Quote from: rgrove0172;919035...If I tell you that "you got hit for 4 HP", you really have no idea what that looks like and have to come up with something on your own...

I know precisely what 4hp damage means. In D&D it means I'm 4 damage-units closer to getting killed.

If, let's say, the DM rolls a 15, but needed a 16 to hit me, I know it was a close call, and can imagine in my mind what that looked like, but I don't feel the desire to halt play to describe it to everyone else.

We save description to killing blows against significant opponents, results of special manoeuvres, or critical hits/failures. It's the final decapitations and horrendous mistakes that bards will sing about, not a blow by blow recount of the battle.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919097I really do get what your saying but this...
   
"If color is not in harmony, than that color makes play worse not better."

Would seem to imply that unless a specific detail has a direct correlation with the game then it has no value.

What I said does not imply that. And no you don't seem to get what I am saying. You may have incorrectly inferred that, though I think that to make that inference you must be reading what I said very uncharitably. Try reading it again please.

Quote"The day is a hot one, sweat beading on every forehead as you leave port." So we have to implement a modifier for the heat?
"The tavern is smoke filled and gloomy." We must modify perception checks then?
"The ranger smiles, pulling out his razor sharp dagger and runs its edge along his palm." so the dagger has to have a bonus because of its sharpness?

We were talking about describing or not describing wounds in a system where a minor wound (or maybe even a major wound) has no effect according to the rules. Let's deal with that topic. We can discuss whether other descriptions should connect to mechanics some other time.
 

QuoteThe GMs narration during a game is filled with these kinds of details that have no REAL effect other than to provide interesting color and a vivid picture. I don't see the different between them and.

"The blow knocks you back, staggered for a second. You shake your head to clear it."  doesn't mean you were stunned, it just makes 2 damage more interesting.

It makes it more interesting to you, I suppose. But if the character in question has 50 hit points in a system like D&D where 2 damage is simply an ablation of hit points then the description comes across as either in contradiction to the game effect or just out and out stupid since it contradicts that rules. Which then causes confusion to me as a player who actually understands the rules.

QuoteIm sorry, I just don't see how a little color can be a bad thing, certainly not compromising the game in anyway.

Then you are not understanding what I wrote. As a player and as a GM I want to minimize conflict in the respective views of the players of the situation in the game. I certainly don't want the GM to create conflict in viewpoints.

If your description as the GM makes it seem to the player that there should logically be some effect that matches your description, but the rules of the game and you the GM don't include an effect that matches your description then you and your player have conflicting views of the situation in the game. And this is a conflict that was created solely by your description.

And in that case we end up with situation where you the GM expect the PC to act unaffected because "heroes afterall", while one of your players (player A) has their PC do nothing effective that round because he thinks they should be shaking their head to "clear it", and while another of your players (player B) has her character act unaffected by the 6 point wound her PC took because she, like you, decides that there is no game affect. Those are not outcomes that I want to see in a game I am involved in.

Quote from: languagegeek;919098I know precisely what 4hp damage means. In D&D it means I'm 4 damage-units closer to getting killed.

Wow that's really interesting, really pulls me into the action.

If, let's say, the DM rolls a 15, but needed a 16 to hit me, I know it was a close call, and can imagine in my mind what that looked like, but I don't feel the desire to halt play to describe it to everyone else.

Well you would halt play enough to roll the dice and relate the result. How much longer would it take to make it actually worth listening too?

We save description to killing blows against significant opponents, results of special manoeuvres, or critical hits/failures. It's the final decapitations and horrendous mistakes that bards will sing about, not a blow by blow recount of the battle.

I guess if your in a hurry sure but spending the time and creative energy to only make the parts YOU LIKE interesting seems kind of callous. Why not be consistent? That meaningless insignificant bandit you killed on the road felt pretty significant and meaningful when he woke up that morning. Why is his death not worth knowing anything about other than ... I hit him with 8 HP and he had 7?

