Re: [GZG] FT Light: threshold checks should be high!

>On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
>>  Now, everyone either owns or has played someone
>>  who owns 'lucky' dice. The dice you can count
>
>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.

"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)

>
>--
>Ryan Fisk
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l