You know, coming back to Jeff's thoughts on how he'd present some information in SARTAR, I've got an idea. Go back to boxed sets, but instead of crayons to mark your dice, you'd have rune-covered highlighter pens to mark the text! So you could pick out what *you* thought were keywords and abilities. And then you could throw in dice. And maps. And stuff. That'd be cool. I'd buy it and happily move over to the new format.
(I'm not being entirely facetious.)
Ian:
> You don't actually get more detail out of an HQ1 leader sheet, less in
> fact.
In fairness, as a HQ1 fan I have my reservations also. I liked the sheet's simplicity and attempt to combine a variety of forms of presentation, but wasn't always keen on its application--it didn't tend to include enough 'musical spoonage' for my liking. I think there was a reason that CotRM deviated from its template.
My own format for describing characters is very similar to Ian's. The only difference is that, 'writing in the current manner', I have included numerical ratings.
WOLFDROOL, WEREDUCK THRALL
Wolfdrool is the chief's slave and fool. His thrall's
collar hangs loose about his scrawny neck. He is a
wretched creature—bent and scratched, capering and
crawling about the hall, the constant target of kicks
and curses. Wolfdrool lives on leftovers, sucking on
bones and drinking wash-water. He sleeps on the floor
beside the alynxes, who torment him as much as
everyone else... <a little more is snipped, for brevity>
Keywords: Torkoll's Thrall 1W2, Traitor To His Kind
20W.
Significant Abilities: Caper 17W, Dodge Blow 18,
Selfish Cunning 1W2, Scrounge 4W, Steal Item 20.
Possessions: Fleas 6W.
Sometimes keywords and abilities simply replicate items that appear in the text, for ease of use; sometimes they offer an addition, clarification and/or diversion that is informative, but might clog or muddy the paragraphs above. For myself, I find that the way in which I read abilities and keywords--as short, more discrete entities--means that I can adopt language, focus and form that might appear out of place or overblown in the flow of a paragraph of prose [shut up, Mark! ;o)]. This is a big part of why I like background information displayed in this form.(The above is not a particularly good example, sadly.)
There are also the little nuances. If this was a straight descriptive paragraph, I would have probably used 'flea-ridden' somewhere. But in this form, I can frame that as 'Possessions: Fleas'. What's more evocative? I tend to think the latter. It's the little things like this that are behind why I enjoy the presentation of information in this manner.
Best,
Stew.
Powered by hypermail