Quote from: Bren;919106What I said does not imply that. And no you don’t seem to get what I am saying. You may have incorrectly inferred that, though I think that to make that inference you must be reading what I said very uncharitably. Try reading it again please.


We were talking about describing or not describing wounds in a system where a minor wound (or maybe even a major wound) has no effect according to the rules. Let's deal with that topic. We can discuss whether other descriptions should connect to mechanics some other time.
 
It makes it more interesting to you, I suppose. But if the character in question has 50 hit points in a system like D&D where 2 damage is simply an ablation of hit points then the description comes across as either in contradiction to the game effect or just out and out stupid since it contradicts that rules. Which then causes confusion to me as a player who actually understands the rules.

Then you are not understanding what I wrote. As a player and as a GM I want to minimize conflict in the respective views of the players of the situation in the game. I certainly don’t want the GM to create conflict in viewpoints.

If your description as the GM makes it seem to the player that there should logically be some effect that matches your description, but the rules of the game and you the GM don’t include an effect that matches your description then you and your player have conflicting views of the situation in the game. And this is a conflict that was created solely by your description.

And in that case we end up with situation where you the GM expect the PC to act unaffected because "heroes afterall", while one of your players (player A) has their PC do nothing effective that round because he thinks they should be shaking their head to “clear it”, and while another of your players (player B) has her character act unaffected by the 6 point wound her PC took because she, like you, decides that there is no game affect. Those are not outcomes that I want to see in a game I am involved in.

Ok then assuming I give in and play your way I eliminate all the interesting and colorful descriptions during combat (agreed, keeping the discussion to combat) and instead spend a fascinating hour or two talking about "Hit points" and "you missed by 2" and "you get a +2 modifier" and "Ill use his special ability"... Im sorry but its bland, tasteless and frankly boring. (Just to me obviously and those I game with, you feel differently Im sure) I can play Descent or some tactical fantasy skirmish game if I want that experience. Roleplaying is about, well, playing the role - even in combat. I want to hear about the armor getting rended and a shield cloven, a spear point running someone through or a head spinning through the air from a sword slash. If I had to just narrate a math lesson Id find something else to do.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919130Ok then assuming I give in and play your way I eliminate all the interesting and colorful descriptions during combat

Since you seem to be able to string a few coherent sentences together I'm going to assume that you aren't too stupid to actually read and understand what I wrote. Thus I am left with the conclusion that (a) you don't want to understand what I wrote and (b) you are behaving like a condescending ass. You have a nice day.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919127I guess if your in a hurry sure but spending the time and creative energy to only make the parts YOU LIKE interesting seems kind of callous.

The irony here is awesome.

Quote from: Bren;919132Since you seem to be able to string a few coherent sentences together I'm going to assume that you aren't too stupid to actually read and understand what I wrote. Thus I am left with the conclusion that (a) you don't want to understand what I wrote and (b) you are behaving like a condescending ass. You have a nice day.

The irony here is awesome.

No, Im behaving like someone that has as strong an opinion as the one you are expressing. The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean that Im being an ass. I certainly didn't intend to upset anybody. Im not even declaring my way to be the right way only that it is an acceptable way.

Ive learned in a very short time on this site that if you don't agree with the majority its assumed you are a pompous dick or something, as if I should just behave and acknowledge everyone else's opinion as superior.

Guys, please, I know my approaches aren't the norm, that's what happens from a lifetime of gaming mostly by yourself or with only a couple of players. I like to debate my opinions certainly, but there is never any malice intended.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919166No, Im behaving like someone that has as strong an opinion as the one you are expressing.

You have yet to display any indication that you comprehend what I have expressed since you keep responding to things that I didn't say. Why is that?
   
Since I'm stubborn, I'll try one more time. Let's go back to this statement.

   "If color is not in harmony, than that color makes play worse not better."

Not in harmony means that the colorful description you gave and the way that the game world works are in conflict. If your description and the way the game world works (which includes game rules and setting expectations) are in conflict than your player is going to be confused about what is occurring since your description and the other facts of the situation (rules and setting assumptions) are in conflict.

