How much math do I need to know to be good at role-playing games? Will the basics suffice?

A little bit of statistics can be pretty helpful for gauging the odds. Stuff like knowing the difference in distributions between 2d10 and 1d20, for example.

Yet another reason why old D&D was shit.

Wait, what does the abuse story have to do with the math question?

It's the new multi-discipline approach to education in the US. Teachers are gently encouraged to shove unrelated content into lessons, like teaching kids about geography or history during math class.

I could go off on a rant about how getting a new head of the Department of Education with every new president creates a clusterfuck of looks-good-on-paper mandates that are thrown together at the last second and abandoned the instant a new politician takes office if you'd like.

"New math", No Child Left Behind, Common Core, etc.

Common Core, teaching Social Justice through math!
>I wish I was joking

Well its about a woman, so its safe to assume that liberals are strong to brainwash STEM with their garbage. God, why can't we keep /mlp/ and /lgbt/ in their containment boards...

That doesn't sound too bad in itself, but it seems like it could lead to neglect of the core content of various subjects if overdone. Integration of different subjects in the sense of making students see how they're related, like, how math actually does matter for the things they're interested in, would be a good idea.

Back in high-school, we once determined the height of a flag-pole by measuring its shadow. It was a lot of fun, and didn't involve the injection of controversial subject matters.

I wish educators would teach kids what word "liberal" actually means, and I don't care where they shove this lesson. Misusing the term liberal used to be primamrily an American thing, but it seems to me like this cancer has been spreading to other countries as well. Advocating free market, right to own guns, same sex marriage, free speech and gender equality are all pretty damn liberal things and can very naturally stem from the same set of values.

I think mistakes like that are common enough that they should always include a short note or something in the rules that basically say "hey fuckface, remember that 2d10 isn't the same as 2 to 20"

If you find the right system for yourself, just enough.

I don't like math in my RPG:s, thus I made one without it.

I'm happy that I graduated before this all happened to education. Back in my day, math problems were entirely about solving math problems.

Also I notice the abusers in the question are all male, even though 43% of sexual abusers are female, 25% of which are the mother.

And in Australia, the Liberal party opposes all of those things!

The name of them is a holdover from when there was an Australia Party that was the super royalist right wing party of it's day. The liberal party were, at the time, genuinely more liberal. These days they are the non-liberals as they've sorta taken over the role the Australia party originally covered

What if advanced math was only taught to those with the aptitude and inclination?

Are you OK user? Do you have dementia?

Huh. Politics is weird. The whole left-right divide also feels kind of confusing these days. I can't help but feel like a lot of the political issues that used to define and divide parties are kind of outdated, not so relevant these days, but people still think about politics, themselves and their political ideals in outdated terms.

High school level should be enough to play, but you'll want an undergrad degree at least if you want to DM.

This reminds me of the Pepsi Universe document

samefag has a fine collection of bait pics. it helps him cope with the fact that no one will play with him.

Think of it in terms of tribal affiliation.
The beliefs shift, but the clans remain.

I've got a bachelors in mechanical and in electrical engineering and I'd have a 50% chance of getting this wrong. Why do the ovals overlap? Why is there free space? Why aren't they circles? Is this going by surface area, if so is A really supposed to be the answer?

>picture
I don't even understand the question.

Just stay away from GURPS and you will be fine...

You know the question is about Maya Angelou, right

It's not just a generic "men are rapists mmmmkay" statement like /pol/fags imagine schoolwork to be like.

Number sentence? Why not say equation?

Because common core is a mistake

Second graders aren't as intelligent as you imagine that you were in second grade.

It's probably C, based on the size ratios.

The point of this question is to gauge how well the child can understand the comparable values of numbers to each other.

I feel like I'm the only one in this thread with a degree in child development.

70% of American children don't know what the '=' sign does.

The solution they've come up with is to teach everything in strange new ways.

>70% of American children don't know what the '=' sign does.
Now you're just making shit up as you go along.

