TheRPGSite

Lets see if I can post this question in a way that will inspire discussion and not condemnation.

A PC (Warrior in mail with sword and board) has just been hit by a ranged bow attack from a distant Goblin and a melee attack from one with a spear. (They both acted on the Goblin group's initiative.)

Im assuming any of a hundred conventional RPG systems where, understanding all too well that some take into account various details this generality will ignore.

The damage rolls are 4 from the bow, which is stopped almost entirely by the PCs mail (leaving only 1 hit to get through) but the spear does 8, yielding 5 more points of damage. The total of 6 drops the PC down from say... 15 to 9, a fairly egregious effect but not critical to his health.

How do you describe this in your games?

A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

B) The archer sends a shaft whistling your way and you feel the impact at your side. The arrow doesn't penetrate but youll have a bruise tomorrow. The spear wielding Goblin however works past your shield and with a thrust shoves his weapon hard into your armored midriff, knocking the air out of you. You feel several of the mail links part and stab into your flesh but without its protection you might have been dead right there. Take 6 off your Health.

How much color do you provide in combat exchanges? Are you players happy with a numbers exchange, just the facts or do they dramatize their actions as you do? Do you worry that your descriptions may complicate or confuse? Such as mentioning bleeding or a limp from a wound and not really planning on applying the effect in game terms?

Always the "color" commentary. Whether that's with an abstract system (like Call of Cthulhu) where the results need to be interpreted, or with a complex system (like RuneQuest) where the results clearly provide the "color".

My players describe their actions in real terms, though it's probably not as verbose as your "B)" example. The "numbers" are tacked on after the description, like your example.

If there's any confusion about the descriptions then my players will ask questions. I don't typically tack on side effects (bleeding, physical impairment) unless I'm leveraging a rules system that provides those kinds of mechanics. Basic Roleplaying, for example, includes a major wound table for serious injuries that result in these kinds of side effects. Or I can use bleeding rules based on the results of a Special success from a slashing weapon. There are times when I want this level of detail and times when it's not as important to me.

I encourage my players to put colour in their combat descriptions. When I am running T&T they can actually get mechanical advantages for doing so "I duck behind the giant and slice at his Achilles tendon" actually gets them a Saving Roll to do just that and cripple one of the giant's legs.

I don't put that kind of color on every attack as it can slow the game too much, especially if it is a game where hit points are high and damage points are low. But I definitely put some colour into it as I want my players to have frontal awareness that their characters are engaged in life or death struggle.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915893I don't put that kind of color on every attack as it can slow the game too much, especially if it is a game where hit points are high and damage points are low. But I definitely put some colour into it as I want my players to have frontal awareness that their characters are engaged in life or death struggle.

This is my feeling. Sometimes a vivid description is called for, and sometimes a quick result work can be better. The advantage of a colorful description is obvious, but simply giving a quick mechanical result can be effective at times. If you are trying to move through the action quickly, it allows for a fast pace that keeps the game moving. Not using vivid descriptions on every action also makes the ones you do use more effective.

I don't really like mandatory descriptions or mechanical advantages for verbose descriptions. It tends to lead to quantity over quality over in descriptions, and descriptions become a chore rather than an expression of spontaneous creativity. I like it when players come up with a good description, but I don't push them on it.

EDIT: I cross-posted with DavetheLost. I want to be clear I wasn't not replying to him when I mentioned mechanical advantages. I think the example he is using is fine. It's rewarding a particular tactic, not just a colorful description.

I prefer option B, though my current group is about an A and a quarter. I'm sure most of us have been involved in both styles. I agree with Baulderstone as well. Overusing it can grow tedious. And when time is of the essence, quick and dirty to beat the clock or increase the pressure on the player to come up with something quickly rather than stalling the combat looking up feats, spells, special abilities, etc. can be great. As with anything in gaming, use what works best for you and your group and don't sweat it.

In my perfect gaming world as the dice and typically the modifiers and such are common knowledge there on the table top, there would be no need to discuss the numbers and everyone would be free to dramatize the results as they saw fit and we would all bask in the theatre. Unfortunately this isn't anywhere close to reality and the mechanics of most attacks have to be at least mentioned in brief before or after the color. As some of you stated too when the action gets 'hot and heavy'  too much color threatens the pace and has to be sacrificed. I hate it but I do it. "You hit the guard by the truck for 5 of 13 HP and he flinches from the impact but is still fighting...next!"

At times however, especially in a critical or one on one fight its kind of fun to keep some of the mechanics a secret. The players roll of course is going to give them a good idea of how well they did but they don't need to know the extent of the targets armor protection (other than what is obvious) defense and health. Keeping them guessing as it would be in a real battle can lend a lot of drama.

In a recent game the 1870s southern belle found her self accosted by a couple river toughs. She was unarmed but managed to defend herself with a piece of lumber. She dodged a grapple attempt and then tried to clobber the guy but as she has no real melee skill and the weapon is pretty crappy did only moderate damage (1/4 his HP) and caused a stun. Rather than tell her the specifics I merely informed her that the guy wheezed painfully as she connected with his rib cage and dropped to a knee. She wasn't sure if he was out of it, about to pass out or would be back at her throat any second. She decided to clock him one while he was down and again got about the same result. The guy completely collapsed, seeing stars and she moved on past but effectively he was only stunned and would be back up in another round with still half his HP and a good piss off worked up.

This kind of thing adds a lot to a game but granted slows things down and is sometimes hard to pull off with very knowledgeable and experienced players. They know about how good an NPC should be, his Health, abilities etc. and can judge his condition with more accuracy.

Only place I've seen people do B is in threads on message boards. I've never seen it in real life in 30 years of gaming regardless of game system being played.

100% "A".

I have rarely seen anybody put in any description and my inevitable reaction is "And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882How do you describe this in your games?

