# Gamescience dice are very much worth it.



## B.T. (Sep 14, 2012)

I am exceedingly pleased with my set.  Also bought some of my gamer friends casino dice as a wedding present, and I love those even more.  (They're gorgeous, the edges are sharp, and the corners are pointed enough to cause discomfort with careless handling.)  I am now a full dice snob and will no longer use anything but precision cut dice.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 14, 2012)

Yeah, GameScience dice rule.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Sep 14, 2012)

I like my gamescience dice, but I've always wondered how truly random they could be with big chunks of sprue poking out.


----------



## khantroll (Sep 14, 2012)

I can't speak for how truly random they are. In fact, I'd almost bet they aren't. My primary dice sets are a set of unmarked Gamescience diamond colored dice, and a set of Chessex Gemini dice. The Chessex dice seem to roll right in the middle range of available numbers almost all of the time, while the Gamescience dice roll the full range but tend slightly toward the higher numbers.

Having said the above, they are still may favorite dice.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 14, 2012)

Alan Shutko said:


> I like my gamescience dice, but I've always wondered how truly random they could be with big chunks of sprue poking out.




Maybe not 100.000% perfect, but easily an order or magnitude better than anything that's been tumbled.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 14, 2012)

Deset Gled said:


> Maybe not 100.000% perfect, but easily an order or magnitude better than anything that's been tumbled.



The very first time someone made this claim to me, I happened to be kicking around just loafing on the internet.  Having nothing better to do, I got a few sets of my old slightly round-edged Chessex dice out and did a bunch of sample rolls, recording the frequency of each face coming up.  You'd be amazed at 1) how many rolls you can do in 15 minutes when you're not doing anything else, and 2) how random my sampling ended up actually being.

It may be that there's a statistical difference in randomness of Game Science vs. "regular" gaming dice, but if so, I couldn't see it.  If my non-Game Science dice aren't _truly_ random, they're still close enough that I'd be willing to bet that the difference isn't statistically very significant.

Granted, I freely admit that I did not take the time to calculate or even estimate how big of a sample I needed to do with my dice to truly get a representative sample.  I just rolled a whole bunch.

Plus, the Game Science dice are expensive, and surprisingly quite ugly.  I'm perfectly happy not owning a set.


----------



## JediSoth (Sep 14, 2012)

Per THIS article on Forbes (they were actually quoting this blog entry), the sprue actually does affect randomness.

However, they say that for normal tabletop gaming, it doesn't make that much of a difference. Here is the relevant portion of the result blog entry, copied and pasted for your reading convenience:

"It’s worth stressing that based on our tests you would need a lot of dice rolls before you saw a meaningful difference in any of these gaming dice — roll a thousand times and maybe you’ll see 5 or 10 less of a given number than you’d expect (or more). So for gaming purposes both dice will work just fine. Seriously."

"But that said Chessex dice (and in theory any rounded-edged dice) are going to roll less close to true. Because of the randomness of the process that changes the shape of the dice, there’s no way to predict which faces are going to roll better or worse. Indeed this means that you could have dice that are “lucky” and roll high more often or crit more often, and “cursed” dice that seldom roll 20s and fumble more often."

"With GameScience dice, on the other hand, you know that the 14 will roll substantially less than any other result — so technically the dice will roll low, but the 20 should roll just about as often as the one, or the 10. If you carefully sand the flashing down on the GameScience dice you should get a result that is very close to being truly random."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2012)

I may or may not have game science dice- they DO look familiar, but I have lots.  Of course, if I do have them, they're in big buckets of dice, so they're being "tumbled" to a certain extent...


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Sep 14, 2012)

I do like 'em, but I don't think my GS d14s and d16s are any more balanced than my non-GS dice. 

Also, I wish GS dice came with colored-in numbers. I don't like squinting at dice.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 14, 2012)

Tequila Sunrise said:


> Also, I wish GS dice came with colored-in numbers. I don't like squinting at dice.



fill with wax crayon. That is how very early D&D dice were shaded.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 14, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> fill with wax crayon. That is how very early D&D dice were shaded.




And, if you want that crayon to stay, you have to put some clear nail polish over it....

All this, of course, alters the weight and shapes of the sides, and thus the probabilities.  If you are really and truly concerned with the randomness, you don't go adding unknown weights to them.


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 14, 2012)

Not sure on the accuracy of the vid but quite interesting in regards to Game Science dice.

Game Science Part 1 of 2 - YouTube

A friend bought me a set of GS dice several years ago and I have to say that I found them horrid to roll. They were not as random as the regular dice that I have.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 14, 2012)

Well, the guy in the video is trying to sell you something.  He may be 100% accurate, but he's got motive for bias.  A skeptical reader might not that it would have been super-easy for him to specifically choose the dice in those stacks for his demonstration...

If you're really worried, find or write yourself a chi-squared tester.

A couple of articles for practicals for gamers:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/02/testing-balanced-die.html

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/02/follow-up-testing-balanced-dice.html

And, one tester that does the math for you.

Chi-square calculator for dice

I cannot vouch for the code behind the tester above, of course.

Note that in order to test, you have to roll _a lot_.  In the tester I link there, I tested a 10-sider, just for the heck of it.  In 50 rolls, not a single 9 or 10.  But, in that few rolls, that's still not evidence for real bias.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 14, 2012)

Dunno, think I will stick with my golden Dwarven Stones.  I like the weight of 'em. 

These look nice, but I'm not sure I am seeing what makes them different from standard dice...?


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 14, 2012)

Yes, Gamescience dice produce a more even and accurate distribution of results.  Yes, the sprue joint is going to affect the roll, but it's going to be to such an insignificant degree it's laughable anywhere outside a casino.  Even Gamescience dice are an order of magnitude less accurate than casino dice.  Casino dice are not injection molded, they are machined from material that allows tolerances that for any RPG gamer would be INSANE.  RPG dice, even from Gamescience, deform unpredictably just by cooling after being injected into the molds.  Dice from other manufacturers are tumbled to remove the edges, evidence of the sprue, and to give them a polish which Gamescience dice don't have.  That does, however, produce measurable inaccuracy in their results when rolled.

The value of the accuracy of Gamescience dice is, to my thinking, QUITE overrated for normal RPG purposes.  As was said, Lou Zocchi is selling you something.  If it's REALLY going to matter to you if you roll a 13 with a 1% greater frequency than you do a 4, then Gamescience dice are for you (and that 1% variance is probably quite overstated except in the worst of cases).  If you accept (IMO sensibly) that any such inaccuracy is going to be UTTERLY lost in the noise of general purpose gaming; whose outcome does NOT mean loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue as it would be at a casino; I say go ahead and buy the dice that actually come in niftier assortments of color.

Really, I think it'd be cool to HAVE a set of casino-standard machined gaming dice.  I'd pay money for that.  But if you have more than a casual and _amused _ sort of concern about the impact of inaccurate dice on the outcome of a D&D game you may need to reassess your lifes priorities.

But of course, ultimately, you should spend your RPG money on what makes you happy or enhances YOUR enjoyment of the game.  I'm just sayin' - don't go drinking the koolaid.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2012)

Hell- they're going to abrade with time anyway...each roll, each heavy bump you take while carrying them in your bag will change their randomness over time.

I wonder how _durable_ Lou's dice are?


----------



## Rogue Agent (Sep 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I wonder how _durable_ Lou's dice are?




Incredibly durable compared to the competition. Gamescience dice use a higher grade of plastic than their competitors.

This has also been tested.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2012)

Rogue Agent said:


> This has also been tested.




Do you have a reference on that we could all see, or is that just from your memory?

My rounded-edged dice *never* chip.  Ever.  So, they are very durable.

The question is not whether GS dice are more durable than other sharp-edged dice, but  how long does it take a Gamescience die to wear to the point where it also starts showing similar signs of bias as the tumbled dice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2012)

Exactly.


