>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 can see your point, but I do think there are ways around it. Take this description for example :
"I cautiously size up my opponent while making my initial moves, watching how he prepares. I want to give the impression of a cautious, defensive stance, but keeping my offensive options open. I don't think he's very experienced, so if I see any weakness in his defenses, I'll immediately go on the attack."
Quite a reasonable description of the opening moves in a fencing match perhaps? Actualy when I wrote the description above I was thinking of chess. My point is I don't think you actualy need to know more than the basics to be able to describe, in general terms, what your character is trying to do. Yes, some technical terminology helps because it adds a bit of flavour to the action, but you can get by without. Essentialy, are you going all-out attack or all-out defense? Perhaps you defend, while waiting for an opening. Perhaps you attack to start with, but offer an apparent weakness in your defenses to lure your opponent into a premature counterattack. Whatever.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail