Monday, September 5, 2016

I Always Had My Suspicions



Many of the comments on the video argue that the test enhances the minutest of inconsistencies, so that the actual difference it the die, as it would affect rolling, is negligible.  I would tend to agree with that.  At the same time, many of the dice shown in this video are distinctly of the cheap variety, the sort whose edges begin to degrade after ten, fifteen years use.  Some of my dice are like this, some have gotten to the point where I won't use them for anything critical in a game.  Others of my dice are 30+ years old and show no breakdown at all.

I only put the video up because I knew this would be something too interesting to ignore.

5 comments:

Maxwell Joslyn said...

Whoa, I've got a bunch of those speckled Chessex d20. I guess I should do a big old test on them.

Dani Osterman said...

Interesting. Another reason not to skimp on your dice, I suppose.

Fuzzy Skinner said...

I've come across some interesting but ultra-cheap-looking dice in the bucket at my local game stores, and decided not to get them since they already looked fairly worn. Then again, I've inadvertently ended up with a rounded d6 that seems to roll 5s more often than would be fair, so I've put it into semi-retirement.

I'll have to try this test out on some of my d10s, since I've long suspected that they tend to favor higher numbers.

Fuzzy Skinner said...

Addendum to my previous comment: Just realized that the decahedrons might not do well with this test, but my old-fashioned ones (the icosahedrons numbered 0-9 twice) would. My comment still stands, but hopefully it's a little clearer now what I was referring to.

Alexis Smolensk said...

I am astounded that people know the manufacturer of their dice, quoting company names like referring to Masarati or Piaget. I hit adulthood in the 80s and I'm not that materialistic.