this topic alone, the dice are random enough (and the devs have logs the confirm their own assertion as has been stated several times already in other forum posts over the years, and over the past week or so). Go play D&D and play chess with your daughter instead of spending countless hours on dice rolling.

Also in Settings there is a Manual Dice entry Off/On option, turn it on and get the players to roll their own dice and give you the results.

EDIT: Sorry Weissrolf, I should not have said that.

[Weissrolf]

What I meant was something like this, out of 200 d8 rolls, my non-scientific, engineer only, brain would expect results like this;

I did not forget about your post, preparing an answer with useful numbers and graphs took some time and is not finished yet. I will post the results as soon as possible.

Is that a methodology from one of the sites or is it something you came up with? I have no idea, and have no idea how to figure out, is it a valid methodology?

All randomness tests either test RNGs directly (as in code needs to be implemented) or by testing the RNG results as binary data files. I had to come up with a method to convert FGU's text-chat results to binary data files.

I do know other folks have claimed to have run analysis of chatlog.html rolls (actual campaign data) and have always come back and said that the results was within expected distributions. Now I have no idea their methodology(ies) or such. But it might be worth seeing if someone can find those old posts and analyses.

If you take a look at the links I provided (just start at the Wikipedia page) you will see that these randomness test suites are much more advanced and calculation intensive that what we can come up with ourselves.

Just looking at means and very obvious distribution is a very basic method of testing for randomness. But since we just learned that FGU's 3D dice are by design not even meant to create random results it seems that all analysis efforts of the past were quite in vain.

[Zacchaeus]

Go play D&D and play chess with your daughter instead of spending countless hours on dice rolling.

No, please be respectful. The OP has put a lot of work into this and if he has a point it is valid work and valid to point it out on the forums. I have a reasonable understanding of probabilities and I can see his point - although I'm not sure how he got to it since I don't know what tools were used to get to the conclusion. Let's all just leave it as it is at the moment. The devs will no doubt have a look at the situation and make any adjustments or not that they see fit.

[Weissrolf]

How many dice rolls did you make manually?

Just as many as both my Pathfinder groups during play. None, we only use double-clicks and automation.

I suggest you leave this topic alone, the dice are random enough

No, they are not random enough, they are hardly random at all. And according to Smelton they are not even supposed to be by design.

(and the devs have logs the confirm their own assertion as has been stated several times already in other forum posts over the years, and over the past week or so).

A dev just stated that 3D dice rolling is not meant to produce random results and I posted proof that indeed it does not. Contrary to other forum posts over the years and week I used scientifically established methods to test for that randomness and I even provided a very basic visualization that still demonstrates periodically determined results.

Here is another one:

1st million D8:



2nd million D8:



3rd million D8:

Also in Settings there is a Manual Dice entry Off/On option, turn it on and get the players to roll their own dice and give you the results.

Yes, I know. When we play tomorrow I will tell my players about the very serious flaws of the 3D dice/automation engine and offer them to roll themselves. It's a chore, though.

[DevildrummerX]

This is literally a pointless discussion at the moment. As I stated, the Developers are the only ones who are going to be able to definitively know based on the design and implementation of the physics based dice rolling system whether the system is intended to provide a random result set that is comparable to a traditional RNG algorithm. I think it is safe to assume that the 3D dice rolling system in FGU is proprietary to Smiteworks, they alone know what standards/thresholds they used to test the randomness of the dice roll results. Without that context it is impossible for us to know whether the dice rolling system is working as intended.

At this point I will wait for MoonWizard to chime in with what information he feels is necessary to share regarding the expected behavior of the physics based rolling system.

[Jiminimonka]

No, please be respectful. The OP has put a lot of work into this and if he has a point it is valid work and valid to point it out on the forums. I have a reasonable understanding of probabilities and I can see his point - although I'm not sure how he got to it since I don't know what tools were used to get to the conclusion. Let's all just leave it as it is at the moment. The devs will no doubt have a look at the situation and make any adjustments or not that they see fit.

Yes, sorry I was out of order. Sorry Weissrolf.