A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

B) The archer sends a shaft whistling your way and you feel the impact at your side. The arrow doesn't penetrate but youll have a bruise tomorrow. The spear wielding Goblin however works past your shield and with a thrust shoves his weapon hard into your armored midriff, knocking the air out of you. You feel several of the mail links part and stab into your flesh but without its protection you might have been dead right there. Take 6 off your Health.

I think B is really long-winded.

A little description is OK, but in general I want to emphasize the important stuff for the ongoing action, like how badly wounded they are - how they react to the attack, whether they're hesitant or fanatic in attacking, and so forth. Color descriptions of little details aren't important to my groups. The emphasis is on actions, reactions, and things that effect them.

Quote from: jhkim;915930I think B is really long-winded.

A little description is OK, but in general I want to emphasize the important stuff for the ongoing action, like how badly wounded they are - how they react to the attack, whether they're hesitant or fanatic in attacking, and so forth. Color descriptions of little details aren't important to my groups. The emphasis is on actions, reactions, and things that effect them.

I agree that B is long-winded.  One of the reasons it's long winded is that there two forms of information passed, a number and description.  If you really like the descriptions, then keep track of the numbers yourself.  When you do that, then the essential information the character needs to know IS contained in description form.  Otherwise, the description, while vivid, is meaningless if it doesn't alter the reality of the PC.  That's why I prefer combat systems with a little more variation in wounding, then any description isn't just to tart up the numbers, or to "bask in the theatre" but is transmitting key information that matters in the description, whether florid or concise.

A.

I might embellish a touch ("The guard slashes you for 4 points of damage" or "Woah - the troll almost took your face off" on a miss), but anything more isn't going to win me any awards with my players.

Maybe a very abbreviated version of B... "The arrow slams into you but it doesn't stick... but the spear... THAT got through and you're bleeding... but not impaled."

Both.

I give out a description of how they hit, or were hit, and then I tell them the number.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;915940A.

I might embellish a touch ("The guard slashes you for 4 points of damage" or "Woah - the troll almost took your face off" on a miss), but anything more isn't going to win me any awards with my players.

Exactly.  And for my players it'd better be funny, too.  "You hit him on top of the head so hard his tonker explodes."

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882How much color do you provide in combat exchanges?

Why limit the question to combat exchanges?

If a description doesn't have any mechanical weight there's little incentive to add one. This is why you get "I roll persuasion" as opposed to players interacting with NPCs. And the systems which do give mechanical weight to descriptions tend to give all of them equal weight, which makes them just as meaningless.

Regardless, such descriptions should be able to fit in a tweet. Anything longer becomes tedious.

"Color" without "Number" game effects is useless to me. I very occasionally narrate a relevant critical hit, like a crit on a named bad guy during a critical encounter, and then give it a in-game effect to boot. I had such a situation where the bad guy showed up, and a player got the draw on him and plunked him with a crit from a bow and arrow. It was so dramatically appropriate, that I gave it a knockdown effect and had the bad guy miss his next turn.
And I sometimes describe the condition of a foe, like "He's hurting really bad." if he's down to only a few hit points.

Other than that, I don't want to bore the players with descriptions.

[video=youtube_share;l1YmS_VDvMY]https://youtu.be/l1YmS_VDvMY[/youtube]

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;915958Why limit the question to combat exchanges?

If a description doesn't have any mechanical weight there's little incentive to add one. This is why you get "I roll persuasion" as opposed to players interacting with NPCs. And the systems which do give mechanical weight to descriptions tend to give all of them equal weight, which makes them just as meaningless.

Regardless, such descriptions should be able to fit in a tweet. Anything longer becomes tedious.

For us the incentive is the additional detail which aids in imagining the situation in a real world focus. Call it immersion I suppose. Flat numbers and bland mechanical descriptions break that for us.

Our group isn't bored by such descriptions but rather expects them. A game without a little theatre is just a game, an interaction of abstract concepts towards a goal. At least that's how we see it.

Oh, and I don't know that any of my players has ever attempted something like "Ill roll Persuasion". It doesn't make any sense at all without at least a general description. That pretty much goes for any roll honestly.

Back in the day, I used to run RoleMaster/Space Master and really enjoyed the color (as well as the mechanical detail) added by their critical tables, so much so that I adapted the crit tables to the Shadowrun combat system when I was running that.  WFRP and other systems which make use of hit location were also naturals for inserting description, since the mechanics provided the core of a description automatically.  D&D-type games, where those prompts aren't provided, however, have historically tended to be 95% A, with just the occasional embellishment as others have described above.

The last group I played with, though...  I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.  I wasn't trying to suggest we do that (I actually said I didn't think it was workable, due to the extra burden placed on the GM), but a couple of players latched on to that and convinced me to try it as an experiment.  They loved it.  And then they started pushing to take it further and further, until, half a dozen sessions later, I was the only one handling dice or interacting with the game mechanics at all, with a table policy of "no numbers" when talking about actions and their results.

In the end, it worked surprisingly well and I liked it enough that, the next time I get a game together, I want to at least try using that style right at the start, because it removes the need for players to learn the rules at all - they just tell me in plain English what they want to do, then I tell them in plain English what happens as a result.  No numbers.  No charop.  No system mastery.  Just straight-up exploration of an imaginary world.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915893I encourage my players to put colour in their combat descriptions. When I am running T&T they can actually get mechanical advantages for doing so "I duck behind the giant and slice at his Achilles tendon" actually gets them a Saving Roll to do just that and cripple one of the giant's legs.

I like that idea and, like great authors before me, will try to steal, I mean "adapt", it for my own homebrew.

I stick with the numbers for most combat exchanges. Given how often combat systems rely on abstractions and attrition, trying to tie each blow to the fiction can lead to pretty jarring results. Even more so when firearms are involved.

