> Finally, purely descriptive systems have a big drawback: a lot of players
> doesn't know enough about what they're trying to do, so they can't have
> enough variety and deepeness in their descriptions. I was reading
> some time
> ago a description of a fight between two fencers in pure story-telling
> terms. I was thinking all the time: I couldn't do this, since I
> don't know
> enough about fencing to go this deep. In such a game, I would be at a
> disadvantage in comparision to the players I'm reading about since I
> couldn't provide all this detail.
There's worse, IMO. Suppose you actually are a master fencer and your GM is not. How would he react when you do something the *RW's* right way amd that just happens to skrew his plot? Would he answer "No, this isn't the RW, it's Glorantha and fencing is different." (BTW, I had this problem also in RQ when I tried to simulate a mountain climb and one of the players was a climber). How would you feel if the other players do something which you know to be absurd and the GM praises them, while you didn't do it because you were hindered by your own knowledge?
Mikael Raaterova:
> I'm not prevented from storytelling the combat in RQ, but the level of
> unnecessary detail steals time from the dramatic narrative and slows down
> the action. Rules have only a supportive function in roleplaying games:
> they are supposed to help experience adventures in the game world. If they
> divert the attention away from the game-world, they are dysfunctional.
Good point. Would Elric! action mechanics (I hate the term "rules" when talking about RPGs and I apologize for its use in my previous posts) + Pendragon social ones be realistic yet simple enough for your tastes? Is there a need for an altogether different system (at least, one not based on the famous BASIC)?
Bye A simulating Alex ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail