I get your point SecSea, I didn't account for 2 always being the minimum after a roll with 1 being the minimum for a 1d12.
I still do not trust the rolls in this game. I've had way too many times of save scumming rolling against a 10 and hitting under that 10, 7, 8, 9 times in a row. Statistically, it should be highly improbably to have that many rolls under 10. 55% chance of rolling a 10 or higher on a single role, the more you keep rolling under, the lower the probability should be for the next attempt to also be under. It just doesn't add up.
You, my friend, have fallen victim to the gambler's fallacy. The probability for each individual roll to be under 10, regardless of the results of all previous rolls, is always the same. Chances are, you're just unlucky.
Not at all. In probability your chances of getting a continued roll that is the less desirable 2 times in a row would be lower than the base 45%, 3 times is even lower than that, and so on and so forth. I've not fallen a victim to a gamblers fallacy, unless the odds are actually stacked and not truly represented (a hidden formula).
Look at it like this, in flipping a quarter you would expect a 50% chance either way (it's actually been shown multiple times to be 51% heads for some reason). Anyways, your chance of getting Tail's would be 50%. Now, it goes Heads. Since it went heads, the chance of it going heads again is actually 25%. It would continue to dip like that. The same applies to the die roll, as long as there isn't an unknown formula/variable that's effecting those rolls. Many people have noticed the same as me though, and I wouldn't have even mentioned it without there being a lot of discussion about it already.