----------



## Stormonu (Sep 15, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The value of the accuracy of Gamescience dice is, to my thinking, QUITE overrated for normal RPG purposes.  As was said, Lou Zocchi is selling you something.




Zocchi is from my area of the woods, and I've met him in person several times (he used to have a game store on the Gulf coast and goes to Coastcon regularly) - a nice guy and he knows how to spin a good story (and very enthusiastic gamer).

However, having bought his dice, I feel they're overrated.  The sharp edges make them annoying to hold, the barely inked numbers make them hard to read and I actually prefer the idea that my dice are _slightly_ slanted in my favor - I love my "killer d20", for example.

And sometimes blaming the dice for a terrible run of luck is a good way to destress.


----------



## Gilladian (Sep 15, 2012)

I have 30+ year old gamescience dice. They are no more worn looking than the ones I bought 5 or 10 years ago (I don't buy dice very often, no)... Now, they ARE a bit discolored - they haven't faded, but the grime from years of handling is a bit ingrained into the plastic. 

I took a couple pictures; now, can I figure out how to post them?


----------



## rkarnes (Sep 15, 2012)

The video of Lou selling his dice convinced me to buy a set. My LFGS had a set of "Ugly Dice", so I picked them up. Realistically, I don't expect or require 100% accuracy in my dice, but I do enjoy the old school feel of the dice, and the saturated colors remind me of "Highlights" magazine. I'm not the type of person who collects a hundred dice, so I don't really regret purchasing 1 set of "the best" dice.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 15, 2012)

I bought the zocchihedron years ago. Fantastic cat toy.

Even taking what Zocci said in the video with a grain of salt, two layers of paint and multiple goes in a rock tumbler sure sound like a recipe for biased dice. My only beef is  that I find it hard to believe a piece of sprue left on the zocchi die won't affect the roll.


----------



## Libramarian (Sep 15, 2012)

I wouldn't bother with these dice personally. If you want to control the bias in gaming dice just buy a whack of them, like the chessex pound-o-dice, and then randomly grab a die whenever you need to roll one. That way the individual dice may be biased, but you're using a different one each time, so it balances out. Plus you get to roll lots of different dice.

I do have a couple of blocks of casino dice, and they are pretty swank. They make me quite a bit more inclined to play games that only use d6s.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 15, 2012)

I went to the website, and wow, their precision sets of dice are pretty pricey. 

Even if they are actually more accurate, I( cannot see it being a huge difference, and I really like the broader selection other dice companies have.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2012)

There is also the question of exactly how biased the biased dice are.

It is one thing to say that, mathematically, the die is not perfect.  But, *how* imperfect is it?  How many rolls will come up wrong?  In a casino, imperfections matter because they are basing huge money on the long-term statistical behavior of dice.  We are not.  Our tolerances should be much more broad.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2012)

> In a casino, imperfections matter because they are basing huge money on the long-term statistical behavior of dice. We are not. Our tolerances should be much more broad.




But OUR dice decide matters of LIFE and DEATH!


----------



## blargney the second (Sep 16, 2012)

I bought a bunch of precision dice because we play in my living room, which doesn't have a table.  Our dice are rolled on a hardcover book, more often than not.  The sharp edges of the precision dice make them stop rolling sooner, so I get fewer dice on the floor.
-blarg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2012)

Clearly, Lou Zodchi hates cats, and is working hard to ensure that his feline foes have fewer fallen die to play with...


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 16, 2012)

rkarnes said:


> The video of Lou selling his dice convinced me to buy a set.



That's funny; the video of Lou selling his dice convinced me to _NEVER_ entertain the idea of buying a set.  To me, he came across as smug, pretentious, obsessive, and takes himself way too seriously.


----------



## JustinAlexander (Sep 16, 2012)

frankthedm said:


> My only beef is  that I find it hard to believe a piece of sprue left on the zocchi die won't affect the roll.




It does, but not as significantly as the rock tumbling process. And, unlike the flaws created by the rock tumbling process, the sprue is an easily correctable defect.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2012)

JustinAlexander said:


> It does, but not as significantly as the rock tumbling process. And, unlike the flaws created by the rock tumbling process, the sprue is an easily correctable defect.




Yes, but that still leaves the open question - is the issue large enough that we actually care?

Upthread, I rolled a d10 fifty times as a chi-square test.  I got *no* 9s or 10s, and that's still not enough to statistically call the die biased!

How many times do you really roll a given die in the course of playing an RPG?  For casinos, bias matters because they've got hundreds or thousands or people rolling dice all day, for big money, and the statistical variation then shows.  But, for us gamers, we may not roll a given die enough times in a year to start to notice the bias with careful statistical measure, much less have it noticeably impact game play.


----------



## rkarnes (Sep 16, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That's funny;




I feel like you say that to be derisive about my decision, as though it were ridiculous. There is a lot of division in this hobby; that division is worthy of ridicule, my decision to buy his dice is not. 



> ...the video of Lou selling his dice convinced me to _NEVER_ entertain the idea of buying a set.  To me, he came across as smug, pretentious, obsessive, and takes himself way too seriously.



Yes, he was certainly on the abrasive side. Unfortunately that's more and more what I expect from convention floor pitches. By the end of the pitch, though, I decided to buy in. He was a good salesman, and he used several demonstrations in his video to back up his premise.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 16, 2012)

rkarnes said:


> I feel like you say that to be derisive about my decision, as though it were ridiculous. There is a lot of division in this hobby; that division is worthy of ridicule, my decision to buy his dice is not.



If you feel like that, you could learn to be a little less sensitive and not take things personally.  "That's funny" is a common conversation lead-in that's common when you're about to completely disagree with someone.  If you feel belittled or derided because I included it, that's not a problem with how I said it.


> Yes, he was certainly on the abrasive side. Unfortunately that's more and more what I expect from convention floor pitches. By the end of the pitch, though, I decided to buy in. He was a good salesman, and he used several demonstrations in his video to back up his premise.



That's one of the reasons why--even though I had a pretty good time when I went last--I haven't felt very motivated to make a return trip to GenCon.  More and more I'm happy just enjoying my hobby locally with the folks that I game with and not concerning myself in the least with wider hobby issues.  My posting here on occasion excepted.


----------



## Scars Unseen (Sep 17, 2012)

As has been noted before, even if these dice are more random, the difference is pretty insignificant in the scope of a gaming session.  To me, upgrading to materials such as stone, metal and wood provide more value than upgrading to aesthetically displeasing dice that provide an imperceptible increase in randomness.


----------



## Gilladian (Sep 17, 2012)

Since I remarked on the durability of Gamescience dice, I do have to say I also find that they are no less pleasant to roll than my other dice (I own plenty), and I don't find the colors unappealing. However, I will say that I do ONLY own blue dice (a few white, black and crystal clear, too), so my dice-buying range is severely limited. Why, you ask, do I own only blue dice? Because once, years and years and years ago, we had a "my dice are all this color" rule at the table of a public game shop. I picked "blue" as my color, and stuck with it. Now, I just find myself reluctant to break the rule.

I find crystal dice to be the most annoying invention. I can't read them from more than 3' away, no matter how well they're marked. So as well as all blue, I try to stick with all-opaque, and all solid-color (none of those speckled or granite dice for me)!


----------



## B.T. (Sep 17, 2012)

I don't think Zocchi is abrasive as all in that video.  He comes across as someone who is passionate about gaming.

Also, LUMPY GRAVY.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 17, 2012)

> Also, LUMPY GRAVY.




Is Zocchi related to the Zappas?


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 18, 2012)

Scars Unseen said:


> As has been noted before, even if these dice are more random, the difference is pretty insignificant in the scope of a gaming session.  To me, upgrading to materials such as stone, metal and wood provide more value than upgrading to aesthetically displeasing dice that provide an imperceptible increase in randomness.




Aesthetically displeasing to you - I find them very beautiful.  The sprue knub is easily taken off with a modelling knife and I have been inking my own dice since forever.  Gamescience dice were the very first dice I ever bought and it took me years to find them again (this was long before any 'internet').  The randomness thing doesn't mean anything to me - I buy them because I love the look of them and the fact that they don't roll all over the table - a couple of bounces and they stop.  Compared to some of my players and their 'forever roller' dice that..just...don't...STOP... I'm very happy with my GS dice and use them exclusively.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> The randomness thing doesn't mean anything to me - I buy them because I love the look of them and the fact that they don't roll all over the table - a couple of bounces and they stop.  Compared to some of my players and their 'forever roller' dice that..just...don't...STOP... I'm very happy with my GS dice and use them exclusively.




Here's an interesting point - it may well be that GameScience dice are less apt to be biased.  But, the fact that they don't roll far means they are much, much easier to cheat with, if someone's got that skill.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Sep 18, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Here's an interesting point - it may well be that GameScience dice are less apt to be biased.  But, the fact that they don't roll far means they are much, much easier to cheat with, if someone's got that skill.




Wow - you're really reaching here dude.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> Wow - you're really reaching here dude.



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 (Sep 18, 2012)

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.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2012)

Hobo said:


> 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.




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 (Sep 18, 2012)

Hobo said:


> 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.




Right.  Which I didn't do.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> Right.  Which I didn't do.



Right.  Which I didn't claim you did.  It is a theme in this thread, however, regardless of who said it.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 19, 2012)

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)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 19, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> The ones I own are much more random than any other die sets I currently have.




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.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 19, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> 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)



Tumbled dice are also random enough for a human not to know how to manipulate, assuming you aren't Qui-Gon Jinn.


----------



## Scars Unseen (Sep 20, 2012)

Holy Bovine said:


> Aesthetically displeasing to you - I find them very beautiful.  The sprue knub is easily taken off with a modelling knife and I have been inking my own dice since forever.  Gamescience dice were the very first dice I ever bought and it took me years to find them again (this was long before any 'internet').  The randomness thing doesn't mean anything to me - I buy them because I love the look of them and the fact that they don't roll all over the table - a couple of bounces and they stop.  Compared to some of my players and their 'forever roller' dice that..just...don't...STOP... I'm very happy with my GS dice and use them exclusively.




You may have noticed that I qualified the sentence citing aesthetics with "to me."  I make no assumptions on other people's tastes.  I just generally prefer the feel and appearance of natural materials over plastic.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 20, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Here's an interesting point - it may well be that GameScience dice are less apt to be biased.  But, the fact that they don't roll far means they are much, much easier to cheat with, if someone's got that skill.



I have yet to find anyone who can actually demonstrate that skill even on video - though I have seen many people talk about how OTHERS can do it.  I have no doubt that somewhere out there are people who really can but I suspect you can count them on the fingers of one hand.  Thus, similar to the advantage granted by untumbled dice, I think it doesn't bear significant consideration.  Willing to be proved wrong though...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2012)

I met a guy who worked in casino security who said that they had caught a guy who could skew results of dice throws in his decade of experience.

One guy in 10 years.

That can mean they are exceedingly rare, that they are hard to detect, or- as I suspect- a bit of both.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I met a guy who worked in casino security who said that they had caught a guy who could skew results of dice throws in his decade of experience.
> 
> One guy in 10 tears.
> 
> That can mean they are exceedingly rare, that they are hard to detect, or- as I suspect- a bit of both.




They are exceedingly rare in casinos, because casinos typically expect/require the thrower to bounce the dice off a barrier.  It is incredibly difficult to skew the dice in that setup, yes.  Competitive backgammon has players use a dice cup.

But, they use those methods because without them, controlling d6s isn't all that hard.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Thus, similar to the advantage granted by untumbled dice, I think it doesn't bear significant consideration.




My point, in fact, is that the two are probably roughly similar risks to your game.  If you're going to worry about one, you probably should worry about the other.  

Personally, I don't actually think most folks need to worry about dice-manipulators in friendly RPG play.  But, I don't think most folks need to worry about the bias of tumbled dice, either.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I met a guy who worked in casino security who said that they had caught a guy who could skew results of dice throws in his decade of experience.
> 
> One guy in 10 tears.



