I'm a big believer in stats and human biases, but for me the rolls in BG3 definitely feel bad. There have been countless times where I've rolled multiple rolls in a row under 4, often with advantage. Of course, this is likely just be confirmation/negativity bias, where I'm only noticing the negative events and not the times I've rolled multiple >16s in a row. However, it could also be a real problem with Larian's rng.
In order to test the actual randomness of a d20, you need >500 rolls. >1000 is preferable. If someone(s) wants to sit down and record their rolls, I'll happily perform statistical analysis on them. If a few people each do 200 rolls then those data sets can be combined. The most useful dataset is a continuous string of rolls (don't reload the game) where each roll is recorded in order of appearance, ideally all against the same or similar target DCs/ACs. And of course, note whether you're using Karmic Dice or not.
I guess there's also the question of....how random is something alleged to be random. In theory, nothing is truely random. Even a traditional physical dice roll is subject to how a player holds and tosses the dice, and its orientation prior to being thrown. In theory, if a player say.....likes seeing the number 20 face up, and throws the die a certain way, the roll then becomes 'more' biased, and not perfectly random. The term 'random' is merely assigned by us humans to explain an outcome that we personally are unable to predict. In the case of electronics and computers, I guess the same question can be asked? Is the computer truly returning a random result?
But i get what you mean. The unbiased nature (assuming it really is the case) of a die can only be ascertained over a large sample. It's entirely possible for initial results to be skewed to one side of the mean, but if this does happen, it takes a large sample for the opposite to happen, eventually exhibiting the expected normal distribution curve.
