As for the real fighting thing, that brings back memories. All the women I know who fight (none of the men I know fight competitively) go CRAZY with nit-picking rules. I'm thinking of one player in a Buffy campaign of mine who hair-split every single aspect of a fight and would NEVER let it die. (She did not understand at all the idea of a loss to build dramatic tension, either.) Every rule system I played her in she did that. Because she knew too much. she left town before I discovered HQ, which is ashame, because I think this would work to accommodate her for exactly those reasons (she'd be able to put in whatever narrative colour she wanted without horrible mechanical consequences.)
LC
On 2 Jul 2004 at 6:51, Jane Williams wrote:
> Yes, it all gets *very* tricky. My own conclusion is that it's just too
> complicated to worry about. If the player can explain why an ability should
> add an augment, they get it, without distinguishing attack from defence. And
> then, as you say, subsume the lot in narrative. It depends on how much
> detail you want to go into and how "simulationist" you want to be. Those of
> us who do fighting for "real" can do a lot of hair-splitting if let loose on
> this sort of thing, so it's probably only fair on everyone else to use us to
> generate narrative colour and leave the Roolz side vague and simple.
>
Powered by hypermail