That's a lot of crying.  Well, maybe not.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 20, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Tumbled dice are also random enough for a human not to know how to manipulate, assuming you aren't Qui-Gon Jinn.




I very very much disagree , I have run into MANY MANY dice that rolled certain numbers more often than others. GS die are much more random in my experience.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 20, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> I very very much disagree , I have run into MANY MANY dice that rolled certain numbers more often than others. GS die are much more random in my experience.




I don't doubt that you think the dice were biased, but, I'll repeat:  humans are *very* susceptible to confirmation bias.  The context of when we see a result matters in our perception of its weight.

If you haven't written results down and put them through a statistical measure, don't be too sure that the die is biased.  I rolled a d10 _FIFTY times_, without a single 9 or 10, and that is not strong evidence that the die is biased against those numbers, statistically speaking.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 20, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> I very very much disagree , I have run into MANY MANY dice that rolled certain numbers more often than others. GS die are much more random in my experience.



I have never run into any, and I've done seen an awful lot of dice rolling.  Unless you've got solid statistics to back up that claim, I don't believe it.

I'm sure that you do; such is the nature of our experience and our perception of it.  But I don't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2012)

Hobo said:


> That's a lot of crying.  Well, maybe not.




Ha- good catch!  Corrected it.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 21, 2012)

Ive seen a d20 roll 20 five... five times in a row. Five. That's 1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20 , or 1/(20^5) or 3.125x10^-7, That's such a rediculously small chance that the die HAD to be bias. It doesnt matter if you DIDNT roll a certain number, it matters if a number occurs more often than others, especially if they occur consecutively.  I have seen similar things happen with other die quite often, perhaps not 5 times but certainly 3 or 4 times in a row and these are dice from the chessex pound o' dice. In my experience 6s 10s and 20s are the worst. I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Sep 21, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> Ive seen a d20 roll 20 five... five times in a row. Five. That's 1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20*1/20 , or 1/(20^5) or 3.125x10^-7, That's such a rediculously small chance that the die HAD to be bias. It doesnt matter if you DIDNT roll a certain number, it matters if a number occurs more often than others, especially if they occur consecutively.  I have seen similar things happen with other die quite often, perhaps not 5 times but certainly 3 or 4 times in a row and these are dice from the chessex pound o' dice. In my experience 6s 10s and 20s are the worst. I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.




People win the lottery every week.

Just becuase it is a small chance does not mean it does not happen.

And you said you saw it once. How many tiems did you not see it?

Now, I will agree that there are probalby some dice out there, due to bubbles inside, or other imperfections, are just plain biased. But I think the odds of that are pretty low also, for all dice, tumbled or not.

Did anyone else notice how cruddy msot of the dice in the examples on the video were? I did not see anything that looked like a modern dice.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 21, 2012)

It doesn't matter how many times I DIDN'T see 20's what matters is how many times 20's popped up , especially consecutive 20's Id get them rolling 2 20's in a row at least 5 times a 3 hour session. This is way to frequent. I believe 20's are the worse simply because there are more sides and each side is smaller compared to other die.The angle between the sides are also relatively shallow (compared to any other die) thus if one side gets more tumbling than other sides then it will not STOP the die roll as it should. Unlike GS dice which are directly out of the mold and have sharp edges which provide more surface area as well as an even amount of surface area which provides a larger barrier for inertia of the die. 

... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice . The more the tumbling the worse the die is going to have bias. Think about if you tumbled a d20 into what you believe is a sphere (by your naked eye). If you were to roll that sphere the imperfections would invariable make a certain side of that sphere point up , every single time. 

Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 21, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> ... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.




You might think you have backed up your claims, but you are still using your own "observation bias" as the determinant for what should be an unbiased statistical measurement.

What most people "arguing this" are saying is that the actual bias between a tumbled die and a GS die is, in all probability, "statistically" insignificant.  For the purpose of a roleplaying game it is even more so.  The stakes riding on that "statistical" insignificance are even more "insignificant".




