What fucking dice should I use? Tired of Chessex fucking over

File: zocchi3[1].jpg (361KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 2048x1536px

I like gamescience dice, but I don't honestly know that it makes that big of a difference as far as randomness goes.

I would avoid stone/metal dice though. They're heavy and will fuck up peoples tables.

Also Q-Workshop dice and other 'busy' dice will make everyone at the table hate you.

>>49456488
I thought game science doesn't sell dice with painted numbers? It's impossible to read them without it.

>>49456453
Wait
Is chessex a shit?

>>49456518
They sell painted verisons, but its cheaper to buy them unpainted and paint the digits yourself.

>>49456488
I got a set of those dice and the paint they used for the numbers is shit and is already wearing off after a month. Is there a easy way to re-color those numbers?

>>49456754
I just used some model paint. You can put a little bit on the face of the die and wipe it off with your finger in a way that fills the digits. Its pretty easy to do.

All this talk about the paint on gamescience is turning me off of them. I'll probably just stick with artisan. Woo!

>>49456713

Gamescience used to tell you they were, but that was to get you to buy their overpriced sharp-cornered unpainted dice.
The difference in randomness between GS and Chessex' standard dice is tiny, though. Like 1 in 100000 rolls different.

If you think a die is funny, get a small cup and fill it with warm water and mix in some Epsom salt. If you get enough in there, you can drop a die in there and it will float, and you can see if it's weighted when you turn it, because it will pull towards a certain face. If it pulls strongly, you've got a bad die, toss it.

Also, stupid math trick: If you roll two dice and add the numbers together, rolling it over if it surpasses the maximum face value for the die size, any bias in the dice gets reduced by a lot, even if both dice are loaded.
Not really practical, but neat.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (59KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1280x720px

>>49456830
But they're so purdy!

>>49456867

That's true, and I wouldn't dissuade any fa/tg/uy who wanted to spend bucks on cool looking /tg/ stuff, but just be aware that it's not going to be a big improvement in randomness, because most dice are already plenty good enough for tabletop. It's just that people are bad at telling what's random and what's not.

What about casino dice? They've gotta be super calibrated. So the manufacturers of casino dice also make tabletop gaming dice?

File: d20 stats for 2k rolls, Chessex speckled and opaque.png (126KB, 1035x1135px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1035x1135px

>>49456713
>>49456830
I was a bit dismayed at how poorly the Chessex dice I tested were. Granted, it's only 2,000 rolls each, so you'd expect to see a decent bit of white noise, but the similarity of the results between the dice weighs in favor of imbalance. (For both dice, 20 had the least results, 8 had the second least results, 1 had the third least results, and 14 had the fourth least results. For both, 6 had the most results--though for the top die, it was a three-way tie.)

>>49456948
No, Vegas d6 makers don't make d20s.

>Also, stupid math trick
Sorry, could you explain this again? Dumb it down for us, Doc.

>>49456948
As far as I am aware only d6 exist, because who the fuck would care about some autismos and their unbalanced d20.

File: d20 rolls, Chessex speckled die vs. Excel simulations.png (309KB, 1961x1026px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1961x1026px

>>49457059
Here's that bottom (speckled) die compared with Excel simulations, so you can have something to compare it to. Of note is that out of 1,000 Excel simulations (of 2,000 die rolls each), only 2% had results as high as you see you see for the number 6 on that speckled die, and 0% -- nada, none -- had a result anywhere near as low as for the number 20.

>>49456453
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI3N4Qg-JZM

Whatever group you buy from, try to get translucent plastic with minimal air bubbles, floating dice in salt water can help to determine dice balance.

I had a really bad d20 I think it was from Chessex, really big air bubble, once rolled it 206 times without scoring a 20, by my rolling chart (1000 rolls) it really favored the 4 area, lots of 4,3,7 over most others, only 7 20s on the 1000 test

File: image.jpg (357KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1500x1500px

I've got two dice sets on their way, this is the first set

File: image.jpg (431KB, 1000x630px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1000x630px

>>49457191
This is the other set, forest themed

File: 1462328625705.jpg (20KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 460x276px

>>49457191
Jesus, fuck my eyes, no. Those are unreadable.

>>49457205
Get your money back.

>>49457215
Seriously? I'm having literally no issues reading these, and I don't even have them yet

>>49457059
>>49457157
You actually rolled your die 2000 times? How long did that take?

>deficient in 20s
Give it to your GM as a gift.

File: d20 stats for 2k rolls, old dice.png (155KB, 1057x1305px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1057x1305px

>>49457157
Now, I don't have any Gamescience tests to compare these to (I've ordered some Gamescience dice and will let you know the results once they show up, and I have the time and patience to test them) but I'm not happy with the results, especially since almost all of rather large dice collection consists of Chessex dice. I did test a couple of old dice I have from the 80's (see pic), and they did worse than Chessex dice, but I'm not sure how much that tells you. The bottom die is all beat up and crumbly-looking along the edges and rolls like a fucking marble, so I'm not surprised it did poorly. That the other die did much worse is rather shocking. Both dice are smaller than is standard now (14mm instead of 16mm?), which may have contributed a bit to the bias, but the top die is translucent and you can't see any imperfections in it.

>>49457233
Because you're looking at giant versions on a perfectly clean white surface. Good luck seeing the numbers quickly when rolling on a gamer's messy table IRL.

File: Wejhdl.jpg (862KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 2448x3264px

>>49456713
Chessex opaque dice are known to have extreme imperfections in the plastic, air bubbles, malformations, recycled plastic from other miscast dice, ect. Their balance can be WAY off to the point they're almost weighted dice.

Chessex translucent are fine, because you can see through them you can't get away with just saying "fuck it" to imperfections.

Pic is a chessex opaque d20 cut open.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 432x432px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 432x432px

>>49457215
I could've gotten this version of the Elven dice

>>49457134

Say you've got a d8, and you know it's funky. (Or players are arguing that they think the dice are funky, whatever.)
You can roll two of them and add them together. If the result is more than 8, subtract 8 from it, so 9 become 1, 10 becomes a 2, etc.

This makes the die results fairer. Even if both your d8s were loaded to roll say, a 1 most of the time, the combined dice will still be much closer to fair than to the loaded state, due to how the math works -- it spreads the bias out over the other numbers, flattening the results.

But testing your dice with salt water is a lot less hassle.

>>49457237
>You actually rolled your die 2000 times? How long did that take?
Way, way too long. I do it while listening to something -- radio news, music I'm trying to sort through, a lecture, etc. -- to keep myself from dying of boredom.

>>49457253
Even on the tiny ass thumbnails I could still read them
granted, I'm still new as fuck to tabletop gaming, I've got all the D&D 5e books and the DM screen on the way too

>>49457282
>Even on the tiny ass thumbnails I could still read them
You're fucking lying and you know it.

>>49457300
Here's your (You).

>>49457257
Holy shit, this is disgusting.

>>49457246
>>49457157
>>49457059
Anyway, I did a float test on my Chessex dice* and while I could only get a few of them to actually float at the top, most of them turned to favor the 20 side as they (slowly) sank. I can't give you exact figures at this point, but I'd say that only about 1 in 10 didn't display any bias.

*See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI3N4Qg-JZM

File: image.png (967KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 1536x2048px

>>49457296
Oh, so hard. Granted I'm on mobile most of the time

>>49457189
Hunh, I didn't know that. Handy, thanks.

>>49457306

Okay. Have fun being a loser for the rest of your life because you actually care about pieces of plastic and complain that they might not be 100% fair. It's a fucking physical process, nothing is truly random except for possibly quantum noise and no one even knows that. Okay? The universe is made of some starnge shit, maybe until one day you are an actual scientist (Protip: you aren't) you should shut the fuck up and quit whining about things you don't know.

Your dice are fine. Go back to playing D&D or GURPS or whatever you play, and quit bitching.

>>49457327
You probably didn't use enough salt.

>>49457352
Here's your other (You).

>>49457300
Die.

This is why I just use computer dice rollers.

>>49457205
These are nice looking, especially this set, but I'm not sure if I could read those in real play.

>>49457233
They're pretty busy for gaming dice.

File: 1463345032681.jpg (170KB, 580x639px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 580x639px

Here's somebody else's comparison of a Chessex and a Gamescience d20, with 10,000 rolls apiece. IIRC, they didn't cut/file the nub off the Gamescience die, so you would expect the number 14 to be less disfavored if you did so.

