That is like, EVERY time a d20 is rolled (meaning advantage/disadvantage counts two rolls) vs how often it's declared to be a nat 1 or 20, not including any modifiers, and its expected p-value

To be absolutely transparent: I don't particularly care if they did, because it's obvious how scripted Campaign 4 is thus far anyway, and also I am aware that randomness is clumpy, so it could easily be Frequency Illusion.

But I'm still curious to see the stats of all die rolls against 1s and 20s

Oh first episode of season 4 I could clock it's at least 80% scripted 20% improv, if not 90/10

Oh it's not just DM rolls, it's everyone. They are significantly more likely to roll 20s and 1s than is likely I'm sure

You can only really know someone's character through their actual actions and opinions. Media consumption is always going to give you a slanted view of someone.

I mean, I will judge people who like Logan Paul on the basis that I do not like Logan Paul. But also, I don't know those people, to what degree they interact with the media, how aware they are of what the creation of the media entailed, etc. Maybe they're just Not That Online? It's possible.

I was gonna point this out but I don't wanna paint with a broad brush. It's just like, G4 MLP is straightforwardly and obviously a nice show with nice morals, but a chunk of the fanbase took in the vibe of "everyone should get along" and came out with "hate people who deviate from normal"

I've seen plenty of media preemptively decried as Obviously Problematic that has created few if any ripples, while stuff that's labeled safe and milquetoast attract the worst, most vitriolic fans. And I've also seen it vise versa. Peoples' predictive powers in media analysis are shit.

I don't care how many video essays are written about it. Short of media that fully wear their intentions on their sleeves (and even then, sometimes these can be utterly recontextualized) any given piece of media is a MESS of contexts, both in the narrative and audience's relation to the narrative