Descriptions work best I find is saved for the, the final, killer blow, the one that finally succeeds in taking its opponent. At least then you aren't limited to shooting someone in the shoulder all the time but you can describe something fun.

Quote from: nDervish;915978I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.

I've played that way as GM and Player and always enjoyed it. Not everyone is willing, but non-Gamers are usually just fine with it (along with playing without character sheets).

Quote from: nDervish;915978The last group I played with, though...  I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.  I wasn't trying to suggest we do that (I actually said I didn't think it was workable, due to the extra burden placed on the GM), but a couple of players latched on to that and convinced me to try it as an experiment.  They loved it.  And then they started pushing to take it further and further, until, half a dozen sessions later, I was the only one handling dice or interacting with the game mechanics at all, with a table policy of "no numbers" when talking about actions and their results.

In the end, it worked surprisingly well and I liked it enough that, the next time I get a game together, I want to at least try using that style right at the start, because it removes the need for players to learn the rules at all - they just tell me in plain English what they want to do, then I tell them in plain English what happens as a result.  No numbers.  No charop.  No system mastery.  Just straight-up exploration of an imaginary world.

I had a group that played that way for a time. I rolled all the dice as GM, they concentrated on character. EVERYTHING was described to them in realistic terms, no 'game speak' at all. It was actually pretty freaking fun but requires a certain type of player that trusts the GM completely and doesn't mine giving up those dice.

I have played in "no numbers" games. Also in games where the players roll their own dice and report the result to the GM, but do not know even their own specific hit points.

It certainly can boost immersion.

I play either in mode B (especially with players who don't know the rules, or not very well), or B with A data included. Sometimes a bit less flowery in wording but I also tend to communicate the severity in tone and possibly with side effects or gestures.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915943Exactly.  And for my players it'd better be funny, too.  "You hit him on top of the head so hard his tonker explodes."

Yes, so for me and my group the color commentary tends to come when the roll goes badly, or catastrophically, or when it goes incredibly well.

Ill have to add that in many cases a single die roll or task attempt can represent several seconds or more of time, several individual actions or even a short scene in itself. IF someone say rolls to intimidate someone or persuade. Surely these are more than just one quick dirty look or a witty remark. In a story it might take a paragraph to cover how the attempt was successful or failing. Someone attempting to climb up a wall as another example or perhaps performing medical treatment on the injured. "You fix them" hardly seems sufficient. Or at least for some it wouldn't be.

I think there are games conductive to b), but you won't find them among the more number-crunching, D&D/Shadowrun-like ones.

A with an occasional splash of color for particularly notable critical hits and such. D&D combat is abstract and designed to be resolved quickly not embellished and drawn out.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;916082A with an occasional splash of color for particularly notable critical hits and such. D&D combat is abstract and designed to be resolved quickly not embellished and drawn out.

That's a good point. Getting detailed with wound results ultimately feels like wankery when every mechanical result is actually "Character loses x hit points." If you are playing by the book a nasty, bleeding scalp wound, a slash to the Achilles tendon, and a jab to the abdomen all amount to the same thing. If I want to play with that kind of detail, I will break out RuneQuest 6/Mythras. If I am playing D&D, then I explicitly want simplicity over detail when it comes to wounds.

While I have liked hidden hit points since Unknown Armies first introduced me to the concept, I don't find that it fits that cleanly with D&D. D&Ds combination of things that hurt you and things that heal make tracking hit points a notable part of play. When do you want to use that heal potion? How deep into the dungeon do you risk going? Deciding those things based on loose GM descriptions seems a bit weak. And the descriptions will have to be loose, as characters are rarely ever impaired. If a character is down to 25% HP, do I describe him as weakened? If so, do I have to back that up with action penalties? If I don't it feels a bit flimsy.

It's purely subjective on my part though. I am perfectly happy to equate hit point loss to wounds with appropriate penalties that I whip up on the spot when I run Unknown Armies. I only run into dissonance when I try to mix it with D&D.

Quote from: Baulderstone;916086That's a good point. Getting detailed with wound results ultimately feels like wankery when every mechanical result is actually "Character loses x hit points." If you are playing by the book a nasty, bleeding scalp wound, a slash to the Achilles tendon, and a jab to the abdomen all amount to the same thing. If I want to play with that kind of detail, I will break out RuneQuest 6/Mythras. If I am playing D&D, then I explicitly want simplicity over detail when it comes to wounds.

While I have liked hidden hit points since Unknown Armies first introduced me to the concept, I don't find that it fits that cleanly with D&D. D&Ds combination of things that hurt you and things that heal make tracking hit points a notable part of play. When do you want to use that heal potion? How deep into the dungeon do you risk going? Deciding those things based on loose GM descriptions seems a bit weak. And the descriptions will have to be loose, as characters are rarely ever impaired. If a character is down to 25% HP, do I describe him as weakened? If so, do I have to back that up with action penalties? If I don't it feels a bit flimsy.

It's purely subjective on my part though. I am perfectly happy to equate hit point loss to wounds with appropriate penalties that I whip up on the spot when I run Unknown Armies. I only run into dissonance when I try to mix it with D&D.

Ive played my share of D&D in various versions and I cant say Ive ever had issue with a bit of creative description. The way some of you make it sound D&D seems like an abstract adventure board game (Descent anyone?) where resource management and tactical decisions are front and center above Roleplaying. That's just my perception, I may be focusing too closely on a few particular posts. Obviously the game can be played any number of ways but I agree certain systems, genres, settings etc. lend themselves towards particular approaches.

What Baulderstone said. This question is one the very system must answer, not the players. Trying to shoehorn color in a pure numbers system will ultimately result in boredom, at least in my experience.

