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

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,
	Hugh

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