>>49456453
I got a mini set of quartz dice as a gift I like to use, and the only time it was an issue was when a fa/tg/uy at my table started to raise a fuss that they couldn't be balanced. Scuz me, guy, but you rolled four eighteens on character creation and you're calling me out because I beat you on a search check?

>>49457189
Now I'm thinking of going to the LGS with a cup of salt water to buy some new dice. Somehow I don't think they would appreciate it.

>>49457353
>You probably didn't use enough salt.
I used more salt that the water would hold. There was a thick layer of it at the bottom of the glass. I even tried it with different temperatures of water, but that didn't seem to make a difference to how well the dice floated. I've seen some folks suggest using epsom salt rather than ordinary table salt, and maybe that would've made the difference; I don't know.

>>49457352
Wow, I'm genuinely interested in knowing whether you are really this angry about how someone else is spending their time, or if you're just trying to upset that guy.

>>49457353
One of the few guys in this thread that's not salty enough.

>>49457327
Of note is the fact that the bottom die here >>49457059 (the one with the atrociously low number of 20s) is one of the dice that actually did float at the top of the glass, which maybe indicates it had a (larger?) bubble of air than most of the others. I'd say that maybe 1 out of 4 or 5 floated at the top.

>>49457411
For my first actual dice sets for a new hobby, I wanted something pleasing to the eye and also relatively cheap. I'll get fancier dice down the road made from antler or something

>>49456453
>Tired of Chessex fucking over my characters.
Unless you've been using the same dice for years and have been collecting objective data this whole time, you cannot infer that this is true.

Any data on whether stone dice are fair or not?

>>49456754
I don't know about recoloring but an extra-fine tip sharpie (at least I think it was extra fine) does pretty well if you're marking the numbers in black. To mark my d16s in white, I couldn't find a sufficiently fine-tip paint pen, so I ended up having to vigorously rub the paint off the surface (rubbing them against the leg of my fuzzy pajama pants, while I was wearing them, violently enough that they started to get hot from the friction seemed to work better than anything else), which was a pain in the ass. But that was with a d16 (which has small sides) and I was actually painting over black ink (well, I removed as much of the ink as possible with rubbing alcohol first, but it was still imperfect), so it might normally be easier, especially if you had a pen with a tip small enough to actually fit down into the grooves without going all over the surface. Regardless, the job looks good; it just took way too much effort. (Though I haven't used them much, so I can't speak to how durable it will be.)

>>49457461
>I've seen some folks suggest using epsom salt rather than ordinary table salt, and maybe that would've made the difference; I don't know.

Yes, water can absorb more of that than table salt.

>>49457626

Try crayons, I hear they work well.

File: 100_4475[1].jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>49457655
Pictured: Lou Zocchi scolding some fool for using crayons on his dice.

File: 1473284489266.jpg (37KB, 604x340px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 604x340px

>>49457300

>>49456488
I got a few sets of GS dice too. Some I inked with sharpies and others by rubbing crayon. They look, roll, and feel good...so yeah, no complaints.

>>49457743
Whatever, bought some of his dice, "inked" them with crayon, they work great.

>>49456518
They do. My friend got me a purple set for my birthday inked in white. They're pretty dank. They roll fairly well for me and in an emergency I can use them as caltrops.

File: Zocchi[1].jpg (32KB, 320x311px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 320x311px

>>49457913
You might think they work great, but they're not giving you equal access to all the faces they have.

Characters are dying who deserved to live but who's dice could not roll saving numbers.

>>49457913
Pretty sure it's just a joke. He's said in an inking video that using crayon is fine and the only issue is that sometimes the numbers fall out and the warmer the dice gets the more prone this is to happening. It's not a problem, more just a mildly amusing minor drawback.

File: zocchi[1].jpg (329KB, 506x782px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 506x782px

>>49457976
This is no joke! Does this look like the kind of face that would lie to you?

File: dice.jpg (1MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2304px

Anyone got an opinion on dice-roller apps?

>>49458089
kys

>>49458089
Digital rulebooks are barely acceptable. Digital character sheets are heresy, and digital dice rollers are heresy of the highest order.

>>49457743
Holy shit you americans are fat.

>>49458046
Yeah, he reminds me of a grandpa who can dish out some top quality bantz.

>>49458089
As this >>49458164 anon said, they are far superior comparing to physical dice.

File: 100_4450.jpg (3MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x3264px

>>49458192
Because they couldn't roll saving rolls on their will saves.