I would recommend looking into games like Runequest, Unknown Armies, Risus, Over the Edge, Heroquest, Fate, Barbarians of Lemuria, Dungeon World (and other PbtA games), Hillfolk, etc. as examples that acommodate color on a system level n some degree.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

Well that really depends on the game system. Some like Runequest and Pendragon have built in mechanical effects that cover a lot of the color you are adding e.g. hit location, effect of armor, disabling injuries, knockdown, etc. But in general, I'd say my style is closer to A) than to B). However, I'd probably assume they can do the arithmetic themselves without needing to announce the subtraction or new total aloud.

To me, B) loses the necessary game information amidst the color verbiage, most especially if every single hit and miss gets this much detail. Frankly this level of detail would be more useful, flow smoother, and work better if you only did it for very significant hits or if you got rid of the final sentence and played the game with the GM tracking all the hit points and without letting the players know exact hit points.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916089Ive played my share of D&D in various versions and I cant say Ive ever had issue with a bit of creative description. The way some of you make it sound D&D seems like an abstract adventure board game (Descent anyone?) where resource management and tactical decisions are front and center above Roleplaying. That's just my perception, I may be focusing too closely on a few particular posts. Obviously the game can be played any number of ways but I agree certain systems, genres, settings etc. lend themselves towards particular approaches.

Note bold section and re-read OD&D or Moldvay B/X. As it turns out, it is a resource management game! How much oil, torches, sacks, food, and armour can we carry in to maximize the amount of time we can spend in-dungeon and maximize the amount of treasure we can carry out.

Some folks get confused by that and mistakenly believe this somehow affects their ability to speak in character at the table, but the early editions of D&D are explicitly a resource management game.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916196Note bold section and re-read OD&D or Moldvay B/X. As it turns out, it is a resource management game! How much oil, torches, sacks, food, and armour can we carry in to maximize the amount of time we can spend in-dungeon and maximize the amount of treasure we can carry out.

Some folks get confused by that and mistakenly believe this somehow affects their ability to speak in character at the table, but the early editions of D&D are explicitly a resource management game.

As someone that started with B/X that still tends to run that edition when I do play D&D, that is a big part of why I balk at hidden HP in D&D while being accepting of it in other systems. When I take D&D off the shelf, I am aiming for the particular experience it was designed for. That's not to knock anyone who takes it in another direction. It's just that I always see it as a roleplaying game centering around resource management on dungeon delves or expeditions into the wilderness. Letting players clearly see a resource deplete, hit points in this case, it a central tension of the game.

It's like with Call of Cthulhu. I guess you could play that with hidden Sanity, but the Sanity score usually informs player behavior even when it isn't actually producing a clear mechanical effect. Even if a Sanity loss doesn't result in a temporary insanity, I find players tend to act a little more unhinged immediately after it. Seeing that mechanical number drop adds color. Numbers and color aren't opposites.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916196Note bold section and re-read OD&D or Moldvay B/X. As it turns out, it is a resource management game! How much oil, torches, sacks, food, and armour can we carry in to maximize the amount of time we can spend in-dungeon and maximize the amount of treasure we can carry out.

Some folks get confused by that and mistakenly believe this somehow affects their ability to speak in character at the table, but the early editions of D&D are explicitly a resource management game.

Perhaps but it wasn't that aspect of the game that 'took off' and birthed a whole industry. It was the roleplaying. Probably because despite how those games were presented in the rulebook it was the players taking on a role and the adventure that unfolded that caught people up in it. Played strictly as you described would have been pretty dry except to a few accounting students.

Quote from: Baulderstone;916208As someone that started with B/X that still tends to run that edition when I do play D&D, that is a big part of why I balk at hidden HP in D&D while being accepting of it in other systems. When I take D&D off the shelf, I am aiming for the particular experience it was designed for. That's not to knock anyone who takes it in another direction. It's just that I always see it as a roleplaying game centering around resource management on dungeon delves or expeditions into the wilderness. Letting players clearly see a resource deplete, hit points in this case, it a central tension of the game.

It's like with Call of Cthulhu. I guess you could play that with hidden Sanity, but the Sanity score usually informs player behavior even when it isn't actually producing a clear mechanical effect. Even if a Sanity loss doesn't result in a temporary insanity, I find players tend to act a little more unhinged immediately after it. Seeing that mechanical number drop adds color. Numbers and color aren't opposites.

That's a good point. Personally I only find numbers annoying when they completely replace color. We mingle the two pretty well.

I have found myself frowning however when players start micromanaging based on statistics, HP and the like. "OK the goblins typically do 1d6 damage and Beorne has 8 HP so with his armor he can take at least one, maybe two hits. Let him go first and then...."

I don't think that kind of abstract mechanical thinking has any place in a Roleplaying game, but I know for many, many groups it is exactly how they approach their games.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916225Perhaps but it wasn't that aspect of the game that 'took off' and birthed a whole industry. It was the roleplaying. Probably because despite how those games were presented in the rulebook it was the players taking on a role and the adventure that unfolded that caught people up in it. Played strictly as you described would have been pretty dry except to a few accounting students.

Thanks for sharing your opinions, but your opinions don't translate to objective reality. Playing strictly as I described isn't dry, and none of us are accounting students.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916236Thanks for sharing your opinions, but your opinions don't translate to objective reality. Playing strictly as I described isn't dry, and none of us are accounting students.

We are still talking 1975 aren't we?  Didn't mean to step on your feelings.  Actually my opinion is objective and shared by many. D&D began as one thing them sort of took on a life of it's own.

It's not about "feelings", actually. You clearly state that you don't think "abstract mechanical thinking" (i.e. people actually thinking about the rules of the game they're playing) has "any place" in a roleplaying game, and you find resource management to be "dry". That's fine for you to have that opinion. But that does not translate to objective reality as being "good" or "bad" for roleplaying games. It only affects what you personally prefer in your roleplaying games.

For example, you may approach roleplaying games as an artistic expression of improvisational acting and collective narrative-building, with constructs such as dice and rules as (at best) facilitators and (at worst) impediments to this activity. That's perfectly fine, but not objectively better or worse than the "resource management board game" experience you contrast it with.

But D&D across all editions continues to be primarily an "abstract board game of resource management and tactical decisions" (as you put it). That is objectively true, irrespective of your particular implementation on it.

rgrove0172, have you played more color-accommodating games like, say, Barbarians of Lemuria, Runequest or Dungeon World ? I ask because you seem to be trying to twist D&D into a tool it was not designed to be, when there are other tools out there that do exactly what you want.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916089Ive played my share of D&D in various versions and I cant say Ive ever had issue with a bit of creative description. The way some of you make it sound D&D seems like an abstract adventure board game (Descent anyone?) where resource management and tactical decisions are front and center above Roleplaying. That's just my perception, I may be focusing too closely on a few particular posts. Obviously the game can be played any number of ways but I agree certain systems, genres, settings etc. lend themselves towards particular approaches.

An elaborate colorful narrative has little to do with role playing, likewise speaking in a funny voice or accent. These are just bits of theater added to the mix and are just fine as long as the participants enjoy them. The core activity of role playing is reacting to the imagined situation as if you were there. Everything else is just gravy.

As far as D&D combat is concerned, elaborate prose often conflicts with the reality of the situation. A fighter who normally has 60 hit points and is currently at 5 hit points is severely weakened in game terms with regard to stamina in combat but in other ways is just fine. He can carry as much weight, wield weapons as effectively as normal, march all day, and otherwise be as fit as a fiddle. Describing such an individual as having sustained a sucking chest wound, broken ribs, and similar trauma makes little sense. Doing so makes all the activities the fighter then proceeds to take part in ludicrous.

For that very reason I don't bother with dwelling on specific injuries unless they actually result in the character being taken out.

The lack of description of broken bones and severed arteries for characters who are down some HP does not impact the role playing at all. The imagined situation is that the character has been hurt and his/her effectiveness reduced somewhat. That is the reality of what happened and by NOT going into detail about the nature of the injuries, the activity that immediately follows can still make sense without altering game rules to do so.

If you are playing a system that is not abstract with regard to combat, then the situation can be different. When running GURPS combat, the injuries are very specific and the effects of them on game play are detailed enough to describe them. If you get your leg hacked off in a GURPS combat the rules are fairly clear about it. You can role play as if the effects aren't real (the Black Knight) but it is very obviously silly to do so.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916270It's not about "feelings", actually. You clearly state that you don't think "abstract mechanical thinking" (i.e. people actually thinking about the rules of the game they're playing) has "any place" in a roleplaying game, and you find resource management to be "dry". That's fine for you to have that opinion. But that does not translate to objective reality as being "good" or "bad" for roleplaying games. It only affects what you personally prefer in your roleplaying games.

For example, you may approach roleplaying games as an artistic expression of improvisational acting and collective narrative-building, with constructs such as dice and rules as (at best) facilitators and (at worst) impediments to this activity. That's perfectly fine, but not objectively better or worse than the "resource management board game" experience you contrast it with.

But D&D across all editions continues to be primarily an "abstract board game of resource management and tactical decisions" (as you put it). That is objectively true, irrespective of your particular implementation on it.

You have to agree however that objectivity, in itself varies from one person to the next. At no point did I indicate anything was good or bad, rather I used other terms that more appropriately describe my feelings, rather than some notion of universal truth.

As to my comment on mechanical thinking in a roleplaying game I was poking mainly at the conflict with the term itself. Its a roleplaying game, wherein in some cases (D&D according to you) the roleplaying is merely a sideline. Its rather like American Football where actually kicking the ball is a rare occurrence compared with the rest of the game. Perhaps D&D should have been advertised as a Fantasy Game of Resources and Tactical Challenge?j

Quote from: Itachi;916358rgrove0172, have you played more color-accommodating games like, say, Barbarians of Lemuria, Runequest or Dungeon World ? I ask because you seem to be trying to twist D&D into a tool it was not designed to be, when there are other tools out there that do exactly what you want.

I have read through Dungeon world but regardless Im not twisting D&D into anything. I don't play nor do I care to play D&D. I had a great time with it for years when I was younger but left it long ago. I had a brief interest in Pathfinder but discovered my loss of interest in D&D included it as well.

This thread isn't about anything I want rather reading what gamer's viewpoints are on a common element of every game, description of game results. I have my own style certainly, other have theirs.

Personally I turn even a roll and miss into a few lines of narrative, from what I've gathered most systems assume a task roll, especially and attack in combat, reflects more than a single swing but rather an exchange over several seconds. I like to see how that several seconds turned out, that's all. When we look back on combats our PCs have taken part in we remember the narrative actions more so than the numbers generated. "You guys remember that time I took that Ogre's foot off and he fell down the stairs onto the Goblin Chieftain?"  Without a lot of Color, players of some games systems (those more simplistic in design) are robbed of such experiences. As its just a matter of a little imagination I don't see why every game cant provide the same drama. That's my group's take on it anyway.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;916396An elaborate colorful narrative has little to do with role playing, likewise speaking in a funny voice or accent. These are just bits of theater added to the mix and are just fine as long as the participants enjoy them. The core activity of role playing is reacting to the imagined situation as if you were there. Everything else is just gravy.

So playing a role has little to do with roleplaying? O....k....Instead only tactical decisions have any part in playing the role of a fictional character. Got it

As far as D&D combat is concerned, elaborate prose often conflicts with the reality of the situation. A fighter who normally has 60 hit points and is currently at 5 hit points is severely weakened in game terms with regard to stamina in combat but in other ways is just fine. He can carry as much weight, wield weapons as effectively as normal, march all day, and otherwise be as fit as a fiddle. Describing such an individual as having sustained a sucking chest wound, broken ribs, and similar trauma makes little sense. Doing so makes all the activities the fighter then proceeds to take part in ludicrous.