I see that sort of conflict as a problem in gaming and something to minimize or avoid. How do you see it?

• Do you think that a colorful description can never, ever create confusion?
• Do you actually want your description to confuse your players for some reason?
• Do you just not care if your players are confused by your description so long as your colorful description appeals to you?

I want to be careful how I word thus this response. Let me ponder, more in a bit.

Ok let me try and run through this without any misunderstandings (Damn sometimes the written format is plagued with them!)

First I think I do understand what you are expressing, if I appear to be ignoring it I apologize, perhaps Im just in a hurry to get my next point across. Also typically I am sitting down and responding to a number of threads and probably lose the flow of the argument. Again, apologies.

I do see how the GM's (or player's for that matter) colorful description of an event or situation COULD conflict with hard an fast game rules.

So to answer your first question...NO... I don't think that it could NEVER cause conflict but for reasons I will relate I believe it would be a very rare occurrence.

I wont bother answering your second question as that just irritation talking, I know because Ive done it myself.

And I suppose that goes for the third one too. Any GM that doesn't care, or worse confuses his players and their understanding of the game is a jerk, nuff said.

Now what I believe I hear you saying is that a description might unintentionally give the impression that an existing game rule or condition has come into effect and that the player would proceed with that faulty understanding. (ie. if a game system allowed for armor degradation and the GM described the opponent's armor as being hacked into tatters the player might assume the armor is less protective and therefore a more attractive target...."oh surprise his Plate mail is still perfectly fine despite what I said and your attack fails pitifully!")

Obviously this sort of thing has to be avoided and therefore the GM and players should either avoid or clarify such descriptions when they clearly relate to a game rule. As we were having this discussion I was honestly imagining OD&D and a simple Armor Class with no chance of armor damage or what have you, or more generically any typical game system where combat is just a series of hits and damage until the HP or whatever is gone. Such color as knocking someone back, driving them to their knees, causing bleeding, dropping a weapon momentarily, damaging their helmet etc. cant have any real effect because their is no provision for it in the rules unless the GM and Players house rule it (typically requiring a quick conversation and agreement. "Ok the guy's helmet is dented so badly he casts it aside. He is one armor class lower now, that sound ok?"

So in essence I get what you are saying but to me its a matter of doing what I suggest right rather than not doing it at all. The end result more than justifies the little bit of extra effort put forth. The alternative is a much more clinical gaming experience, and again - not knocking that for some - but for me it would seriously undermine the reason I play.

First, rgrove, let me say I appreciate the care you've taken in your writing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919291Now what I believe I hear you saying is that a description might unintentionally give the impression that an existing game rule or condition has come into effect and that the player would proceed with that faulty understanding. (ie. if a game system allowed for armor degradation and the GM described the opponent's armor as being hacked into tatters the player might assume the armor is less protective and therefore a more attractive target...."oh surprise his Plate mail is still perfectly fine despite what I said and your attack fails pitifully!")

Obviously this sort of thing has to be avoided and therefore the GM and players should either avoid or clarify such descriptions when they clearly relate to a game rule.

Yes this is part of (but not all of) what I was saying. So we are in agreement that this sort of conflict is something to be avoided.

QuoteSuch color as knocking someone back, driving them to their knees, causing bleeding, dropping a weapon momentarily, damaging their helmet etc. cant have any real effect because their is no provision for it in the rules unless the GM and Players house rule it (typically requiring a quick conversation and agreement. "Ok the guy's helmet is dented so badly he casts it aside. He is one armor class lower now, that sound ok?"

We are not in full agreement here. Let me look at your examples one at a time.

"knocking someone back" is not simply color or at least it should not be simply color. Being knocked backwards also causes a positional change which frequently should matter in any system or style of play where position is not entirely abstract. (Here I am not necessarily referring to using a square or hex grid for movement, only to a style of play where there is a describable fictional landscape that characters can move in, rather than a nebulous and position less mist or fog.)

• If the character knocked back was fighting from a doorway (say to block it or just to limit the number of attackers they would face) then they no longer block the doorway which now means the opponents can enter or more attackers can engage the defender.
• If space behind the character was restricted, say by a railing or cliff knockback could have other, possibly fatal, results.
• If there were other characters behind the person knocked back they could also be knocked back or impeded in some way.
• And if the character was fighting with his back to a wall, knockback as you describe it isn't possible. Not that none of these outcomes require a grid or hex map, just some attention to where the character is positioned relative to other characters and major features of the landscape.

"driving them to their knees" the attacker now has a height advantage over their foe (who is on their knees) which should provide a bonus. It would provide a bonus in every game system I've ever played in or run, which includes OD&D and AD&D. In most game systems there is a clear rule for such things. I can't recall if OD&D had a specific rule for height anymore than I can recall if OD&D had a specific rule for flank or rear attacks, but the expectation I have is that a bonus would accrue in all those cases. I believe that interpretation is consistent with the rules as written and was certainly the established practice of the originators of the game. Certainly every GM I knew back in the 1970s understood the tactics involved and took account of them while gaming or he got a lot of static from the players, most all of whom did understand such things.

"dropping a weapon momentarily" a dropped weapon has an obvious effect: your opponent is no longer holding their weapon. What a great opportunity!

• Did you mean the character drops and then picks up their weapon all in the same round and without their opponent having a chance to take advantage of the character first being disarmed and second stooping (height advantage again) to pick up the weapon?  
• If so I would find that an odd and unexpected way to imagine combat and one which I would frankly find a bit confusing to even try to imagine. Which would make adding that bit of color a negative for me.

"damaging their helmet etc." I'll give you this one. If it's a small dent or a scratch on the metal I wouldn't see any problem with this except for rare corner cases like where the foe is a wraith and the attacker doesn't have a magic weapon.

"causing bleeding" this description is too vague for me to tell whether or not it would cause confusion.

• I expect that most people consider bleeding to be a condition that sometimes must be stopped or it continues which eventually causes loss of consciousness and death due to exsanguination.
• I can see a number of ways descriptions of bleeding could cause different and possibly contradictory views of the situation between GM and player.
• I can also see instances "it was just a scratch but blood trickles down" where the description is unlikely to be confusing.

As I said initially, the description needs to harmonize with other elements of play. Even if there is no specific rule (and often my players don't know every single, specific rule), the player and the GM should be in agreement on the consequences of bleeding. If the GM thinks it is just color with no mechanical effect and the player stops fighting to bandage their wound because  they think their character needs to do that, that disagreement is a problem for me. Similarly if player A whose PC was hit for -2 damage stops to bandage their wound while player B whose character took even more damage (relatively and/or absolutely) doesn't bother to stop to bandage their wound because player B is in harmony with GM expectation that bleeding is meaningless color, that is a problem. Do you agree?

QuoteSo in essence I get what you are saying but to me its a matter of doing what I suggest right rather than not doing it at all.

I did not argue for "not doing it at all." You keep characterizing the choice as your type of description or "none at all." Those are not the only choices.

The problem I alluded to originally is when the description and the other aspects of the situation are not in harmony. You now appear to be in agreement that a description that is "not in harmony" is something to avoid. So that's some progress in our conversation.

It is apparent to me that I see a lot more potential for confusion that you seem to see. Maybe that is a function of having initially played abstract games like OD&D with people who were familiar with and who included tactical elements like positioning and change of position, flanking, height advantage, and a penalty for being unarmed because those were obvious (to us) elements of combat* that were already included in hex and chit boardgames and miniatures battles. One need only look at the rules of D&D's predecessor game, Chainmail, to see the inclusion.

The fact that you have played with the same group of players, using the same game system, in the same style of play, for a number of years may have allowed your group to eliminate a lot of the potential confusion that descriptions can provide. It also sounds like maybe you don't include a lot of the tactical elements that I include and that I see as essential to actually imagining an interesting fictional combat e.g. positioning and change of position, flanking, height advantage, penalty for being unarmed, etc.