>>49458192
>starving third worlder who doesn't even have the freedom to post political dissension online

>"haha a-at least i'm not fat like you MURRICANS, owned!"

File: hkfldshfh.jpg (25KB, 500x469px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x469px

>>49458258
Now that's a burn, son!

>>49456453
Gamescience dice in either opaque or translucent or Koplow Dice in transparent.

Gamescience dice are precision so no matter if you get opaque or translucent they will be consistently made. So you don't have to worry about hidden problems.

Kopleow Dice are fairly consistant in manufacture but the reason i'd recommend the translucent is because opaque dice can have bubbles that you wouldn't be able to see while translucent dice would be easier to check and would be categorized as seconds by Koplow.

>>49458258
>freedom
>when libtards shat on your precious constitution like there is no tomorrow
Ayy

>>49458311
>"y-you have libruls too, so that means you're as bad as us even though we're literally being slaughtered by refugees!"

Keep on projecting, kid.

File: koplow-7-assorted-transparent-dice[1].jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>49458296
This probably sounds retarded, but I like koplow dice because of the tube they came in.

>>49458325
>refugees
I didn't see any in my country, thanks.
>Keep on projecting, kid.

>>49458328
l-lewd

>>49458328
I've always liked Koplow dice they are well designed and have that old school appeal that made me choose them over chessex.

File: asffassggsg.jpg (36KB, 500x469px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x469px

>>49458355
Not as old school as gamescience!

>>49456488
What's wrong with Q-Workshop dice? What do you mean by "busy"?

>>49456453
The correct answer is always gamescience dice

File: il_fullxfull.344001531[1].jpg (485KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1500x1500px

No love for dice towers?

No idea if they make things 'more random' but it keeps your dumbass from rolling dice off the fucking table every five minutes.

>>49456453
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1495Y-oa4SM

>>49458402
I have two sets of them, so don't think I'm just shitting on them.

"busy" meaning theres a lot of stuff on the dice faces besides the digits. They're super hard to read at a distance.

>>49457334
Holy shit they should call you Ol Eagle Eye

>>49458417
He has one on those too, and some dice cups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO8sfQsaWP0

>>49457655
>>49457743
>>49458192
Have a 40 minute video on how to ink gamescience dice, actually pretty informative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaDzqYZufIQ

>>49458433
too bad I'm blind as fuck without my glasses

File: ako dice.jpg (67KB, 680x452px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x452px

I got these ako dice in red and black just because they look snazzy

>>49458417
I don't like towers, they kill any pleasure from rolling dice. Use trays to keep dice in place.

File: Little_Richard.jpg (35KB, 430x356px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 430x356px

>>49458473
No offense but who needs to watch a 40 minute video to know how to ink dice? I did it my first time without any problem.

And I'm retarded.

>>49458164
>Digital character sheets are heresy
what if you're playing shadowrun?

I'll second you on the dice rollers and rulebooks.
My personal thing is even if everyone has a digiital rulebook, there should be at least one copy of a core book(s) physically at the table.

>>49458503
because it's interesting to some and tells you everything you need to know about dice, it's not just about inking

>>49458328
I've got koplow dice, I like them the best, got them first of any of my dice. Pisses me off since I keep losing them, though.
Missing my d20, d12, and one of my d6s from it.

>>49458417
like >>49458501 said, it kills the feel actually rolling dice.

File: Deathwatch-Dice-Warhammer-40000-Games-Workshop-BNIB.jpg (97KB, 920x950px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 920x950px

>>49458402
They're impractical for quickly figuring out the roll results.

>inb4 those are special deathwatch dice not d6s

>>49458491
I want a fuck ton of the d6s just for games like Shadowrun, or anything else mildly futuristic

File: sad.jpg (76KB, 766x734px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 766x734px

>>49458543
Nothing makes me as sad as lost dice.

I've seriously stopped using sets because i lost a die and now i don't have a matching set.

>>49457655
I haven't done that in decades, but the ones I did back in the 80s were less than stellar. Maybe there is some technique or type of crayon I needed to use, but the "inking" isn't anywhere near as smooth and uniform as with a sharpie or paint pen.

>>49458543
I have an old set of Koplow transparent orange with black numbers that they don't make anymore and it makes me sad that I have some missing from the set and I can't replace them anymore.

>>49458232
So I DO have something to blame my diabetes on other than me being fat?

