https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAnCL3vhVIs
>>46618203
No. Too many tabletop games care about rolls for pass/fail above or below certain value, which might not actually be the halfway point OR be for adding up lots of numbers, and those two being true are the only way it stays normal. There are also just a lot of special things in many systems that suddenly DO care about specific rolls, like nat. 1 and nat. 20 or specific effects that trigger upon rolling minimum and maximum on damage dice.
>>46618203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCCtcqyazOE
The thing is, even if the shape is evenly balanced, there is no way for human perception to even approximate a verification for this. They are probably no easier to weigh than normal d6s, but they don't exude that reassuring symmetry.
games are a social contract
if you use casino grade dice at your warhammer tournament people will assume you are cheating, even though it is very hard to cheat with those dice and they roll more fairly.
if you use horrible opaque chessex on the other hand, you can cook your dice very easily and get away with it. Even if you don't try to cheat at all, the dice are often made very poorly and aren't fully random.
I personally like wooden dice. I don't know if they are more fair or anything, and truth be told I don't care all that much. They look nice, and they feel nice to roll.
>>46618376
>dice printed off to have your own hand writing on it
pretty neat.
>>46618376
Those are from the dicelab, yes?
>>46620662
>if you use casino grade dice at your warhammer tournament people will assume you are cheating,
I spent like 10 minutes staring at the screen trying to formulate a reply to properly express just how fucking stupid that statement is.
>>46622406
how is it stupid? have you tried using casino grade dice at a warhammer tournament?
never mind that new and sealed casino grade dice are several dollars each, and usually pretty large making them awkward to roll lots at once
>>46622539
1) playing WH
2) in tournaments
3) bringing casino dice
4) being a snob about it
5) crying to /tg/ that nobody understands
Not even the poster you are replying to, but dude!
>>46622539
Because everyone on the fucking planet knows that the whole fucking point of casino grade dice is to be as perfectly un-cheatable as possible, you fucking moron.
>>46622600
I stopped playing tournaments years ago because I had too many bad experiences with the players. I used crappy chessex like everyone else, but the players who did use casino dice almost always had a TO around their table.
You seem very upset.by bad experiences with players I don't even mean cheating. Maybe they fudged some distances, but honestly the only thing that bothered me is that they were total assholes. The very last tournament I ever played had a strict time limit for matches. The very last match I played was for table quarters against an all infantry guard list who insisted on moving his each of his models individually. The game ended as he finished his turn 3, before I got my turn 3. I won a prize in that tournament for doing well, but I also decided to stop playing in tournaments.
>>46622705
tell that to TOs
>>46622600
>dude!
>>46622738
>You seem very upset.
You seem a little autistic. Do you always have trouble with emotion in communication?
>>46622923
dude!
Dice are silly anyways. Spinner rings are far more practical.
>>46622923
>calling someone on /tg/ autistic
that's like saying "the sky is blue"
>>46623313
You can stop now.
Nobody cares.
>>46622406
>>if you use casino grade dice at your warhammer tournament people will assume you're a paranoid autistic.
Perhaps that's what he was going for?
Anyway, storytime... There's a That Guy in our local scene. Only ever brings a half-dozen dice (when he should be using a full Chessex cube's worth), so that he has to roll those dice multiple times for each phase of checks. As in roll several times for hits, several times for armor saves, several times for other abilities, etc., adding it in his head as he goes. Dude's got an incredible memory, I assure you. Speed reader too, he can scoop those dice before they've had a chance to come to a full complete stop.
>>46623381
Is he incredibly lucky as well, especially when it counts? Because I think I've met him. Not at a GW mind you. I don't go to those places, too many awkward social anxieties.
>>46623381
>>46623504
I'm pretty sure we all live nearby. I know That Guy, he used to be part of our DnD group before it imploded. I think over a 20 level campaign he missed less than 10% of his attacks.
>>46623660
Yep I remember him well. Always rolled an evil sorceress who wanted to enslave everyone. Really good at reading 20s off dice that hadn't stopped yet.
>>46623722
ME TOO ME TOO
So there's this like punchline... and it's funny because... um- aw never mind.
>>46618322
what does that have to do with the dice in that video?
>>46618203
>120-sided die
Fuck's sake.
>>46624439
I'm holding out until they make a skewed version of it.
