<< "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." >>
This description has nothing to do with the purely descriptive vs. standard mechanics debate. Why? It fits both. I can start a round of RQ, at the declaration of intent phase by just saying the above, or...
> Essentialy, are you going all-out attack or all-out defense?
I can play a purely descriptive game by going, in your words, to the essencials, and just say "I attack", or "I wait to see what happens".
The question is what we do next. If playing a game with standard mechanics
to deal with actions, say RQ, what would happen would be:
Player: "I cautiously size up my opponent while making my initial moves,
watching how he prepares."
GM: "roll your combat skill to see what information you can get on the
intentions of your opponent."
Player: "I want to give the impression of a cautious, defensive stance, but
keeping my offensive options open."
GM: rolls to see how the opponent judges the moves and intentions of the
PC.
GM: discloses to the player what he could get on the intentions of the
opponent based on the above skill roll. Possibly, that information is that:
"you don't think he's very experienced".
Player: "I'll immediately go on the attack."
Player and GM make standard RQ combat rolls.
The only point from the example that is not described in RQ is the one that
says: "so if I see any weakness in his defenses". In RQ seing weakeness in
the defenses is incorporated in the skill rolls.
And the results would not need to be verbalized: both player and GM would
read the dice and know what happens.
In a purely descriptive game the GM would make up for what RQ represents in terms of dice rolls.
Of course, the presence of dice rolls in games may lead players to drop the
talk.
But, dropping dice rolls also takes out of the game two things that are
important, at least for players like me:
- - The sense that PC's actions are physicaly under the control of the
player. (In marketing lingo, rolling dice gives 'physical evidence' to
roleplaying a character.)
- - The sense that there's something in the game that's not under the control
of the whim of GM: the randomness of dice rolls.
And it introduces something that can be a pain in the ass: having to assist
to the pittyless efforts of mediocre performers, trying to give life to
their characters. There's nothing worst than poor stage acting. So called
story-telling games tend to force that on us (if taken seriously, of
course).
Sergio
Powered by hypermail