Today I bought what will very likely be my last set of Chessex dice. As I've pondered the games I might run over the summer (and hopefully into the fall), one of the things that I've considered has been the dice required for each. AD&D 2nd Edition, as well as my vivisected Basic Fantasy rules set, use the standard complement of polyhedrons. White Box, in addition to being available for free or at low cost (much like Basic Fantasy), is so minimalist that players need only d20s and d6s; it was these that I bought today, such that up to four players can use a d20 and a rounded spot d6 of the same color. (I might even give these as small gifts to the players, if they choose White Box and prove committed.)
As much as I'd like to, I will not be running Dungeon Crawl Classics at this time; the extra dice are out of my price range at the moment, and I haven't spent enough time with the rules to be confident as a Judge. Which is too bad; their "Road Crew" program is pretty neat, even if it is blatantly commercial in nature.
Apart from my nice, pointy metal dice, the ones that I think I will be using going forward are Gamescience dice. I already have two of them that I plan on using (a d4, and a d20 numbered 0-9 twice - both "Jumbo" sized, and hand-inked by me), and the Jumbo Polyhedra set they sell will do perfectly for me (since I need another d10 anyway, for quick percentile rolls). It's too bad the set doesn't include any d6s, but at least they aren't too expensive to add on. Much like John Higgins explained in this post, I actually like the idea of carrying only as many dice as I need.
A die I own that I will not be using? One of the nicer-looking ones I own - a d20 designed for use as a counter in Magic: The Gathering. I ran a quick test on it, rolling it a total of 80 times and recording the results on the following chart:
Yeah... Looks like you were right, Simon and Tardigrade. It may not cluster around high or low numbers, but it sure isn't as even as it should be. (I realize that only 80 rolls isn't exactly scientifically rigorous, but since even this little experiment disproved my hypothesis, I'll take the results at face value for now.)