>>49458328
That's why I like Chessex dice. They come in little clear boxes that are impossible to open without breaking the bottom all to shit

File: tumblr_o8dn9v11W51qfetq0o1_1280.jpg (394KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1280x1280px

>>49458946
Yes. You were using inferior dice that have been tumbled too long.

Putting your dice in a rock tumbler causes diabetes. And cancer.

>>49457263

What's even neater is that if one of the dice is perfectly fair, the result will be perfectly fair regardless of how biased the other dice is, which is a bit of a brain bender until I reasoned it out like this: no matter how biased the false die is it will always present the other die the full compliment of possibilities and the fair die will always make a random selection among them.

>>49458965
Or you be old school and put your dice in a Crown Royal bag.

File: tower2.jpg (48KB, 1800x900px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1800x900px

>>49458501
>>49458550
What if you put a tray ON TOP OF the dice tower?

>>49459785
that's.... probably fine?
I don't see how you'd A. keep it balanced and B. have a place to put it as the entire purpose of a dice tower is getting truly random rolls with very little flat space taken up

File: Alexander.png (6KB, 252x336px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x336px

>>49459830
Think like a pool table, but all the pockets are dice towers.

>>49459830
> not gaming on top of your table-sized dice tower top tray

Do you even random?

File: mini_dice_in_a_bottle_by_tarasknobi-d3d0hoj.jpg (99KB, 900x825px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x825px

does anyone know of any minidice that ARNT just d6s? the only thing i can find are shitty metal ones. i want them because my first lgs sold minidice for cheap, and over the years iv lost most, if not all of them, and they were all only d6 in the first place

>>49459926

I dunno about full sets, but gamescience sells mini 20 sided d10s.

I'm going to buy some dice on amazon RIGHT NOW, /tg/.

Tell me what to buy.

File: 040818-3-gencon-tadashi-louzocchi.jpg (867KB, 2304x1704px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 2304x1704px

>>49459954
And those miniature d10s roll precisely, unlike inferior dice you might get from chessex.

Also on a more serious note they have miniature dice sets at reapersrevenge. Can't attest to their quality though.

>>49459954
im hoping for a full set, but honestly, anything other than a d6, or a massively expensive metal set, is more than iv found so far, so thanks.

>>49459785
>HAHA GUYS I ROLLED NAT 20 ON THAT REALLY HARD CHECK
>what? No you can't see, don't you trust me? Just take my word for it, okay?

No, but seriously. Make an entire table like this, and the tower is only for the GM, and you're golden

>>49459954
>Twenty sided d10
So it's a d20 with doubles printed on it?

>>49460014

Yeah, you can use them as d10s, or d20s, if you ink the two sets of numbers with different colors.

>>49459961
Dice.
And maybe a fleshlight or something. Treat yo'self

>>49459984
these dont look that bad, alot of their colors are shit, and half of their gem sets are out of stock, but il definately keep an eye on them, hoping for a restock
the price isn't terrible either, and its nice that the set is numbers. my old ones are all pips, and i remember them being a little hard to read because of it.

File: qwertyuiop.jpg (71KB, 477x489px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 477x489px

>>49460021
Then spend hours arguing with your players/dm about whether or not you rolled a 10 or a 20.

I bought one of those things by accident at owlcon once... all for a practically unusuable d10. The a-hole had it in a 7-piece rpg set too. So I have 2 d10s.

>>49460069

I don't personally use them for d20s, but I find them to be nice d10s.

Plus, it means all of my dice are platonic solids

>>49460069
But anon, many RPG die sets come with 2 d10s, for percentiles.

>>49460069
>Then spend hours arguing with your players/dm about whether or not you rolled a 10 or a 20.
I'm guessing you're too young to know people played just fine before d10s as we know them today were even invented, and have zero concept of "the control die."

File: adahbjiloveijsdadpenis.jpg (422KB, 1200x982px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1200x982px

>>49460501
True, I suppose. Though normally the d100 has two digits.

Even so, It was a 7 piece RPG set without a d20. While all rpgs don't use d20s the most popular one does.

>>49456948
Casino dice have near-perfect or as close to perfect as you can get balance and statistical curves, but come with caveats that make them useless for tabletop use.

