Holy Bovine
First Post
Wow - you're really reaching here dude.
Gamescience dice are very much worth it.
Wow - you're really reaching here dude.
Not really as much as you might think. What's more likely - that rounded-edged dice will have a predictable impact on play, or that you'll run into a player who likes to cheat now and then?
"The die doesn't roll far" is a selling point? Well, why, then do casino craps tables expect the thrower to hit the far wall of the craps table, and may, in some cases, call a short throw a "no roll"? Because failure to make the die tumble is a failure to generate a random result!
It doesn't have to be intentional, either. If you just drop the die out of your hand, such that you don't get a lot of tumble, you'll tend to have one roll correlate to the next. This is most easily seen with d4s or d6s, but holds for any die.
Desdichado
Hero
I agree.
Then again, the statistical significance of the difference between Gamescience vs. Chessex or whatever dice means that making a claim for their superiority based on results is also really reaching.
d2OKC
Explorer
I like Chessex dice, mostly for the price.
We have players at my table that use all kinds of different dice. One guy has Gamescience, one has chessex, one has tiny metal dice. Whatever, I'm fine with them all.
What I've noticed about dice is that, no matter what kind of dice you're using, someone is going to have a bad-rolling day at the table, and it has almost nothing to do with what brand they're throwing.
We have players at my table that use all kinds of different dice. One guy has Gamescience, one has chessex, one has tiny metal dice. Whatever, I'm fine with them all.
What I've noticed about dice is that, no matter what kind of dice you're using, someone is going to have a bad-rolling day at the table, and it has almost nothing to do with what brand they're throwing.
That's my point.
Barring real data - someone doing some hefty chi-squared analysis of GS dice vs, say, Chessex dice to prove that the difference is significant in play, how is the dice bias any more a looming threat to your game than a cheater?
Holy Bovine
First Post
Right. Which I didn't do.
Nobody accused you of doing so. You mentioned the short-roll-distance, and that made me think of the effects of that short roll. That I quoted your post does not imply I'm trying to make a direct counter to what you said, you know.
Desdichado
Hero
Right. Which I didn't claim you did. It is a theme in this thread, however, regardless of who said it.
Evenglare
Adventurer
Wow, this thread is a real eye opener about how people view dice rolling in games. I would have thought people would prefer untumbled dice. Im... shocked. I own 3 sets and I love them, I know players that roll with dice that turn up 20 way too often to be coincidence, I make them use these and it gets rid of that problem very quickly. The ones I own are much more random than any other die sets I currently have. The only other better dice rolling would be a random number gen on a computer (yes I am aware it's not "random" as it is based off an internal oscilation device but it's random enough for a human not to know how to manipulate assuming you arent a coder)
Humans are very, very susceptible to something called "confirmation bias". So, if you are not actually writing the rolls down, you should not trust your casual observations.
For example, you say those guys rolled 20s far more often than was random. However, the issue described in that video is that the die becomes shorter on one axis, and thus more likely to turn up the faces on that axis. An axis has two ends - if they are rolling more 20s, they should *also* be rolling more 1s in equal proportion. And, as described, you should have dice that preferentially roll 12s as frequently as you have dice that preferentially roll 20s.
Similar Threads
