>>43323128>>43324575You can't get truly random numbers, and if you wanted to approximate it you'd use a random number generator. The second you decide to use dice at all you've already tanked your attempt at "true" random results (or at least something closer than that-thing-you-roll-in-your hand).
If you got casino dice and rolled them with a bounce off of a backboard every time you made an attack, that's one thing. But anyone rolling dice on a table isn't going to notice any kind of difference in play. Chessex, Gamescience, or whittled in their back yard out of a porous, knotted, ill-balanced piece of oak, it won't matter at the table in any real way.
Looking at these kinds of things is interesting, and seeing guys passionate enough about the hobby to discuss the merits of machined dice over tumbled dice is great, but I sometimes thinks it gives people who are just looking to buy something to roll the wrong idea. It really, really doesn't matter. All of this stuff is for the guys who really like to nerd out over their dice. Chessex is fine. Some random novelty d20 from your FLGS is fine. Hell, spindowns are fine unless you're actually trying to cheat with them, and if you are, your group should have kicked you already anyway. Just buy a set of dice you think looks nice.
On an unrelated note, I reject your assertion that "lucky" dice tend to be loaded one way or another. Almost nobody even rolls a dice enough to get an idea of whether (and in which way) it's weighted in any accurate way. Lucky dice exist because people are superstitious, not because they're subconsciously calculating every time they make a roll. I'd say just as many lucky dice exist that are weighted towards 1s just because they happened to get a 20 on a really important roll that the player really needed, than there are ones that are actually in any minute way beneficial.
