Timothy Sez:
>That's not a fair comparison. To give an example on the other side of
>fair, how about this:
>Instead of "The troll hit him in the 12 for 24. The club smashes into
>your chest, and you go down with your rib cage in tatters." a Narrator
>forced to use full disclosure would say: "The troll wins 24 AP in
>this exchange. We won't know if this was bad or not until the contest
>is over, at which point we'll retcon whether this blow badly injured
>you or just put you into a disadvantageous position as you barely got
>out of the way."
Ah-ha! But you see, I am not constrained by the final result, in this case, because dazed and bloody can mean many things. I don't need a retcon, per se, because of the vagueness of the language. The language need only be exciting and compelling, and somewhat indicative of the bid actually won or lost.
Whether or not the poor fool on the other side of the troll's club wins or not, there was nothing expressly deceptive in my description, or anything in need of a retcon at the end of the battle (IMO).
>I plead guilty to the charge of laziness, then.
You mistake me, sir. I would never call you lazy. I merely asserted that the rules encouraged a sort of descriptive laziness. Good gamemasters, of which I am certain you are one of, were never bound by RQ's flaws.
>On the other hand, I don't want a system where combat takes an hour or
>two per round.
Pendragon and Elric are two systems that come to mind as being slightly faster than RQ. Perhaps these are more to you taste?
Doyle Wayne Ramos-Tavener
281-342-4372 (H) dmtavener_at_...
281-275-7389 (W) Doyle.Tavener_at_...
It is not reasonable to suppose that Aristotle knew the number of the Elect... - Albertus Magnus
Powered by hypermail