Ive never done that, nor have the GMs Ive played with. HP is a difficult and abstract concept but effectively all HP above 10 or so relate more to a PC's luck/wind/ability to avoid incoming damage or whatever. A Fighter with 60HP down to 5 should be described as getting winded, losing his edge and slowing down such that the next attack he endures might well really connect for that sucking chest wound or whatever. But that's just how we played, its been a long time.

For that very reason I don't bother with dwelling on specific injuries unless they actually result in the character being taken out.

Yes, other than nicks and bruises I would agree. No broken bones or horrid gashes until the PC drops to very low or negative HP

If you are playing a system that is not abstract with regard to combat, then the situation can be different. When running GURPS combat, the injuries are very specific and the effects of them on game play are detailed enough to describe them. If you get your leg hacked off in a GURPS combat the rules are fairly clear about it. You can role play as if the effects aren't real (the Black Knight) but it is very obviously silly to do so.

That's true but as stated above there is a place and method to including Color in even the most basic of systems, you just have to know how to use it and how it relates to the system at hand.

In FFG's End of the World for instance, Stress is accumulated in combat and later converted to injuries in order to reduce it. Stress kills if it gets to high, injuries merely inhibit you. Its a weird system but works in a gamey sort of way but is rather difficult to describe colorfully. One gets tired of the "You look down after killing the zombies and realize that somehow in the heat of the battle you gashed your leg terribly, only now do you notice the blood and feel the pain." mechanic and the GM has to get very creative to make it sound plausible...but it can be done.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916406You have to agree however that objectivity, in itself varies from one person to the next.

You seem to not understand the word "objective". That makes any discussion with you rather pointless.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916406Its a roleplaying game, wherein in some cases (D&D according to you) the roleplaying is merely a sideline.

You seem to be confusing roleplaying game with "improvisational theater" and "talking with an accent" and other trappings that some but not all people incorporate into their roleplaying games.

I, for example, incorporate those elements into many of my games, but that does not define what roleplaying is.

Quote from: rgrove0172;916406Perhaps D&D should have been advertised as a Fantasy Game of Resources and Tactical Challenge?

Originally it was.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]318[/ATTACH]

Quote from: darthfozzywig;916427You seem to not understand the word "objective". That makes any discussion with you rather pointless.



You seem to be confusing roleplaying game with "improvisational theater" and "talking with an accent" and other trappings that some but not all people incorporate into their roleplaying games.

I, for example, incorporate those elements into many of my games, but that does not define what roleplaying is.

I'm not confused at all and "objective' is not a difficult concept but is still subject to opinion.

Quote from: Bren;916446Originally it was.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]318[/ATTACH]

Yep, exactly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882How do you describe this in your games?

A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

B) The archer sends a shaft whistling your way and you feel the impact at your side. The arrow doesn't penetrate but youll have a bruise tomorrow. The spear wielding Goblin however works past your shield and with a thrust shoves his weapon hard into your armored midriff, knocking the air out of you. You feel several of the mail links part and stab into your flesh but without its protection you might have been dead right there. Take 6 off your Health.

How much color do you provide in combat exchanges? Are you players happy with a numbers exchange, just the facts or do they dramatize their actions as you do? Do you worry that your descriptions may complicate or confuse? Such as mentioning bleeding or a limp from a wound and not really planning on applying the effect in game terms?

A for me, I don't really go into the "The barbarian's sword hacks through your arm, nearly severing it, with a gush of blood" description. As I normally play RQ-style games, saying that someone's arm is badly injured/severed is enough for me.

Almost always "A", because my players know what those numbers mean and visualize the fight in their mind.

There is a term among the narrative crowd called “fictional positioning”, which more or less means describing a position in-fiction that results in some meaningful impact on the game. Ex: “I trip the enemy so he won’t be able to attack me next turn”. “Ok, so he is on the ground now with no possibility to attack. What do you do now?”.

What you are describing here is the antithesis to that – describing fluff that has ZERO impact on the game. Ex: “The arrow pierces you in the knee sending a huge pain up you leg. You lose 3 Hp”. “So, that means I can’t move now ?” . “Nah, that’s just colorful description. As there is no actual rule for that, you can move normally”. “Oh.. ok”.

I still can’t understand the appreciation for something that just slows the game without having any meaningful impact whatsoever. But hey, that’s your game bro.

Closer to B, since we're running DW, and the fiction is part of play.

Yep, Dungeon World is all about "fictional positioning", making this kind of description an important thing.

Quote from: Itachi;918315Yep, Dungeon World is all about "fictional positioning", making this kind of description an important thing.

Just one of the things that's shitty about it.

Quote from: Itachi;918282There is a term among the narrative crowd called “fictional positioning”, which more or less means describing a position in-fiction that results in some meaningful impact on the game. Ex: “I trip the enemy so he won’t be able to attack me next turn”. “Ok, so he is on the ground now with no possibility to attack. What do you do now?”.

What you are describing here is the antithesis to that – describing fluff that has ZERO impact on the game. Ex: “The arrow pierces you in the knee sending a huge pain up you leg. You lose 3 Hp”. “So, that means I can’t move now ?” . “Nah, that’s just colorful description. As there is no actual rule for that, you can move normally”. “Oh.. ok”.

I still can’t understand the appreciation for something that just slows the game without having any meaningful impact whatsoever. But hey, that’s your game bro.

It may not have an impact on the RULES of the game but the rules are only one part of the experience. Such color has a great deal of impact in describing the scene to players and helping them envision what is going on. 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. Generally speaking what you come up with in your own imagination will be something like the fluff you are minimizing. If someone asked your character a few minutes later if they were ok, they would likely say something like "Im alright, took on in the shoulder but Ill live" etc. That doesn't mean that we MUST hinder the character's performance by levying a rule affect, they are heroes afterall, but it helps to at least be able to imagine what happened.

