D&D 5E What is best company for dice?

[SpaceOtter]

As regards dice in my family, I have some old and beloved GS dice and some black and white jumbo Koplow dice, but the bulk of my current collection is Q-Workshop dice (the clear-to-read black and white classic sets, and some rune dice sets including some oddly-shaped d4s). I like Q-Workshop dice, but I only buy those sets that are easy to read; some sets are just too fussy. I'm probably going to grab a couple white-and-black Dwarf sets soon, but I do have a set of flame-treated titanium dice from Artisan Dice on my Christmas list. I even have the Q-Workshop wooden dice tower, and it's pretty good.

My wife loves Chessex dice (because they're pretty; her words, not mine) but I don't like 'em; waayyy too rounded-off for my tastes, and the ink seems to wear comparatively quickly too.

 

[WarHawke]

When a die has a good hefty weight to it, and you have to think about the surface you roll it on so it will have zero chance of chipping, that is a good die in my opinion. I can speak highly enough of the Jade dice from Crystal Caste. I would love to have a 16mm set of the Meteor dice or the dinosaur fossil dice... alas they do not sell the whole set...

And I know that would be like $1,000 worth of dice (the 16mm meteor) but that would be no different than having an expensive flask, or leather jacket or a pocket watch. It's just one of those things that you have and just is... what it is.

 

[Joe Liker]

He claims they are more accurate than the competition for gaming dice...and he's right, they are. As this independent analysis indicates. They concluded, "Crystal Caste translucent dice are clearly the least consistent dice, Chessex and other styles of Crystal Caste appear to be more consistent than Crystal Caste translucent but less consistent than GameScience and Koplow dice, with Koplow opaque dice representing a “middle of the road” option." So, no scam. If you want more consistent dice, you should buy GameScience or Koplow. If you don't much care, then Chessex or non-translucent Crystal Caste is fine. And translucent Crystal Caste is the worst.

That independent analysis only analyzes the physical dimensions of the dice. This data is largely irrelevant as long as the dice are rolling randomly. Which they provably are.

Show me an independent analysis where significant numbers of the dice produced by a given manufacturer are actually flawed to the point that they fail a chi-squared test, and maybe I'll start caring more about Game Science.

I've seen exactly one die ever fail such a test. (I don't know who made it, but it was not Game Science or Chessex.) We broke it apart with a sledgehammer and actually found a bubble inside.

 

[diaglo]

I've seen exactly one die ever fail such a test. (I don't know who made it, but it was not Game Science or Chessex.) We broke it apart with a sledgehammer and actually found a bubble inside.

 

[aramis erak]

That independent analysis only analyzes the physical dimensions of the dice. This data is largely irrelevant as long as the dice are rolling randomly. Which they provably are.

Show me an independent analysis where significant numbers of the dice produced by a given manufacturer are actually flawed to the point that they fail a chi-squared test, and maybe I'll start caring more about Game Science.

I've seen exactly one die ever fail such a test. (I don't know who made it, but it was not Game Science or Chessex.) We broke it apart with a sledgehammer and actually found a bubble inside.

Games Workshop's d6's failed a Chi^2 test. Badly, at that. P(1)>2P(6) and P(6)>1.5(P2)... whole box failed badly. N=36.

I've had some unspecified brand d10's fail an N=50 test, as well. I've never had a gamescience die fail a pearson's chi^2 test.
r>0.3 being a clear fail on a 1 degree of freedom test...

 

[Mistwell]

That independent analysis only analyzes the physical dimensions of the dice. This data is largely irrelevant as long as the dice are rolling randomly. Which they provably are.

Of course they are rolling randomly. However, they are rolling randomly, with the odds saying they are rolling some numbers a disproportionate number of times more than others.

Because the physical dimensions are not EVENLY inconsistent...that's not what "inconsistent" means. They are UNEVENLY inconsistent (which is a redundant phrase but apparently in this case necessary for clarity). So it will bias towards a section of the die, and away from another section of the die, due to the inconsistent shape of the die.

We know this because of the process used to create all polished dice. If the dice are coming out with different physical dimensions from each other (though they all come from the same casting molds so start the same size as each other), that is (always) caused by random polishing elements. Which means variable amounts of time in the polisher, and/or being struck by the rough objects in the polishing machine a disproportionate number of times and/or in a disproportionate number of ways. The odds this would create exactly even imperfections across exactly every single face and every single angle of the die are astronomically high. The overwhelming odds are the die is coming out uneven across the angles and faces of the die. And if it comes out uneven across those faces and angles, that means it's not rolling an evenly random roll when rolled.