>>46623284
>Spinner rings are far more practical.
>one degree of freedom vs. two
>more practical
>literally, objectively and noticeably less random than dice
Nigga, what?
>>46622705
>>46622406
>I spent 10 minutes trying to properly express how stupid that statement was
Not that guy but how can you not understand that there are people that will see casino dice, connect it to casinos and gambling, and subsequently connect gambling to cheating? I'm not saying that that perception is a good one, but the guy you were replying to wasn't trying to validate the perception. He was making a point about the perception existing. I'll tell you that there are people who still think the earth is flat because some people do. The statement of their existence is not a validation of their viewpoints, and you are the stupid one for equating the two desu senpai
And even forgetting about that, if you play in a tournament and the possibility of this perception exists, there are people who are mad as fuck that they lost will do anything they can to get back at you.
I spent 5-10 minutes actually expressing how stupid your statement was instead of trying to do so.
>>46622406
He's right though. I use casino dice, and people really have asked what's wrong with them.
>>46623313
This board is blue.
I wish more companies made wooden dice. Finding fancy stained oak dice is easy enough, but what about something simpler?
one of my favorite dice is a simple red wooden die with painted pips. I think it came from an old Milton Bradley game. I wish I could find more like it.
>>46624542
Please provide evidence that the average spinner ring is less random than the average die.
>>46618203
Dice habits thread?
I get a little obsessed with dice cycling, if it were my choice I wouldn't roll the same die more than two times a session. People using the same two or three for a whole campaign series feels like nails done under my skin so if I'm GM I bring extras and compel them to cycle.
I get that I'm being a bit too picky and I probably don't get that much closer to true randomisation with it but I have a compulsion.
>>46626382
How would you feel about a big bowl of dice from which everybody takes a die to roll and then puts it back in the bowl?
>>46626090
I like to cut cubes out of square dowel and burn pips in with a woodburning pen or old soldering iron or whatever.
>>46622406
A few years ago, some dude pointed out that it's a good idea to use regular game die for one type of roll and casino die for another type of roll during WH games as the two of them produce differently weighted results.
>muh dice
god who fucking cares if some goofball gets an extra point of willpower in your nerd games
>>46626835
Your mum cared about my bigger "willpower" last night.
>>46626107
Consider the following.
Spinner ring has one degree of freedom that matters (Wx, angular). Dice have two degrees of freedom that matter (Wx and Wy, angular - Wz doesn't matter because it's just a die spinning on its base, we can always have a reference system where Wz = 0).
No die or spinner ring is absolutely random, they are physical objects and their randomness is defined by the distribution of mass.
The spinner ring is more sensitive to the distribution of mass than the die is, due to the lesser amount of degrees of freedom.
Whenever you spin a spinner ring, the outcome is likely to prefer a single value (think about it like spinning a revolver's cylinder with a single bullet inside of it).
Whenever you roll a die, the outcome is likely to prefer a set of values, not just a single one (for example, if a die's mass distribution tends towards a certain sector defined by a solid angle, then values on that sector are more likely.
The amount of preference due to the uneven mass distribution varies accordingly to the mass distribution itself, but the non-randomness of a die can be mitigated by ensuring that the expected value of the sector on a die is the same as the expected value of the die itself.
Same cannot be said about spinner rings, as there is just not enough degrees of freedom to ensure even distribution of pseudo-random values on a sector of a spinner ring.
Even if we ignore the above, the uneven mass distribution affects a spinner ring much more than a die.
>>46627558
But the mass distribution is not only entirely at least 99% even, the numbers are distributed specifically so that no side can wind up favorable over another.
If you look at that image there are no grooves in the number printing, only differently colored materials that are the exact same weight, and the band itself is just one continuous loop with the exact same width all the way through.
>>46627985
Anon, my point is that if you have a spinner ring with a 99% even mass distribution and a die with 99% even mass distribution, the die is in fact can be more "random" (i.e. pseudo-random) than the spinner ring if the values are distributed appropriately on the die's surface.
>>46621792
how do you even tell a 09 from a 60 on that d100? there's no pips to indicate orientation!
>>46626499
>using a dephlogistonation process to apply pips
Have fun with the opposite side of the die being heavy now the negative mass phlogiston has been released from the wood!