Quote from: RPGPundit;918862Just one of the things that's shitty about it.

Well Im no fan of DW either but criticizing it for an element that is at its core seems kind of silly. Its like saying Monopoly is stupid because it uses money. It makes much more sense to just say you don't like it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919035It may not have an impact on the RULES of the game but the rules are only one part of the experience.

But as described, taking "one in the shoulder" has no impact on anything. The shoulder still works fine. There's no need to remove a bullet or arrow or bandage a wound. The location is irrelevant color that simply describes which location took a shallow scratch or an undetectable bruise. Getting hit in the shoulder has no different effect or impact than does getting hit in the leg, the chest, or the head. They are all tiny, meaningless scratches that have less impact than does a paper cut on a real life office worker.

Which means that for me, you as the GM describing some narrative prose about the "impact" of the wound will just confuse the situation since I will think that wound should matter when in fact it doesn't matter either in the rules or in your "heroes afterall" view as the GM. I find that sort of color worse than useless as it sets up contradictory views of what has happened in the game world.

This is, of course, very different if you have a system like Runequest where the hit does have a rules effect than of course it matters where you were hit. And even in systems that don't necessarily use hit location e.g. Pendragon or WEG D6 if there is some game effect some narrative description makes a bit more sense.

I'm not saying you are wrong to do that sort of narrative color, only that were I one of your players, I'd be more likely to find that your descriptions detract rather than enhance my experience as a player.

Quote from: Bren;919065But as described, taking "one in the shoulder" has no impact on anything. The shoulder still works fine. There's no need to remove a bullet or arrow or bandage a wound. The location is irrelevant color that simply describes which location took a shallow scratch or an undetectable bruise. Getting hit in the shoulder has no different effect or impact than does getting hit in the leg, the chest, or the head. They are all tiny, meaningless scratches that have less impact than does a paper cut on a real life office worker.

Which means that for me, you as the GM describing some narrative prose about the "impact" of the wound will just confuse the situation since I will think that wound should matter when in fact it doesn't matter either in the rules or in your "heroes afterall" view as the GM. I find that sort of color worse than useless as it sets up contradictory views of what has happened in the game world.

This is, of course, very different if you have a system like Runequest where the hit does have a rules effect than of course it matters where you were hit. And even in systems that don't necessarily use hit location e.g. Pendragon or WEG D6 if there is some game effect some narrative description makes a bit more sense.

I'm not saying you are wrong to do that sort of narrative color, only that were I one of your players, I'd be more likely to find that your descriptions detract rather than enhance my experience as a player.

Ok, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I cant imagine playing a Roleplaying game however where hit points and armor classes and x2 damage multipliers and such are my only windows to the world. The mechanics are a necessary evil in my opinion, like a nerdy pain in the ass brother in law who we ask to do our taxes because we need but don't want to be seen with in public.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919092Ok, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Well thank you very much. How gracious of you.

QuoteI cant imagine playing a Roleplaying game however where hit points and armor classes and x2 damage multipliers and such are my only windows to the world.

Yes I can understand that. Of course I never said that game mechanics should be the only window on the world. What I said, which you ignored, was that for me narrative color needs to be in harmony with game mechanics. If color is not in harmony, than that color makes play worse not better.

QuoteThe mechanics are a necessary evil in my opinion, like a nerdy pain in the ass brother in law who we ask to do our taxes because we need but don't want to be seen with in public.

To me the mechanics are not a necessary evil, the mechanics are what makes an RPG a game rather than something else. The mechanics, when well chosen, are part of what makes a setting consistence and coherent rather than simply a mish-mash of dramatic coincidence and contrivance or simple wish fulfillment.

The lack of mechanics is one of the reasons that a lot of popular fiction is highly inconsistent about how it presents levels of skill, competence, and difficulty. We've all seen the sort of fiction I mean where the abilities of heroes and villains are inconsistent except in the dramatic sense that the heroes are easily thwarted by the villain at the beginning and middle of a story arc (where the villains are competent and powerful and the heroes are not) while at the climax the heroes suddenly become more powerful than the villains (for no reason other than needing a happy ending). And we see the same, lame rinse and repeat structure week after week or sequel after sequel. And unlike a TV show or movie, when we play an RPG we don't have the swelling of a really good score or the appeal of the actors to overcome our disbelief in the silly turn of events nor the excuse of "its in the script" to justify the foolishness.

I 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. Im assuming you aren't being literal here where everything the GM says have to have a rule equivalent or at least some actual bearing on the action.

"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?

The 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.
"The merchant frowns at you for a moment, obviously considering your proposal. He looks as if he is going to agree but then turns away." This is just one way of describing a failed diplomacy check or whatever. It doesn't have to change the basic game effect.

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

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.

I've been recording all of my gaming sessions for several years now. I find it generally invaluable in looking at what actually happened during sessions instead of hypothetical ideals. Here's a randomly selected transcript from my D&D campaign. The PCs have been experimenting with some magical globes that extend an energy field between whichever two are closest to each other.

GM: The hiistiche dragon form swarms up and out of the hole directly at Nasira!
Elestra: It's coming back!
Nasira:
GM: Does a 38 hit?
Nasira: No.
GM: Double-check. 20 points for the damage.
Nasira:
GM: First full round. Eliavra. You hear Nasira screaming.
Elestra: Come back!
Eliavra: It really got the surprise on us, huh?
GM: Yeah. 39 on a tied check.
Elestra: To be fair, they're little tiny things...
Agnarr: Wait! Did each one of them make the check?