QuoteThe alternative is a much more clinical gaming experience, and again - not knocking that for some - but for me it would seriously undermine the reason I play.

Again those are not the only two alternatives.

One alternative that you seem not to have even considered is allowing the player himself or herself (themselves just doesn't scan here as a nongendered pronoun) to imagine these minor bits of color. As a player, I'm perfectly able to translate -2 hit points of damage as a colorful but mechanically meaningless bit of color like a scratch or bruise on the ribs. I don't need the GM to do that for me and in fact, if I have already imagined that as a scratch or bruise along the ribs and the GM tells me that it fact it was a cut to the forehead, the GM has just contradicted my vision of the events in a situation where there is no reason to prefer or prioritize the GM's vision (since as you have stated the effect is mechanically meaningless color) and every reason to allow the player their own vision of the mechanically meaningless color.

I'm honestly unsure whether you agree with me on this last point. I tend to think that you prefer to prioritize your description as the GM because you enjoy creating those narrative bits of color and that creation is a lot of what you enjoy about GMing.


* Dropped weapons, which is a man-to-man effect, wasn't something that occurred in the sorts of wargames that preceded D&D. And then after playing D&D with the inclusion of tactical options, I played and ran games that had explicit mechanical effects for position and height, as has virtually every RPG game I have read since the 1970s. FATE and HeroWars/HeroQuest might be exceptions.

You are taking the examples very literally and perhaps I should explain the use of them in more detail so you will understand why Im not concerned about those misconceptions you list.

"Color" typically appears during the impromptu ramblings of a GM describing the scene and action. If you look at it directly I cannot imagine not including a bit of color when I speak during a game, the result would be - to my mind- terribly uninteresting and dry.

Literal quotes here -

"Ok, good roll. You it the guy for 3 points of damage. He has 4 left."

v.s.

"Ok, good roll. You thrash the guy across his shield driving him back a bit then sweep in and slam your sword across his armored thigh. He belches out a curse and holds his guard ready to counter."

Im sorry but I cannot in anyway imagine playing a game where I used the first phrase. Its just not how we play, how Ive EVER played. Even when running OD&D or the Fantasy Trip back in the 70s were seeing past the numbers.

"Your using the healing potion then? Alright, that's uh.. 4 restored health."

or

"Your using the healing potion? Alright, you pop the cork and down the foul tasting brew. It hangs for a second in your throat before you force it down and a sudden warmth fills your abdomen and spreads throughout your body. You feel the slash on your arm and the bump on your head tingle and the pain dissipate. Within seconds you feel refreshed. Recover 4 health on your sheet. Whose initiative now?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919332You are taking the examples very literally and perhaps I should explain the use of them in more detail so you will understand why Im not concerned about those misconceptions you list.

I'm working with the descriptions you gave me. If I am instead supposed to take your meaning as something like the following:

"As a GM I would say something like “you are knocked back” or “you are driven to your knees” or “you are bleeding” or “you dropped your weapon” but I wouldn’t actually say those things. I would say something different that couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted or cause a contradiction.”

Then all I can say is carry on with your stipulated lack of error or contradiction. There is obviously nothing to discuss in that regard.

Quote"Color" typically appears during the impromptu ramblings of a GM describing the scene and action. If you look at it directly I cannot imagine not including a bit of color when I speak during a game, the result would be - to my mind- terribly uninteresting and dry.

As I have said, more than once now. The GM does not need to provide all the imagination in the game. Players are perfectly capable of imagining things all on their own. Do you have any thoughts about that concept?

Quote"Ok, good roll. You it the guy for 3 points of damage. He has 4 left."

I don’t know who you are literally quoting. As a GM I prefer not to say any of those things.