First off, they're massive and heavy. The only way to get a proper roll out of them is to bounce them off something. In Casinos with is the craps pit, where you have to bounce the dice off the back wall or your roll doesn't count. If you don't bounce your dice off something, the reliability, weight and lack off rounded corners of the Casino dice make them the easiest dice in the world to manipulate and cheat with. Never play with people trying to play with Casino dice on the table unless they brought their own craps pit.

Second, Casino dice are fragile. They are machined to have perfect dimensions, but with that comes with perfect pointy edges and corners. The requirements in materials to make machining possible means the dice will chip during use, and a die, casino or otherwise, with a single chip in it is essentially a weighted die. In casinos the lifetime of a set of dice is less than a day, at worst a few hours.

So, sure, you can use casino dice and have excellent statistical randomization, but you need:

1. A craps pit to throw into
2. A new set of dice every session

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAnCL3vhVIs
Geometry-related weirdness and the impracticalities of large-number dice.

>>49458328
That d4 ruins it for me.

>>49458491
>Only d6's

Fucking worthless.

>>49461536
I knew a guy who used casino dice for WHFB, he would drop handfuls of fuckhuge dice into a box lid and they would barely roll

Totally pointless

File: cf1.jpg (44KB, 1137x853px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1137x853px

>>49464314
Speaking of which anyone ever encountered someone 'cheating' with their dice.

Like using some weighed bullshit or snatching up their dice as soon as they rolled them? "No seriously guys it was another 20"

Q-workshop are great for that kind of shit. Since you can't read the fucking things without a magnifying glass.

>>49466330

Nobody I know has ever been that big of an asshat, but I've heard of people doing it from time to time in friends' groups. There's always that one dude who thinks he's going to win D&D.

>>49466330
>Like using some weighed bullshit or snatching up their dice as soon as they rolled them?
Yeah, that completely wouldn't fly with me. I might let him get away with doing it once, warning him that in the future he needs to leave it where it lands, but if he pulled that shit a second time, I'd make him reroll. And after that, I'd just have him auto-fail.

>Q-workshop are great for that kind of shit.
The groups I game with tend to insist on easily-readable dice. Not everybody in the group necessarily, but at least one other person (than me) in each group. And when I'm actually running a game, everybody uses my dice, no exceptions.

>>49460069
You realize you're supposed to paint the two 1-10 number sets different colors, right? One set is 1-10, the other is 11-20.

That's how it used to be done before d10s.

Always get transluctent monocolored dice, that way there won't be as many mistakes and it will be more balanced.

>>49468707
... or at least you can see the bubbles.

File: ScorchedBronzeDice.png (985KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 1000x1000px

>>49456453
Anon, This is what you need.

Sadly, you can not have it, because the guy who makes them is almost completely out of stock of everything, after Howard Tayler did a review of his product... (die hard dice dot com)

Anyone know of a brand that does good d6s with pips in them? I'd love to have some, but gamescience doesn't offer six sided dice with pips.

>>49468727
If you get a tonne of dice you can pick out the good ones from the bad ones. You can't do the same with solid or multicolored ones, you're right. I should've worded it better.

>>49468757
... casinos sell old dice?

>>49468776
They always drill a hole in them to make sure nobody can rig them and sneak them back into the casino to cheat though, so they're guaranteed to be biased (due to the big honkin' extra hole)

>>49468757
http://www.gamesciencedice.com/-19mm-Translucent-d6--One-Pair-_p_58.html

>>49468807
I don't think these are actually "gamescience" dice, they're just offered in the store. The edges are smooth and uneven, looks like a generic brand just to round out the store's inventory.

>>49464165
Pyramid d4s are standard. You just need to to buy some decent d4s separately.

>>49468847
I'm taking about the numbers. I like d4' with the numbers on the point not the base.

>>49468832
You're right that it doesn't have the sharp corners you see on the others.

File: d4s, alternate.png (439KB, 1115x247px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1115x247px

>>49468872
While I agree with that that is superior, it's such a minor concern compared to how awful the shape of the die is. It's sort of like being anally fisted some roid-fuel hulk and complaining about his cologne.

>>49456488
My wife got gifted a set of gamescience dice by a student last year (she's an elementary-school teacher and runs RPGs as after/before school activities) and now she swears they only roll 20s...

But in all seriousness they've held up pretty well so far. No complaints about the numbers being hard to read or anything like that.