-


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 21, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> I'm fairly good with statistics as my job description requires it, I can confidently say that there are very biased tumbled dice. When this happens I give the offending player a GS die and they roll it and it shuts down these problems really fast.



You haven't yet demonstrated any statistical acumen if you think that one observation of a dice that rolled 20 five times in a row is proof of statistical bias.


Dice4Hire said:


> Now, I will agree that there are probalby some dice out there, due to bubbles inside, or other imperfections, are just plain biased. But I think the odds of that are pretty low also, for all dice, tumbled or not.



Bubbles are internal anyway; tumbling or not won't have any impact on dice with bubbles.


Evenglare said:


> ... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice . The more the tumbling the worse the die is going to have bias. Think about if you tumbled a d20 into what you believe is a sphere (by your naked eye). If you were to roll that sphere the imperfections would invariable make a certain side of that sphere point up , every single time.



You're not wrong about the impact of physics and geometry, you're wrong in that you've created a strawman where the significance of geometry and physics is absurdly exaggerated.  Surely you can see the difference?


			
				Evenglare said:
			
		

> Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics. There is nothing else I can possibly do to convince some of you I guess. Thanks for your time.



Actually, you haven't backed up your claims with much of anything at all.  But surely, as a professional statistician, you already understand that.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2012)

Evenglare said:


> ... how are people arguing this ? It's physics. Break out some geometry, and some elementary physics and you can see clearly the bias in dice .




No, what geometry reveals is a small asymmetry in the die.  Small enough that it isn't really visible on casual observation.  Whether that results in noticeably biased results in typical use is a separate question.  Basic physics suggests the results might be biased.  But real basic physics also teaches you that empirical data trumps assertion.



> Well, I have said what I needed, and backed up my claims with math and physics.




You've invoked the name of math and physics, but not actually used them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2012)

Only Miss Sakamoto can blind me with science...



> Bubbles are internal anyway; tumbling or not won't have any impact on dice with bubbles.




Actually, bubbles & tumbling both affect randomness, just in different ways.  Tumbling can alter the uniformity of the faces of the die.  Internal bubbles- and anything else that breaks up the uniformity of the density of the die- throws off the center of gravity.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 21, 2012)

Right.  My point was that bubbles are a completely SEPARATE issue from tumbling, and tumbling the dice (or not) won't change the bias inherent because of bubbles.


----------



## Evenglare (Sep 21, 2012)

There's no way to settle this argument, you are claiming all dice tubled are non biased. All I have to do is find ONE die that is biased and I win, but then I wont win becuase you can claim that most arent. I cant possibly refute that because I don't have all the die in the world to test. The only thing I CAN say is that there are many dice that are biased and I HAVE come across them. I understand anecdotes aren't evidence, but it still doesnt change the fact that I have run across MANY dice that have consecutively rolled numbers which has provided hardships in my game. So when I give them GS die that problem some how magically goes away. I COULD spend hundreds of hours rolling and testing each and every die that I came across but it would be foolish as this is a social board and I dont have nearly that much time. 

Another thing :rolls eyes: is very very childish, and I would expect more from a 30+ year old assuming your profile is accurate. Also Hobo if you would please read more carefully I never - ever - claimed I was a statistician, I said that my job requires me to know a good amount of statistics. I am an astrophysicist. I have several publications on the matter of asteroids, occultation and am working on a thesis about exoplanets. I must know about randomized data , and different statistical figures to normalize and skew data depending on which CCD cameras are used and what different band filters are used.