>>46628237
I said average spinner ring with the average die. Since the only big commercial company making spinner rings is the one with the 99% weight distribution that counts as the average, and for averace die it's usually something from chessex that's often not that great.
I'll admit that no spinner ring could ever trump casino/gamescience dice, but to say it's automatically shit because of the rolling method alone is just insane.
>>46628284
There are no good amber/wooden/metal/ anything that isn't plastic spinner rings.
Therefore, spinner rings are shit. What now?
>>46628329
But the image I posted is painted steel?
>>46624486
They made the 120 by bifrucating the sides of the 60, which they couldn't skew
>>46623381
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06bz-v5J5wc
I like big bakelite dices
>>46628359
Are there any other companies that make these? The GURPS Ring is on sale at critsuccess right now (the site from which that pic came).
I'd love to see something more bioneutral like titanium. I get a reaction from the nickel in the steel.
>>46628284
Not that anon, but here's a video of a guy spinning his d20 ring and tracking the results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ITewLUb_hY
As for the coating, I checked their faq:
>How are your rings given their colors?
>They are coated through a process called Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD coating). It results in a very durable, scratch resistant coating that does not peel, chip, or fade.
As for the metal:
>Do your rings contain Nickel?
>Yes. 316L stainless steel contains 10-14% Nickel.
>Fortunately, the property of stainless steel to form its chromium oxide passivation layer (the layer that keeps it from rusting) also protects skin from nickel release. Because of this layer, the Nickel will behave as <0.1% nickel as far as your skin is concerned.
>If you are not allergic to stainless steel than you should be OK with our rings.
I am sensitive to stainless steel, so I'll have to wait for them to do this in HA titanium.
>>46628280
You can see that the 6 has a pip, no single digit sides have a leading zero.
Also, it's a d60.
>>46631829
>sample size
You are aware that this is not even remotely close to proper sample size, right? You'd need to repeat that about 100 times before you are even close to anything that looks like a proper sample size.
And from the outcome of the video, it actually looks very uneven, which makes me question why he even bothered to post the video.
>>46632383
I'm a statistician. So I'd love to hear your statistical explanation of what test you'd run to verify the ring's randomness, what the minimum number of observations you'd need to run that test, what statistical power you'd want to be confident in the results, and how many trials you'd need to achieve that level of statistical power.
Also, bonus question: how many trials were there in this video?
>>46633347
Not him, but running the very same test with P > 0.95 would be nice. Do the math for the amount of trials yourself.
And the number of trials was written in the end of the video, it's seven hundred and something - can't be bothered to check.
In any case, I can estimate that 700 trials (okay, make it 750 - I don't care) isn't nearly enough to test 20 different outcomes with a uniform 1/n probability function.
>>46631829
Guy's thumb looks gross. Hope he chokes.
>>46633347
I just did a chi square test with 19 degrees of freedom. p=.375
So a 37% chance that the results are due to chance. If you watch the video, he explained that there was a rough spot on the prototype due to the finishing process. If you ignore the result for 11, the chi square result increases to 84%.
So the prototype isnt random but apart from that one prototyping problem, it's very close.
Is that good enough for you?
That rises to 84%
>>46635292
>Taking anything less than 90%
>>46628280
It's OK i just burn in bigger pips for smaller numbers, like old Chinese dice
>>46635953
I'd be more worried about the differently rounded edges.
>>46631227
and cannot lie?
I've wondered about carving dice myself but I wouldn't want them to roll funny. I'm told near- perfect balance takes a bit of work, but I think its a good goal.
>>46639862
>square wood dowels
>use a digital vernier caliper
>use a digital angle finder
>use nice woodmarkers or wood friendly water paint
>use nice oils, varnish, and laqeur
Actually carving from lets say a random piece of wood you found or rested wood you bought or have is a bastard in it takes actual skill to get them balanced and looking nice while also keeping them small enough to roll multiple in your hand. Its just plain easier when you got the square already shaped up perfectly and all you have to do cut once and not fuck up that cut.
You could use the tools above but hand carving will never give you the same precise results as squared dowels and the like.
>>46635292
>So a 37% chance that the results are due to chance.
Anon, please stop misusing p-values. Every time you do an angel dies.
Educate yourself, please. Especially if you work in science.
http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
It's not an uncommon misconception. But it is a really, really large fundamental misunderstanding of how p-values work.