 

[Deset Gled]

Show me an independent analysis where significant numbers of the dice produced by a given manufacturer are actually flawed to the point that they fail a chi-squared test, and maybe I'll start caring more about Game Science.

http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/353/d20-dice-randomness-test-chessex-vs-gamescience/

Both Gamescience and Chessex failed the chi-squared test, for different reasons.

Chessex dice are inherently flawed due to the polishing process, and different dice will be skewed differently. There is little doubt in my mind that there are some Chessex dice out in the wild that are closer to true randomness, some with a higher chance of rolling 20s, and some that have a higher chance of a 1. Obviously you would have to roll a ton of times to see the difference, but it lends credence to superstitions that some dice are "blessed" and some are "cursed".

Gamescience dice are overall much better, but have a notable skew due to the sprue side of the die. Personally, I think the best option would be to have a GS die numbered such that the sprue effect falls on the 10 or 11 side.

Disclaimer: I own no Gamescience dice. I probably own some Chessex dice. I honestly haven't paid that close of attention to where all the dice in my bag come from.

 

[Lalato]

I find the best company for dice is friends, pen, paper and a nice bottle of Tempranillo.

 

[Tormyr]

My red Game Science dice are the first dice I reach for. I carefully shaved off the sprues and filled in the numbers with a white crayon. I then covered them in a thin layer of top coat to seal in the crayon. It is uncanny how some nights they roll hot and some nights they roll cold, but they cover the whole spectrum of values really well. I use my Chessex dice when I need to roll a half a dozen saving throws or a fireball. I also picked up a set of the 100+ WizDice which are nice, but the d10s are an odd shape. They are going as gifts to various people and as part of a Christmas gift to my players.

Honestly, one of my favorite sets of dice is the blue set that comes in the Starter Set. I know it was probably a fluke, but I rolled it 20 times and got almost 20 unique numbers. I let one of my players use it. He has a whole bunch of d20s and usually rolls low, retiring each die after it failed him. He played an entire night with that d20 and had reasonable success.

 

[Joe Liker]

Of course they are rolling randomly. However, they are rolling randomly, with the odds saying they are rolling some numbers a disproportionate number of times more than others.

Because the physical dimensions are not EVENLY inconsistent...that's not what "inconsistent" means. They are UNEVENLY inconsistent (which is a redundant phrase but apparently in this case necessary for clarity). So it will bias towards a section of the die, and away from another section of the die, due to the inconsistent shape of the die.

We know this because of the process used to create all polished dice. If the dice are coming out with different physical dimensions from each other (though they all come from the same casting molds so start the same size as each other), that is (always) caused by random polishing elements. Which means variable amounts of time in the polisher, and/or being struck by the rough objects in the polishing machine a disproportionate number of times and/or in a disproportionate number of ways. The odds this would create exactly even imperfections across exactly every single face and every single angle of the die are astronomically high. The overwhelming odds are the die is coming out uneven across the angles and faces of the die. And if it comes out uneven across those faces and angles, that means it's not rolling an evenly random roll when rolled.

I'm not denying there are imperfections in the die. Please stop explaining that. We get it, really.

What I'm saying is, those imperfections are not generally pronounced enough to make a statistical difference in practice.

It's a lot like the difference between theorycrafting and actually playing D&D. The dice seem unbalanced on paper, but when you roll them, they perform just fine.

The only way to prove that a die is biased is to roll that die a bunch of times. Apparently someone here did that with a bunch of Games Workshop dice, so now I'm willing to believe GW dice are crap. He didn't say which style of GW dice he tested, though, so if it was the one with skulls for pips, I have to wonder why he wasted his time. You can tell by looking at the absurd design that they're not going to work right.

As for the guy who rolled a single d20 from each company 10,000 times, that also proves nothing. You need to roll a lot of different dice from each company to be able to generalize that one company makes good dice and the other does not.

But I will say this: No matter how carefully you shave off that sprue, unless you're using a laser, your Game Science die is at least as cockeyed as the tiny, tiny imperfections found in the Chessex study, so there's some hypocrisy in action for ya.