If you would like to check  my claims' here are my publications. Thanks for your time.
•	"Observations of Minor Planet K08W32S"
November 25, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-W67.
•	"Observations of Minor Planet K08UR6W"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
•	"Observations of Minor Planet K08UK0U"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
•	"Observations of Minor Planet K01W71C"
December 6, 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2008-X48.
•	"Observations of Minor Planets 3498, 4462 and 29614"
December 2008, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars
•	"Occultations of TYC5234-01020-1 by Minor Planet 43 Ariadne
on September 20, 2008", December 2008International Occultation Timing Association                          

If you would like a link to my thesis and dissertation over exoplanets I'll be happy to provide it. I'm about 90% done. It really is insulting to have your intelligence questioned when I have been working in science and math for 8+ years.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 21, 2012)

See, you haven't even accurately captured the point of those who disagree with you.  Nobody ever claimed that all tumbled dice aren't biased.  In fact, everyone completely AGREED with you on that.  It's been stated repeatedly in this thread.  You've completely misrepresented the folks who disagree with you, in a way that is difficult to believe isn't _deliberately_ obtuse given how many times it's been clarified.  And you've completely misused whatever data you have available to you, and falsely claimed that you've "proven" your point.

And you're trying to take me to task for reading carefully?  I read carefully.  I was being facetious.

As my  smilie indicates.  Even though ENWorld removed that smilie years ago.

I'm not questioning your intelligence.  I don't know the first thing about your intelligence.  I'm certainly questioning your competence when it comes to the use of data, statistics and proveable science, though.


----------



## JediSoth (Sep 21, 2012)

Soo.....how about them dice?

I've heard a lot of people talk about how ugly Game Science dice are, and yes, I've seen some unattractive ones, but I don't think my red-ink solid black dice are ugly at all, nor are the white-inked Tanzanite (it's a clear violet) I bought my wife.

Certainly, some of the Chessex or Koplow swirly colored solids can have some distressingly ugly combinations approaching diseased mud.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2012)

Starting at the end....



> If you would like a link to my thesis and dissertation over exoplanets I'll be happy to provide it. I'm about 90% done. It really is insulting to have your intelligence questioned when I have been working in science and math for 8+ years.




If you are that well trained, you should know that argument from authority doesn't mean much.  Trained people can be wrong.  

In this case, you, have failed to note that the basic issue is not  whether they dice are biased, but whether they are biased _enough to matter_.  Your authority doesn't matter much if you don't take enough care to apply it properly.



Evenglare said:


> There's no way to settle this argument, you are claiming all dice tubled are non biased. All I have to do is find ONE die that is biased and I win...




Ah.  You're trying to win.

I'm trying to make reality more obvious.  I don't care about winning.

Try this one - no die you can purchase for gaming is without bias.  Period.  GameScience dice are also biased - nobody makes perfect forms for consumer prices.  

Now, there's an argument that GS dice are *less* biased than tumbled dice.  What you have failed to prove is that the bias in GS dice is, in the RPG context, noticeable in normal play.  

I handed everyone tools to do that up thread with a chi-suqare analysis.  Folks can just get some GS dice and other dice, and compare, and decide if it matters to them.  Problem solved.  And nobody has to win or lose.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 22, 2012)

JediSoth said:


> Certainly, some of the Chessex or Koplow swirly colored solids can have some distressingly ugly combinations approaching diseased mud.



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder before he uses the disintegrate on you.  If I see Pepto-bismol pink swirly dice I know girls who will ooh and ah over them.  "Vomitization!" says you and I, of course.

I remember buying the first "crystal" dice where you could SEE the bubbles inside.  I also remember inking those d20's carefully to take every advantage of that bubble.  I eventually threw them all away because not only I but everyone at the table found them unreadable. Ah, those were the days.

I had a DM long ago who took a freaking FILE to the corners and edges of his d20's with the specific intent of making them roll higher more often.  I don't think it really helped him much.

These days I personally prefer nicely polished dice sets in solid, primary colors.  Readability has come to be a significant factor to my aging eyes.  But, if I feel like I'm rolling too low too often I grab a different set and it doesn't matter what color.  If that set rolls low I grab another and another...

Most players I know or have ever met would, I'm sure, say that dice are a fashion statement, not a tool of greater accuracy in random number generation.


----------



## Desdichado (Sep 22, 2012)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Most players I know or have ever met would, I'm sure, say that dice are a fashion statement, not a tool of greater accuracy in random number generation.



I'm not sure that they'd _say_ that, but clearly that's what their behavior indicates nonetheless.

Myself included.


----------

