Ever since Full Thrust 2nd edition back in 1992 threshold checks have been
'high', with systems being lost on 6 for the first row, 5 or 6, etc.
In Full Thrust Light, they've changed to 'low' with systems being lost on 1
for the first row. Although it looks like a purely cosmetic change, this is
IMNSHO a Bad Idea.
To understand why, I need to begin with a survey. Hands up all the gamers who
use casino quality, guaranteed even distribution dice.
No no no no no no no no no no... well maybe someone, somewhere, does; but as a
rule Full Thrust is played with the regular dice you buy in game shops.
Now, everyone either owns or has played someone who owns 'lucky' dice. The
dice you can count on to roll a bunch of sixes when you really need them. At
least seven times out of ten this is purely selective memory and the dice are
actually quite random: the player remembers the time that they rolled seven
sixes out of ten at a critical moment and forgets the other fifty times that
they didn't. But without using those expensive tested dice it certainly does
happen.
So, suppose one player in a game has dice that roll 5% more sixes than usual.
It doesn't actually matter if they really do: what matters is that both
players believe it to be possible.
OK. Under the 2nd ed/FB1/FB2 rules, that player
will get 5% more beam double hits and re-rolls,
BUT they'll also lose 5% more systems to threshold checks. As a player, I'm
happy with that. The karma balances itself out.
(A dedicated number cruncher could probably argue that 5% more sixes to hit is
a real advantage because it can also reduce the number of threshold rolls you
have to make by destroying your opponent a bit faster. I'm generally not that
worried about it.)
Under the FT Light rules, they'll get 5% more beam
double hits and re-rolls, AND 5% less thresholds.
I'm not happy about that.
This isn't a very common scenario, but IMHO it has real potential to introduce
a certain amount of bad feeling into Full Thrust games between people who
don't know each other that well. Since the old rules used exactly the same
probabilities AND avoided this problem, I believe this should be changed back.
cheers,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Now, everyone either owns or has played someone
I've never understood "Dice Fetishism." I love dice, but really, unless the
sides are seriously rounded or the die is actually weighted, the effect you
mention effectively amounts to superstition,
cause if the die get 5% more 6s than 1s it _is_ a weighted die. And
yes, a lot of gamers are superstitious.
If someone brought a die to my table that did roll 5% more 6s than the odds,
i'd take a hammer to it (Malleus Randomizer). Dice are imperfect, but the
imperfections are a LOT less than 1% unless it's
been modified through use or ill-intent. (i.e. I better not see your
1980s plastic DnD dice on the table)
I actually aesthetically prefer roll high = good, so I like the change.
Someone I play with rolls all their dice at the table before the game until
they all show sixes... I tell them they just wasted all their
sixes :-)
Which is complete hogwash, but I can have fun with their superstitions.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lhtt
p://www.maa.org/editorial/mathgames/mathgames_05_16_05.html
F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr.Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at
TexasBestGrok!
> --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Ryan Fisk <ryan.fisk@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ryan Fisk <ryan.fisk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT Light: threshold checks should be high!
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 11:11 AM
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Now, everyone either owns or has played someone
I've never understood "Dice Fetishism." I love dice, but really, unless the
sides are seriously rounded or the die is actually weighted, the effect you
mention effectively amounts to superstition,
cause if the die get 5% more 6s than 1s it _is_ a weighted die. And
yes, a lot of gamers are superstitious.
If someone brought a die to my table that did roll 5% more 6s than the odds,
i'd take a hammer to it (Malleus Randomizer). Dice are imperfect, but the
imperfections are a LOT less than 1% unless it's
been modified through use or ill-intent. (i.e. I better not see your
1980s plastic DnD dice on the table)
I actually aesthetically prefer roll high = good, so I like the change.
Someone I play with rolls all their dice at the table before the game until
they all show sixes... I tell them they just wasted all their
sixes :-)
Which is complete hogwash, but I can have fun with their superstitions.
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> Now, everyone either owns or has played someone
"Stop him - he's using up all the good numbers!"
;-)
Serious answer(s):
1) As Ryan says above, high = good has a better feel.
2) Simplicity again - threshold roll is directly linked to damage
track row number. Much more intuitive. This change was strongly suggested by
several members of the test list, and it made sense, so we went with it.
Besides, for every player out there with a Teske Field generator in his dice
bag, there is an Indy or a Beth just waiting to roll all
those "1"s..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> --
> Serious answer(s):
I suggest changing damage control rolls to be under or equal to the number of
DCPs for the same reason of
simplicity: 1 DCP succeeds on 1, up to 3 succeed 1-3.
As a minor side effect, it will shut me up as well :-)
cheers,
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >2) Simplicity again - threshold roll is directly linked to damage
Great minds, and all that... :-) In fact this exact "reversed DCP"
method was what inspired the "reversed threshold check" concept in the first
place... the only reason the DCP change isn't mentioned in FT Lite is that FT
Lite only covers the Basic rules, whereas damage control is an Advanced rule.
Regards,
> >Serious answer(s):
That is exactly what is planned.... we just didn't put the DCP rules
in FT Light..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> As a minor side effect, it will shut me up as well :-)