gamers who play games with a lot of RNG pretty consistently talk as if luck is a conserved quantity (i can't tell how jokingly) - like you can "use up" luck in one segment of a game and that'll doom you for the next segment
Conversation
i guess this is "just" gambler's fallacy but ime nobody seems to talk about it in the other direction - like i hear "i used up my luck on that, i'm screwed now" way more often than "i've been so unlucky recently, i'm due for some good luck now"
3
1
26
i could dismiss this as people not understanding how probability works with independent events
except the funny thing is they *aren't* independent! game RNG is always pseudorandom. depending on the game it can deviate from random enough to be easily manipulable
1
1
22
the way a lot of game RNG works is that a list of numbers is generated based on some seeds (which are often under player control, e.g. step count) and "random" events go down the list when they need the next "random" number to decide what to do. so it's all deterministic
1
15
idk if this is enough to even partially rehabilitate the seemingly pretty strong intuition that luck is conserved but it's something. PRNGs aren't "actually random," they're just complicated enough that there aren't any blatantly obvious patterns
2
11
and among other things there are (again depending on the game) many ways for player agency to manipulate the "random" events they get, through manipulating the seeds. here is a fascinating example
1
9
idk where i'm going w this, we could transition to a discussion of what "actually random" could possibly mean and whether anything could possibly be "actually random" other than literal quantum stuff. there's something i want to respect about "naive" intuitions about luck here
Replying to
which relates to questions like plausible mechanisms behind tarot. actually just smashing those concepts together produces a funny idea: using game RNG as a divination method. possibly of interest to
2
12
Replying to
By "quantum stuff" do you mean "something we don't understand yet" or is there a known mechanism how quantum produces randomness?
2
2
Replying to
it's super interesting how people intuit "randomness", like when users complained (many still do) that Spotify shuffle was broken, favouring certain artists, playing some multiple times in a row, when these kinds of coincidences are *more* likely in a truly random distribution.
1
randomness doesn't "feel random" to us so Spotify had to compensate by making it less random and determining artist spacing. it's just one example but i wonder how else we diverge. like designing PRNGs that feel "fair" in some games (MOBAs, card games) is super hard.