Let me guess, you're going to cite a study that involved a class of 20 literal retards with drunk fathers and crackwhore mothers and then decided to apply that to the entire country?

The problem to me is that both answers A and C are correct, mathematically, but that the illustration is hopelessly vague: as an example, if I were to place two circles with a radius or diameter of 1" side-by-side, they wouldn't overlap in a circle of 2" in the same dimension.
Though in circumference, they would massively overlap.

Not that user, but keep in mind that you no longer count as a child and any statements about how you knew something as a child are meaningless.

Worse: one given at the end of the year where students were literally told "this will not impact your grade in any way."

Even the second grader me would've said that's bullshit. Why not use a shape that would actually make it simple to judge the sizes?

You mean like the book We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin?

I like dystopian fiction, but I wouldn't want to live in one.

Shut the fuck up, you learn what an = is in the first grade, faggot.

...

>a class of 20 literal retards with drunk fathers and crackwhore mothers
That is 100% representative of the entire united states.

Yeah, but you did say that you were an engineer.

The smaller oval is obviously not one-sixth the size of the larger oval.

>Shut the fuck up, I learned what an = is in the first grade, faggot.
Great argument. How many years have you held a teaching license for, again?

how is "the historical facts of the life of noted literary figure Maya Angelou" controversial?
You could ask the same question about which war Hemingway fought in.

I feel like the person who wrote this failed a few writing classes.

"Kids don't know what an equals sign is"
"PEMDAS is taught in the third grade"

These are mutually exclusive, faggot. So which are you telling lies about?

Some historical figures are more worthy of recognition than others.
When you bring historical figures from the not-so-distant past into the mix, you get controversy.

Not him, but I'm going to refer you to , where a person (either one of the researchers, or someone in charge of compiling the research, going by the context) gives a possible answer for how a child could be taught about equals signs without grasping the concept. They know what to do when they see it, but that doesn't mean they understand what it is. Kind of like how you know how to drive a car but don't know how a car works.

it's not A, left isn't 5 times size of right. 2.5x seems more reasonable

Probably a chink, and he doesn't say how many students were actually checked for knowledge of it. Academia has this weird obsession with asking 10 people a question and applying it to the entire country.

"100% of Americans hate Obama according to a survey taken at a Klan march!"

Are you implying a Pulitzer and Presidential Medal of Freedom awardee who has actually been on a stamp is "less worthy of recognition?"

Nevermind a Prescriptionist approach, which I assume you're advocating for of "we should only teach about people of 'merit'" Descriptivist means this is a person of note who has had an impact and people need to know about.

>"PEMDAS was taught to me in the third grade"

Again, flawless reasoning. How many years has it been since you were in an elementary classroom? If the answer is "more than three", you don't know what you're talking about.

Please try to understand that "the way they did it when I was in school" does not have any bearing on the way it's done now.

You know, we could always look up the study and see exactly how many people they checked instead of making assumptions and basing our arguments on speculation and bullshit.

>how is "the historical facts of the life of noted literary figure Maya Angelou" controversial?
It's not, /pol/fags just really enjoy spending all their time monitoring other boards looking for things to get outraged about.

That example was off a book, Maya Angelo's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" which was a depressing as fuck autobiography, not a made up problem. Is still pretty stupid though.

This thread is full of common core shills.

still not even remotely relevant to math, or learning math, or displaying a functional knowledge of math.

You can get a sense of the methodology here:

academia.edu/326917/AN_INTERNATIONAL_COMPARISON_OF_GRADE_6_STUDENTS_UNDERSTANDING_OF_THE_EQUAL_SIGN

also, the question isnt about maya angelou, it is about determining the values of two variables in an equation set.

They're as bad as SJW's aren't they?

She's not even relevant, she's just some woman who wrote books about herself like a narcissist.