First I usually don’t need to tell the player that they rolled well or that they did 3 points of damage, since they know they know they rolled a 3 (or some number resulting in a total of 3 points of damage). They rolled the damage dice and they can read it as easily as I can. Second, their PC does not have a running total of opponent hit points or a floating health meter above the NPC's head. I’d be far more likely to tell the player the observable effect of 3 points of damage to the NPC than directly and exactly track hit point ablation for them. What that effect will be is heavily system dependent and I seldom run systems that are so abstracted that damage is solely hit point ablation. If I do, then I’ll describe things based on percentage damage inflicted, percentage hit points remaining, and closeness to the opponent dying, falling unconscious, or otherwise being put out of the action. If they want to they can back calculate an estimate of the NPC's hit points based on my description, but that will be inexact, as it should be.

Quote"Ok, good roll. You thrash the guy across his shield driving him back a bit then sweep in and slam your sword across his armored thigh. He belches out a curse and holds his guard ready to counter."

This sort of description is easily within the imaginative capabilities of all but the most unimaginative of players.

If the color has no mechanical impact, why not let the player create their own color commentary?

QuoteIm sorry but I cannot in anyway imagine playing a game where I used the first phrase. Its just not how we play, how Ive EVER played. Even when running OD&D or the Fantasy Trip back in the 70s were seeing past the numbers.

Then don’t. As I said, I would prefer not to say what you quoted above. It combines data you don’t need to tell the player (because they already have the information) with data you shouldn’t tell the player because their character doesn’t have that information.

Quote"Your using the healing potion then? Alright, that's uh.. 4 restored health."

I find it telling that you  can’t provide a very simple, factual response without dumbing it down by including filler sounds like “uh…” However, when you provide your color commentary there is never any hesitation. If I wanted to caricature your descriptions as you  have done the very simple factual statement I’d give you something like this

Spoiler

GM: You’re using the healing potion then? Uh…you do have one, right? OK you do. Alright. Then you pop the cork (did I mention that healing potions have corks that are easily popped unlike wine bottles?...I did…Great.) So you pop the cork and you down the potion which tastes….uh…foul. Yeah it’s a foul tasting brew. It sticks…I mean hangs in your throat for a second before you…umm…force it down and a sudden…uh…warmth fills your abdomen and spreads throughout out your…um…body. You feel the slash on your…where was that slash, oh yeah…that slash on your arm tingle…

Player interjection 1: What about the bump on my head?

GM:…Uh yeah, yeah…and the bump on your head tingles too and the pain goes awa…uh…the pain dissipates.

Player interjection 2: Last time the healing potion was cold and it I don’t think it tingled? Why is this one different?

GM: Uh…because it has uh…different ingredients than the last potion.

Player interjection 3: Oh. OK. So am I all healed up then or do I still have damage?

GM: No you are all healed up.

Player: Great. Now whose turn it it now? Because I lost track.

Quote from: Bren;919359I'm working with the descriptions you gave me. If I am instead supposed to take your meaning as something like the following:

"As a GM I would say something like “you are knocked back” or “you are driven to your knees” or “you are bleeding” or “you dropped your weapon” but I wouldn’t actually say those things. I would say something different that couldn’t possibly be misinterpreted or cause a contradiction.”

Then all I can say is carry on with your stipulated lack of error or contradiction. There is obviously nothing to discuss in that regard.

As I have said, more than once now. The GM does not need to provide all the imagination in the game. Players are perfectly capable of imagining things all on their own. Do you have any thoughts about that concept?

I don’t know who you are literally quoting. As a GM I prefer not to say any of those things.

First I usually don’t need to tell the player that they rolled well or that they did 3 points of damage, since they know they know they rolled a 3 (or some number resulting in a total of 3 points of damage). They rolled the damage dice and they can read it as easily as I can. Second, their PC does not have a running total of opponent hit points or a floating health meter above the NPC's head. I’d be far more likely to tell the player the observable effect of 3 points of damage to the NPC than directly and exactly track hit point ablation for them. What that effect will be is heavily system dependent and I seldom run systems that are so abstracted that damage is solely hit point ablation. If I do, then I’ll describe things based on percentage damage inflicted, percentage hit points remaining, and closeness to the opponent dying, falling unconscious, or otherwise being put out of the action. If they want to they can back calculate an estimate of the NPC's hit points based on my description, but that will be inexact, as it should be.

