Playing with the IFT Layout

[Bill Kohler]

 

[bendizoid]

What, is that some sort of logarithmic IFT?

 

[Bill Kohler]

Just playing with it. The height of the rows and the color reflect the probability of rolling that number, and I abbreviated the entries to give it what I think is a cleaner look. And the color can also help with keeping your eyes on the right row as you track across it (and serve as a continual reminder that the "2" or "3" you're hoping for ain't likely to happen).

The row height is not strictly proportional to likelihood, otherwise the "7" row would be six times as high as the "2" and "12" rows.

 

[Spencer Armstrong]

I don't love the row height but the colored results I like a lot.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

View attachment 15777

You know, I love your idea about row height (CREATIVE!) Not only is it a reminder of probabilities, it makes the more likely outcomes easier to read. LOVE IT.

 

[von Marwitz]

The row height is not strictly proportional to likelihood, otherwise the "7" row would be six times as high as the "2" and "12" rows.

Where is the huge blob for 'rolling boxcars in the EXACT instant when it hurts yourself most'?

von Marwitz

 

[Bill Kohler]

EDIT: (1 Feb 2022)
Here's my latest version:

 

[Sparafucil3]

Ask yourself, how often do you ACTUALLY refer to the IFT in a game? Honestly, for me, I don't really need to the IFT until we get past the 16 column and even then, I can usually sort it out without referring to the IFT, it just takes longer. I like what you're trying to do, but the truth is, the times you look at this would diminish over time. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

 

[von Marwitz]

Ask yourself, how often do you ACTUALLY refer to the IFT in a game?

Usually never at all - since I am using the IIFT with CTC.

[EXC: In a tournament the IFT is defined as the default and an opponent wants the IFT. Outside a tournament, if a player insists prefers the IFT while I prefer the IIFT, we usually alternate between the two for each scenario.]

Besides that, I don't think that the majority of players have the IFT memorized (which is IMHO the main reason to refuse the IIFT), despite there being a 'system' to the columns that makes this not that difficult.

von Marwitz

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Ask yourself, how often do you ACTUALLY refer to the IFT in a game? Honestly, for me, I don't really need to the IFT until we get past the 16 column and even then, I can usually sort it out without referring to the IFT, it just takes longer. I like what you're trying to do, but the truth is, the times you look at this would diminish over time. JMO, YMMV. -- jim

This one's for mortals.

There's another version for gods - with a hot mama picture covering where you'd find FP1 to 16.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Usually never at all - since I am using the IIFT with CTC.

I use the IIFT too except I filter out all those useless columns in between -- jim

 

[Sparafucil3]

This one's for mortals.

There's another version for gods - with a hot mama picture covering where you'd find FP1 to 16.

Next time you play, keep track of how many times you do. You might be surprised. -- jim

 

[Michael Dorosh]

My preference would be if coloured results were different colours showing the severity of the result rather than coding the probability of the DR.

 

[von Marwitz]

There's another version for gods - with a hot mama picture covering where you'd find FP1 to 16.

If 'hot mama' were real, I'd rather play on that side of the table and forfeit 16+ FP.

von Marwitz

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Besides that, I don't think that the majority of players have the IFT memorized (which is IMHO the main reason to refuse the IIFT), despite there being a 'system' to the columns that makes this not that difficult.

8 on the 8 is about the only one I have memorized

What I don't find value in is the probability for a single DR. We all know there is a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 7, and a 1 in 36 chance of a snake eyes or boxcar. What is more useful is knowing the probability of a "6 or less" and the chart only shows that intuitively when done to scale - and then skewed by the inclusion of unnatural results (<2 or >12).

 

[Sparafucil3]

8 on the 8 is about the only one I have memorized

If you can remember 8 on the 8, it's not that much harder. It decrements/increments by 1 for every column shift. (7 on the 6, 6 on the 4, 5 on the 2, 4 on the 1, etc). -- jim

 

[Michael Dorosh]

If you can remember 8 on the 8, it's not that much harder. It decrements/increments by 1 for every column shift. (7 on the 6, 6 on the 4, 5 on the 2, 4 on the 1, etc). -- jim

I usually pick up on that quickly during play, but don't play enough to retain it if I don't have the board or chart in front of me. Also, playing with the IIFT whenever possible makes it more of a distraction to keeping the 'core' columns correct.

 

[Sparafucil3]

I usually pick up on that quickly during play, but don't play enough to retain it if I don't have the board or chart in front of me. Also, playing with the IIFT whenever possible makes it more of a distraction to keeping the 'core' columns correct.

Do as I do and just ignore the incremental ones. It makes life much easier -- jim