While 10 people are definitely too little, it should be obvious as fuck why you don't ask the whole country when trying to figure out what people thin. Well, maybe not as clear in this age of computers and the Internet, admittedly. Acquiring a reasonably sized and representative sample is important, of course, but there is nothing really wrong with generalizing the results of that sample to the whole population. More than that, there is no real alternative to doing so.

> Are you implying a Pulitzer and Presidential Medal of Freedom awardee who has actually been on a stamp is "less worthy of recognition?"
Not him, but yes.
The test of history tends to reveal those who are truly important and those who are just enjoying their 15 minutes of fame.

Plato, Shakespeare, Nero, Caesar, Louis XIV - I'm simply randomly naming people at this point, and yet there is a common quality all of these people have - they are all unanimously recognized as important figures in human history, so important that despite the fact that centuries and milleniums passed, we still remember them for their words and actions.

I can guarantee you that literally no one who won a Pulitzer award will be remembered the same as the people above in a few centuries.

They are like SJW's in a lot of ways. Similar personalities, opposed agendas.

Couldn't help myself.

>none of the posts are replying to each other
That's almost impressive.

There are plenty of Roman and Greek writers, for instance, who are remembered these days for achievemnts neither greater nor lesser than those of Pulitzer winners. Aside from that, historical figures can be relevant today regardless of whether they'll be remembered in a few centuries.

I wish they'd just hate fuck already, that way they'd finally get laid.

Humans are terrible at judging the proportions of circles.

Which is why no-one should ever use pie charts for anything.

>Americans

And just because they are relevant today doesn't mean you need to know their life details before you examine their works themselves.

This looks like made up garbage written by a Russian ESL student. Seriously, you think this is a citation or proof of some kind? That's rich.

As an American, I am proud of my ability to accurately judge the proportional size of pizza slices and always grab the largest one first.

Depends on what you want to convey. When there's an overwhelming majority pie charts illustrate that point better than bar graphs.

Hey OP! It's easy! Follow me!

d2 = 1d20 / 2
d3 = 1d6 % 3
d4 = 1d4
d6 = 1d6
d8 = 1d8
d9 = ((1d3-1)*3)+1d3
d10 = 1d10
d12 = 1d12
d16 = ((1d4-1)*4)+1d4
d18 = ((1d3-1)*6)+1d6
d20 = 1d20
d24 = ((1d4-1)*6)+1d6
d27 = ((1d3-1)*9)+(((1d3-1)*3)+1d3)
d30 = ((1d10-1)*3)+1d3
d32 = ((1d4-1)*8)+1d8
d36 = ((1d6-1)*6)+1d6
d40 = ((1d4-1)*10)+1d10
d48 = ((1d6-1)*8)+1d8
d54 = ((1d6-1)*9)+(((1d3-1)*3)+1d3)
d60 = ((1d3-1)*20)+1d20
d64 = ((1d8-1)*8)+1d8
d72 = ((1d6-1)*12)+1d12
d80 = ((1d8-1)*10)+1d10
d96 = ((1d8-1)*12)+1d12
d100 = ((1d10-1)*10)+1d10
d108 = ((1d12-1)*9)+(((1d3-1)*3)+1d3)
d120 = ((1d10-1)*12)+1d12
d128 = ((1d8-1)*16)+(((1d4-1)*4)+1d4)
d144 = ((1d12-1)*12)+1d12
d160 = ((1d8-1)*20)+1d20
d192 = ((1d12-1)*16)+(((1d4-1)*4)+1d4)
d200 = ((1d10-1)*20)+1d20
d216 = ((1d12-1)*18)+(((1d3-1)*6)+1d6)
d240 = ((1d12-1)*20)+1d20
d256 = ((((1d4-1)*4)+1d4-1))*16+(((1d4-1)*4)+1d4)
d320 = ((1d20-1)*16)+(((1d4-1)*4)+1d4)
d324 = ((((1d3-1)*6)+1d6)-1)*18)+(((1d3-1)*6)+1d6)
d360 = ((1d20-1)*18)+(((1d3-1)*6)+1d6)
d400 = ((1d20-1)*20)+1d20

fundamental problem with the system, they keep fixing what isn't broken.

>it worked fine when i was a kid.
>they do it different today
>kids today don't know "anything"

i am not saying methods can't be improved, but they can certainly be evaluated and rolled back to previously working methods

I'm so proud, user.

Now do one for a d7

>When there's an overwhelming majority pie
No, it doesn't. A compound bar chart also conveys a ratio. Humans are better at calculating line ratios than circle ratios, hence have a much better grasp of how big "the majority" is on a line than a circle. That's the way our brains are wired.

>non-euclidean dice
Disgusting.

More importantly, we passed those methods, and we succeeded in life.Obviously, we had the objectively best upbringing.

There are two ways to arrive at the correct answer--by doing math, or by knowing the context of Maya Angelou's writing.

Like how you can get through a locked door with a Strength check OR an Open Lock check.

Listen, if they aren't teach kids how to do actual math, you shouldn't be defending those decisions.

I weep for the university professors who are going to have to deal with kids using "number sentences"

... a stamp of what

>and we succeeded in life.
Posting on a Korean basketweaving forum and succeeding in life aren't exactly mutually compatible things.

If you can derive an answer by avoiding the math, it's not math. It's deceptive evasion.

Common core is dumbing down STEM even further so that black and hispanic underachievers feel better. The results will be horrific.

dPi
di
de
d(2^(1/2))

Do it fag

And what's the fucking point of that? Why give a test or quiz on math if you don't even need to know math to get the question right?
Quizzes and tests and the like aren't obstacles kids need to surpass, they are quite literally tests and examinations to gauge their understanding of a material.

I think the main problem is that previous methods didn't actually work, so they're trying new things in the hopes that something sticks.

Consider this: How many years of science classes did you take? How much of all that do you remember? Kids only learn when they're paying attention, but modern classrooms and teaching methods (as in, the kind you and I grew up with) are psychologically the worst way to do that. As in, they actually couldn't be any worse for teaching. They are the opposite of how we as a species are designed to learn, and the children actually suffer for it in terms of what they retain and can accomplish afterwards.

I'm not defending shit; I'm the one who offered to rant about the broken US education system upthread.

I'm just pointing out that stating "this is how they did it when I was a kid" is absolutely meaningless in the context of "how do they do it TODAY".

Just because they successfully taught second-graders how to multiply in the past, there is no basis for using that fact to bolster a statement about what is being currently taught to second-graders.

>I weep for liberals
You should be shot now, but lets see the rest of your failings

>I weep for the university professors who are going to have to deal with
Liberal intellectualys can't be forced to deal with reality, let alone students.

>I weep for the university professors who are going to have to deal with kids

>I weep for the university professors who are going to have to deal with using "Number sentences"
Okay addressing your statement as you so stupidly intended, the professor will ignore anything the snotnosed millenials say, and then just order them to do the homework or fail them. STEM is not your bleeding heart subjectively-right-objectively-wrong bullshit arts and humanities garbage.

dPi/di = P.
de/d(2^(1/2)) = 0.

..You goddamned hippies need to not even be allowed to speak about education. OF COURSE a test is an obstacle, its how the kids get to the next grade! If they don't understand it, then the goddamn braindead poorfags need to get sent to a public school, since they're obviously unable to be helped by teachers and tutors.

>Quizzes and tests and the like aren't obstacles kids need to surpass, they are quite literally tests and examinations to gauge their understanding of a material.
Maybe once, but not any more. Elementary school and high school are now mandatory obstacles that every child and teenager must get past in order to be realistically capable of finding employment as an adult. College is still mostly actually about education, and grad school sure as hell is, but, up until you graduate high school, the entire point of school lies halfway between "preparing you for college, if you're going" and "giving you a sticker on your resume that says that you put in the raw man-hours to be considered an adult"

well that defeats the entire point of learning(understanding) math. congratulations. you WILL fail when there are no alternative methods.