I've noticed a number of my players (read: all of my players) don't like GameScience dice. They claim that they always roll terrible. I know a number of OSR types swear by them, and I certainly own more than my fair share, but I was wondering if anyone else had met people with a similar reaction.
Not a big fan of the normal Gamescience as they're -- well -- SHARP. I've had a set of Gamescience cut through a felt dice bag before, and God forbid you step on one. I like my dice with a bit of a rounded worn edge to 'em.
ReplyDeleteI have one Gamescience red d20, but I don't use it much any more. I'm not sure why, but I do vaguely recall that it seemed to be fond of the seven to nine range of numbers.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I have gamed with anyone in the past 10 years who uses Game Science Dice. I should probably order a set, but I do love my skewed, pink Chessex dice.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest beef I have with my Game Science dice is that they are smaller than my Chessex ones. In play, I am more apt to grab a die that I can see the numbers on more clearly - and bigger is better with these failing eyes of mine. If GS made their dice equal to or bigger than Chessex, I'd probably buy a heck of a lot more sets and use them exclusively.
ReplyDeleteOh - and all that is as a DM. If I was on the other side of the screen more than once a year, I'd be sticking with the Chessex. Some definitely roll higher than others more often. The GS seem to be more statistically where they should be. :)
- Ark
The other dice favor numbers, and that's a fact. What your players don't like is randomness.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Game Science dice are more random is utter nonsense. I've bought 3 sets of Gamescience dice at this point and every last one of them has been more biased than the set I've been using for the last 20+ years. As if that's not bad enough, they're sharp, and they are harder to actually roll(unless you use a cup).
ReplyDeleteI don't actually own a set of Game Science dice, yet. I have a few I have purchased from e-bay in dice lots and I have old dice, called Dwarven Forged I believe, that look much like the Game Science dice. That would be the smoke d6 I was using to roll initiative. It did seem to favor the 1 to 3 rolls quite a bit so it is now retired from the initiative rolling duty.
ReplyDeleteI like my set, and I'm thinking of getting another. They do seem more random than my other dice.
ReplyDeleteWhat folks seem to misunderstand about the bias of chessex and other lower quality die are that they're neither favorable or unfavorable. Ever.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, the die being short on a given axis does increase the probability of a given # showing up. It also, however, increases the probability that the opposing # shows up by the same degree. If you take a look at your die, you will notice that the opposing #s always add up to 1+the highest # on the die.
Your die may favor the 20, but it favors the 1 by just as much. If it favors the 10, it also favors the 11. Die don't roll high or low, they roll extremely or conservatively. (Assuming your players are not using spindown die, a bad idea for a plethora of reasons)
At the end of the day though, this really just turns the even statistical scale into a bell curve. The average of an uneven d20 should still be roughly 10.5, unless it's short on multiple axes (read: a horrible PoS).
Now, any long term player can still easily see the advantage here. 2 short d20s that favor different # sets. If it's a long shot, roll the extreme die. If you're just avoiding a fumble, roll the conservative one.
All being said and done, I prefer Gamescience because I prefer my randomiser to produce the results the game was designed for and act as nearly to expectations as possible. Of course, I'm also far more willing to use computers for such tasks than most folks.