>>49468776
https://www.amazon.com/Trademark-Poker-Grade-Serialized-Casino/dp/B000RQ0GLU?th=1

Gamescience, bruh. I get a new set for every new type of character I play. Just be aware that the company itself is back to being owned by Zocchi, so they're having to regrow their available product line. It's totally worth it, though.

File: DC_D4Y.jpg (210KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 750x750px

>>49468966
Top read best read

>>49458982
>>tfw Crown Royal no longer packages that sweet bag in with their whisky.

>2015
>not using a dice app

>>49469191
*triggered*

>>49469255

You can literally order bags with custom words on the crown royal website.

>>49469292
>2015

Anyone own any Wiz dice? Thinking to get some as they are quite cheap but I like Chessex for whatever reason. The d4 reads differently

>>49469292
>allowing phones at the table
Fuck that shit. Also, rolling dice is cooler.

>>49469338

I have some wiz dice, they are alright. Not significantly different from Chessex.

The best thing about wiz dice is that their giant bags of dice are generally way better than Chessex's pound of dice, in that chessex you get a random assortment of dice, and with wiz dice, you generally get something like 15 full sets of dice.

File: Comic Book Guy.jpg (136KB, 650x354px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 650x354px

>>49469292

>dice apps

There will be no phones at my table! If you cannot afford real dice, you will be asked to leave like the roving vagabond you are!

>>49457461
If you can't observe a difference between cold and hot water, you are fucking doing it wrong or lying. Hot water can dissolve more of ANYTHING than cold water and will therefore have a higher density. Water changes very little in density between temperatures even though it is the most dense at 4° Celsius, but the additional amounts of salt you can dissolve will offset that by orders of magnitude.

>>49469383

He should still be using epsom salt instead.

>>49456453
>brand dice
You're as fucked in the head as the guys on /v/ that pretends that mechanical keyboards are more cost efficient than $5 membrane keyboards because they last longer.

On topic, I use cheap noname dice bought for like a dollar for a big handful of them, and then I use the one that seems to be the most lucky.

>>49469380
I prefer real dice as well, but the Star Wars Dice App is an excellent tool. Phones off at my table unless it's a tablet with SWDA for damn sure.

>>49469383
It was room temperature water and (relatively) hot water. I couldn't tell a difference as far as dice floating went.* I mean, I wasn't doing side-by-side tests and measuring how long it took for die A to hit the bottom, so it's possible there was variation there, but no die that sank in the "cold" water floated in the hot.

*I also couldn't tell a difference as far as salt absorption went, but that's just because I just kept dumping salt in well past the point at which the water refused to hold it, without measuring the quantity.

>>49469395
I'd consider doing that if I didn't already learn what I needed to. Sure, most dice sank, but they did so slowly enough that you could tell when they were turning to favor a particular side.

>>49469396
NO U

>>49469396
>thinks one dice if more lucky than other
>criticizing people for wanting nice things

Got a 50$ sack of dice from GS and a Ducky shine 5 mechanical keyboard. Stay mad others can appreciate nice things.

File: rain.jpg (43KB, 510x789px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 510x789px

I personally like having physical dice, because it makes it feel more fun. Using a phone app or something just seems to take away part of the fun, ya know?
>I'm co-GMing and the group that I'm playing with is full of nothing but stoners, so when we play they have more interest in the weed. Not only does that suck but when we actually play nobody ever bothers to bring there own dice. So they just use a phone app, and as soon as they are done they either fuck around with the phone because its right in front of them now, or smoke and not pay any attention.
>The worst part is its boring to play with them. They dont even try to spice it up. They just go "Ima hit it" and thats it. No cool flips or anything, no specific point of attack. Just "Ima hit it".
>Makes me sad that I even try.

>>49469938
>nobody ever bothers to bring there own dice. So they just use a phone app
Supply them with dice. Dice aren't that expensive and having 2 to 4 sets of table dice shouldn't set you back that much.

>The worst part is its boring to play with them. They dont even try to spice it up.
Give people bonuses when they're descriptive. (To begin with, you can give them a +1 if they say much of anything at all and +2 if they're really colorful.) Let them know when you're applying these bonuses: "Good detail. Give yourself a +1." If they give even the slightest bit of a shit, they'll become significantly more loquacious. (And if you're worried this will make things too easy, just compensate by making everything a bit harder by default.)

>>49469380
>Have a dice tray full of dice
>Still mostly use online dice rollers

Its just so much simpler and more convenient. Also I can start rolling for shit without my players noticing.

>>49470057
I like that second idea. I will give that a go.
I however cannot buy 6 sets of dice going around 10$ each
>Im living a poor mans life rn. Maybe if I get the 2nd job I'm hoping for and have a bit more spending money.
It's not the fact that I could buy them the dice, it's the fact that the true GM sent them all an phone app to use if they didn't have dice, and nobody other than the GM's sister downloaded it.
He made sure to tell everybody the name of the app too, so nobody was left out.

>>49469292
> Anonymous 09/22/16(Thu)19:53:19
>2015
So are you just flat out retarded or what?

>>49458089
I use a tablet at the table with dicebag open that everyone uses to roll (and to play music), I use my phone as GM to "roll behind the screen".
No problem with it, it's true random and isn't skewed like real dice tend to be.
I also don't really care how people manage their character sheets, when I'm a player I like to have it open on my tablet and when I'm the DM I just ask people to email it to me if it's digital or let me keep the physical copy if they play with a paper sheet.

File: dice_wallpaper_1280x1024_by_scogs.jpg (564KB, 1280x1025px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1280x1025px

>>49469292
I know. I make all my PCs use a rice roller app. No cheating, no rolling dice off the table like an austist, no bullshit q-workshit dice.

It's beautiful.

>>49470204
If they're table dice, you could probably make due with 3 sets of dice that people share. And if you're okay with cheap dice, you can apparently find sets like these for like $3.

https://www.wish.com/c/55aa162df309e174be01cd2a?hide_login_modal=true&from_ad=pla1

https://www.wish.com/c/567b5b22e864392c0feb60e0?hide_login_modal=true&from_ad=pla1

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/121789868775?lpid=82&chn=ps&ul_noapp=true

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Set-of-7-Sided-Die-D4-D6-D8-D10-D12-D20-DUNGEONS-DRAGONS-D-D-RPG-Game-Dice/141802869600?

>>49457259
I have those in red, my wife thought they looked neat. Regret after two rolls.

>>49469292
>needing an app to do "javascript:alert(Math.floor(Math.random()*20)+1);>>49469292
"

>>49469916
>Ducky shine 5
Same, love that thing.

Where do you guys get your dice?

I guess GameScience you have to get direct from manufacturer?
What about good sets of Koplow/Chessex/etc.

>>49472055

For gamescience I get them from the manufacturer, yeah. As for chessex/etc, amazon is usually a good place to start.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (114KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1920x1080px

>>49472055
You can get dice pretty much anywhere these days. Depends on the kind y ou want. For koplow/chessex you can probably get those on amazon.

Gamescience you have to order direct.. i've seen q-workshop in a few FLGs.

Most of my dice I've gotten offline or from my game store. .. I have too many dice.

>>49470268
>>49458089
They are NOT true random. It is impossible for a computer-generated number to be truly random.

t. engineer

>>49456453
random.org
Here

>>49471820
Same, I couldn't be happier with it. What key switch do you have? I went with browns, I find them more comfortable to type on.

>>49468752
This guy is right. Die hard are truly great dice and the guy who runs it is super nice too.

If you have luck it should have some dice at stock.

http://www.dieharddice.com/

>>49458089
I use them for FFGs Star Wars games because fuck paying 20-30$ in Canadian Monopoly money for a single set that only works with one game

>>49472584
I have two, one brown and one blue. I like the browns just for fucking about, but for serious typing I like how tactile the blues are.

>>49475481
Site says they're gonna restock soon. Get hype.

>>49469255
Yes they do...? I've literally gotten like 5 from a friend of a friend who knows they make decent dice backs since June.

>>49457259
I have only the d6, but it's opaque, black writing on light grey bakground, and thus quite good to read. All the others have much messier surfaces, with smaller numbers and less clear area around them, so they're not as easy to read.

>>49475481
I don't know if that's known already but there seems to be a chinese knockofff version as well.

ebay.de/itm/like/7pcs-Multi-seitige-Wurfel-Spiele-Fur-Dungeons-Dragons-D4-d20-Wurfel-11-Farbe/291849344062

>>49471649
>Math.random()*20
shouldn't that be %20? Also using floor after modulo is redundant, isn't it?

>>49481415
Oooh. I'm wrong. js Math.random gives a result in [0 .. 1)