|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 4, 2018 19:40:56 GMT -6
 This is most of my collection. As you can see, the d6s have a few mold issues as well. Whoops. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 11, 2018 19:51:50 GMT -6
This is most of my collection. As you can see, the d6s have a few mold issues as well. Whoops. I have one of the funky 1 opposite 4 d6 (3 is opposite 6, and 2 opposite 5). I guess if you subtract the smaller number from the larger they all equal 3. |
|
|
|
Post by stonetoflesh on Sept 12, 2018 9:14:59 GMT -6
I'm still hoping Gamescience will return to producing d30s. The tumbled ones just don't feel right, I need precision edges on my rhombic triacontahedron!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Sept 12, 2018 10:44:56 GMT -6
If you're finding that regular crayons don't do the trick then shop around for Staonal crayons, designed for marking rubber and other difficult surfaces. Various colours available, although not the full spectrum of regular Crayolas.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronald on Sept 12, 2018 19:08:30 GMT -6
I'm still hoping Gamescience will return to producing d30s. The tumbled ones just don't feel right, I need precision edges on my rhombic triacontahedron! Someone posted to the Order of the d30 g+ group that they got a confirmation at GenCon that Gamescience are indeed working on this. They also linked to a GS Facebook post mentioning getting back to work on the tooling for d7s and d30s after the con. So, hopefully soon! : ) |
|
|
|
Post by stonetoflesh on Sept 13, 2018 8:12:47 GMT -6
I'm still hoping Gamescience will return to producing d30s. The tumbled ones just don't feel right, I need precision edges on my rhombic triacontahedron! Someone posted to the Order of the d30 g+ group that they got a confirmation at GenCon that Gamescience are indeed working on this. They also linked to a GS Facebook post mentioning getting back to work on the tooling for d7s and d30s after the con. So, hopefully soon! : ) That is fantastic news! |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Sept 16, 2018 9:56:26 GMT -6
This might be crazy, but has anyone tried "inking" their GS die with wax or hot glue (it comes in different colors)?
When they make casino dies, they drill a hole for the pip, then fill it with a paint that is the same density as the die (not suggesting this level of crazy), then they buff the paint so that it is even with the die's surface (buff, not tumble). Alternatively, to melted wax or hot glue, a paint similar to that used in casino dice would work—but I have not been able to find specifics on what the paint is.
I'm wondering if something similar might give the best readability of the numbers and a pleasing finish that the number will be flush with the surface, as well as long-lasting (or it just pops out like bits of crayon wax over time).
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Sept 16, 2018 10:32:38 GMT -6
Just want to say I placed an order on the Thursday 13th, hoping to get it by october. I was shocked to get the package yesterday (Saturday) morning, not even a full two days after I placed the order.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Sept 16, 2018 13:18:51 GMT -6
I have one of the funky 1 opposite 4 d6 (3 is opposite 6, and 2 opposite 5). All of my "ugly dice" are like that. My glow set has the numbers proper, the "1" has the serifs on it and a small G (too small to fill with crayon). The d10s are different orders, too. The good mold, opposite sides add up to 9. The bad mold, the opposite sides add up correctly to 11, but the "1" has no serifs, and the G is convex (so you can't rub crayon into it). This might be crazy, but has anyone tried "inking" their GS die with wax or hot glue (it comes in different colors)? Well technically, crayons are wax =) |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 22, 2018 16:26:27 GMT -6
Well technically, crayons are wax =) Looks like I was to clear in my meaning. I was thinking sealing wax, like for a letter. I just tried it with some old letter sealing wax that was left over from some long forgotten project. It does not work. Too hard to get into the number and once it hardens it is too hard to get the excess off without pulling it out of the number. What did work really well was heating a crayon with an open flame (I used the stove) then pressing it into the number, that got it really in there and filled the number completely. Using the edge of a plastic card I was able to scrape off any excess and it left a completely filled number. This was quick and easy compared to the usual rubbing with a crayon. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Dec 22, 2018 22:50:34 GMT -6
Thoroughly degrease the dice, fill the numbers with acrylic paint, wipe off excess with strong, absorbent tissue laid flat on a smooth, hard surface. The latter avoids the tissue getting into the number grooves and taking out the paint in there. You can leave them to dry naturally or speed up the process with a hair dryer. You can polish them up afterwards, as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Dec 23, 2018 9:01:09 GMT -6
I like Gamescience Dice. I find them amusing and uniquely "old school." They're fun to color in. In fact, when I first resurrected my AD&D game for my group, I purchased a set of GS dice for everyone in the group, and tossed a box of crayons out on the table. They gleefully began coloring in their numbers during play, and rarely have we had so much fun over something so simple and nostalgic.
The randomness thing, though? Smoke and mirrors. You can show me as many tests as you like, remembering that pretty much all of them were conducted with an agenda, not to see IF GS dice roll better, but to prove that GS dice DO roll better, which unto itself skews the probablility margins out of the gate.
You know what they say about how there's lies, d**n lies, and then statistics? It's like that.
The "true randomness" of these dice, though present, is SO statistically insignificant next to other dice as to be effectively, if not literally, nonexistant. So enjoy your GS dice. Love them for their fun, "this is what dice were like back in the day" aspect. But the "true randomness" thing? No. Again, smoke and mirrors. Remember that there's no such thing as a TRUE random number generation system--even your computer can't do it truly--and don't buy into that particular hype.
Now, granted, that's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 23, 2018 17:24:02 GMT -6
I agree that Gamescience dice are fun for their nostalgia factor alone. I do believe in statistics (unrelated to whether/how humans may misrepresent what the stats mean), but I don't recall that Gamescience ever promoted their dice with stats; weren't they more focussed on their dice being physically more symmetrical than other dice? Someone will now jump in and correct me  (This is probably another discussion, but FWIW) delta tested the fairness of some of his dice a while back, see: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/02/follow-up-testing-balanced-dice.htmlAlso see Mark Fickett's fascinating work on dice fairness here: www.markfickett.com/stuff/artPage.php?id=389 |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 23, 2018 21:11:21 GMT -6
The randomness thing, though? Smoke and mirrors. You can show me as many tests as you like, remembering that pretty much all of them were conducted with an agenda, not to see IF GS dice roll better, but to prove that GS dice DO roll better, which unto itself skews the probablility margins out of the gate. You know what they say about how there's lies, d**n lies, and then statistics? It's like that. The "true randomness" of these dice, though present, is SO statistically insignificant next to other dice as to be effectively, if not literally, nonexistant. So enjoy your GS dice. Love them for their fun, "this is what dice were like back in the day" aspect. But the "true randomness" thing? No. Again, smoke and mirrors. Remember that there's no such thing as a TRUE random number generation system--even your computer can't do it truly--and don't buy into that particular hype. Now, granted, that's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjackbrass on Dec 24, 2018 4:38:23 GMT -6
The original dice TSR used, and many of the (few) early alternatives, were terrible dice. I've read that they were not originally even intended for use as dice, but were educational supplies. They had random air bubbles and were made from a soft plastic. For a friendly game they were fine, of course, but anyone with an obsession for precision would have rejected them.
Gamescience dice, I think, need to be viewed from that angle, not measured against later products, if you want to understand how vastly superior they seemed. I like them and think they stand up well against modern competitors, but early entries into the field really did tend to crack, chip or wear heavily and were not always balanced; Gamescience dice were better than that.
The sideshow barker claims and presentation? Well, that's just Lou Zocchi. Enjoy it as entertainment.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 24, 2018 15:19:00 GMT -6
Great observation BJB. No doubt in my mind that not all dice are created equal.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaki on Dec 25, 2018 8:28:27 GMT -6
What did work really well was heating a crayon with an open flame (I used the stove) then pressing it into the number, that got it really in there and filled the number completely. Using the edge of a plastic card I was able to scrape off any excess and it left a completely filled number. This was quick and easy compared to the usual rubbing with a crayon. I might have to try that with a candle, I did just buy a new d20 the other day. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 26, 2018 14:57:15 GMT -6
I might have to try that with a candle, I did just buy a new d20 the other day. Was trying this again with dice my wife received form Christmas. A candle did not work, as it blackened the crayon. We tried the stove again and overdid it, getting mixed results. We then tried rudding the crayon in and this time it worked better. In the end, my wife went with Deco colors paint pens, since the crayon blue did not stand out enough on the die. I might try again with a crayon, candle and some tin foil. Heat the foil, then use it to soften the crayon just a hit and rub to get it to fill more. My goal is it fill the number with soft wax rather than layers, or heat it enough that when the layer go in they "melt" together a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by Revylokesh on Jan 3, 2019 13:47:50 GMT -6
They have arrived ❤️❤️❤️  |
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jan 4, 2019 2:44:32 GMT -6
As a backgammon player I understand the logic behind the manufacture of precision dice, but I'll be d**ned if I'm forking out 25 to 30 USD for a pair of dice. Well, I guess I'll have to eat some of my words: I recently caved in to the temptation and ordered a few sets of precision dice from the Backgammon Federation at a more reasonable price. The blue and red translucent ones are very lovely. If only polyhedrals were made with such scrupulous attention to fairness... |
|