This sort of description is easily within the imaginative capabilities of all but the most unimaginative of players.

If the color has no mechanical impact, why not let the player create their own color commentary?

Then don’t. As I said, I would prefer not to say what you quoted above. It combines data you don’t need to tell the player (because they already have the information) with data you shouldn’t tell the player because their character doesn’t have that information.

I find it telling that you  can’t provide a very simple, factual response without dumbing it down by including filler sounds like “uh…” However, when you provide your color commentary there is never any hesitation. If I wanted to caricature your descriptions as you  have done the very simple factual statement I’d give you something like this

Spoiler

GM: You’re using the healing potion then? Uh…you do have one, right? OK you do. Alright. Then you pop the cork (did I mention that healing potions have corks that are easily popped unlike wine bottles?...I did…Great.) So you pop the cork and you down the potion which tastes….uh…foul. Yeah it’s a foul tasting brew. It sticks…I mean hangs in your throat for a second before you…umm…force it down and a sudden…uh…warmth fills your abdomen and spreads throughout out your…um…body. You feel the slash on your…where was that slash, oh yeah…that slash on your arm tingle…

Player interjection 1: What about the bump on my head?

GM:…Uh yeah, yeah…and the bump on your head tingles too and the pain goes awa…uh…the pain dissipates.

Player interjection 2: Last time the healing potion was cold and it I don’t think it tingled? Why is this one different?

GM: Uh…because it has uh…different ingredients than the last potion.

Player interjection 3: Oh. OK. So am I all healed up then or do I still have damage?

GM: No you are all healed up.

Player: Great. Now whose turn it it now? Because I lost track.

Your actually serious... Im just UH...stunned. Ok then, your right of course. One should never attempt to add any narrative color or descriptive detail to the game in the fear that some incredibly dumb player will mistake it for a rule. I got it and admit that I am once again wrong... not just that I have a difference of opinion but TERRIBLY, COMPLETEY AND UTTERLY, someone please kill me and put me out of my ignorant misery WRONG.

I just want to thank everyone for letting such a complete idiot  like me be a member of a forum of such great minds. When I introduced myself and mentioned I was in a gaming desert and haven't  have any local gamers to talk to and socialize with for some time I should have mentioned just what a dolt I was and we wouldn't have had to wait through so many antagonistic threads for everyone to figure it out. Every village needs and idiot and a dog to kick, Im happy to provide both!

Happy gaming all!

Quote from: rgrove0172;919421Your actually serious... Im just UH...stunned. Ok then, your right of course. One should never attempt to add any narrative color or descriptive detail to the game in the fear that some incredibly dumb player will mistake it for a rule.  I got it and admit that I am once again wrong... not just that I have a difference of opinion but TERRIBLY, COMPLETEY AND UTTERLY, someone please kill me and put me out of my ignorant misery WRONG.

You know, you may not realize it, but you are coming across as patronizing and rather thick or, and I think this is far more likely, like a guy who wants to control the color of his game to protect his precious dramatic vision from being sullied by his players words or even by their silent thoughts, but is unwilling to admit to the same because, in the back of his mind, he's afraid we'd think he was being silly and childish and we'd tell him so.

Quote from: Bren;919359This sort of description is easily within the imaginative capabilities of all but the most unimaginative of players.

If the color has no mechanical impact, why not let the player create their own color commentary?

(emphasis added)

It does seem to be a different matter depending on where along the scale the combat system is, from a system where individual blows, hit locations, wounds, and placement and facing are all explicit significant elements of play (e.g. TFT, GURPS, Phoenix Command, Hero games, etc.) up to systems where everything is very abstract and you may as well not have taken any actual damage and anything could really have happened up to the point where someone actually falls unconscious.

I use color, but not for anything that has a game effect... but I play games where almost everything actually has rules giving them effects, so most of rgrove's "color" has associated rules and numbers. The details that happen can be described colorfully, but not just invented, because that would steamroller the rules.