Eliavra: I back away. "Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope..."
GM: Nasira.
Nasira: Really?
GM: Yup. There's a swarm of bugs all around you. Your right arm is enmeshed inside the creature's buzzing maw.
Nasira: Okay. So I'm too close to actually withdraw, right?
GM: The problem is that Withdraw only works in the space you start from. It has a 15 foot reach, so... No.
Nasira: I'm going to cast defensively. Remove Fear.
GM: Okay. Go for it.
Elestra: That's interesting.
Nasira: Okay. It's d20 plus... I don't remember this. Plus Concentration, but then...
Elestra: Do you have Combat Casting? That gives +4.
Nasira: No. But my Concentration is 15.
Elestra: Never mind, then.
Nasira: And it's only a 1st level spell.
GM: I believe it's 15 + the level of the spell.
Nasira: I got 30.
GM: Okay. So you're good. So you cast defensively, and then Will negates, so what's the Will save?
Nasira: 14.
GM: It makes its save.
Nasira: It was worth a try. 5 foot step.
GM: 37, I'm assuming hits... So as you back away it still has its maw around your arm, despite the fact you cast defensively with the other. So as you pull back, it sort of elongates its neck so that its maw is still wrapped around you. Take 20 points of damage. Its anatomy grossly morphs as its claws rake past you, thousands of tiny stingers and wings slicing into your arms for 25 points of damage and...
Nasira: Oh no...
GM: 17 points of damage.
Nasira: I fail my Fortitude save.
GM: Nasira falls. Its tail lashes out towards Ranthir's head--
Ranthir: My head!
Tee: He has the banner on him.
GM: What's the effect of the banner?
Ranthir: Removes Fear effects from all creatures within 20 feet.
Elestra: Take that, hiistiche!
GM: Okay. So its tail seems to lash over Ranthir's head -- separating in half to pass around the banner and then rejoining to smash down towards Tor's head. 20 points of damage from the tail, and then -- as the tail blinds you for a moment -- the two wings descend like clouds of locusts down upon you. 12 points of damage from one and 9 from the other wing. Agnarr, its your turn.
Agnarr: Which spaces is the swarm actually taking up?
GM: 3 x 3 space.
Agnarr: Okay. Agnarr will slide down this side of him.
GM: You'll move there and provoke. Its tail whips out at your legs. Give me an opposed grapple check.
Agnarr: Oh, snap!
GM: 52.
Agnarr: That's 15.
GM: Okay. So Agnarr moves here, and as he does the tail whips back from Tor, wraps around his leg, and dashes him to the floor.
Agnarr: I stand up.
GM: That provokes. 13 plus 9... 22 points of damage as you basically stand up into a swarm of insects that descends upon you as its neck pulls back from Nasira, emerging through its own back to plunge down. A few of the insects do pass through the energy field between the globes held by Tor and Agnarr, and those drop dead... although with little seeming effect to the swarm as a whole. Tor... Okay, you've got an energy field extending between you and Agnarr right now.
Tor: Okay. On a charge, do you have to attack from the first square you can attack from, or from any square?
GM: Has to be the nearest square and attack from there.
Agnarr: You could charge to here.
Tor: I do have a double 5 foot step. I just want to get to the other side of him. I'll just go for it.
GM: Okay. Rushing to the other side will provoke. So opposed grapple check. 47.
Tor: Oh... right. Well... 7.
GM: Tor goes down. And as he falls, the energy field snaps back over to Ranthir. So... Elestra.
Elestra: I could try to run, but it would just knock me down... So I teleport over to here. 29!
Tor: Boo-yah!



GM: Okay, you teleport behind the glass cylinder. Ranthir.
Ranthir: I walk through the hiistiche.
GM: Okay, so--
Ranthir: Banner.
GM: Oh. Right.



GM: The energy field follows you, cleaving the swarm in half. It makes its Reflex save, so it avoids the energy field, but it's split in half. Tee. You see Ranthir part the red dragon.

This example probably has a bit more finagling over rules than normal because they're dealing with several unusual mechanics (swarm, reach, the behavior of the energy fields, and the interaction of the swarm with Remove Fear effects), but it's fairly representative. One thing I do that isn't represented in this particular example is to make several mechanical resolutions before figuring out how those narratively all flow into each other. The other thing not fully represented are small side conversations between the players when it's not their turn, but which aren't fully captured on the recording. (The players in this group tend to remain fully engaged even when it's not their turn: Either commenting on the action OOC, reacting to it IC, or strategizing with the others.)

And what are we supposed to take from all that? It was a pretty involved tactical exchange certainly but in my opinion suffered from exactly the kind of rules heavy, drama light dynamic that my group fights hard to avoid. A certain amount of it is unavoidable of course, some aspects of the rules have to be mentioned at least in brief but when the conversation at the table is dominated by it the whole scene becomes a tactical skirmish game instead of a roleplaying game. That's just my opinion though, Ill refrain from making openly demeaning statements about your game despite your inability to do the same for me.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919563Elestra: It's coming back!
Nasira:

Nasira:

Eliavra: I back away. "Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope..."

Nasira: Oh no...

Quote from: rgrove0172;919584And what are we supposed to take from all that? It was a pretty involved tactical exchange certainly but in my opinion suffered from exactly the kind of rules heavy, drama light dynamic that my group fights hard to avoid.

Seriously? You don’t find players screaming in character and cheering indicative of dramatic play? :confused:

Quote from: rgrove0172;919584And what are we supposed to take from all that?

You started the thread. Have you really forgotten the question that you asked?

Quote from: Bren;919597Seriously? You don’t find players screaming in character and cheering indicative of dramatic play? :confused:

Let's be honest: I think it's becoming increasingly clear that he only considers it "dramatic play" if it's purple prose that he wrote before the game session and then railroaded his players into. And that he's only posting these threads so that he can passive aggressively attack other people while hypocritically pretending (a) not to and (b) to be the real victim.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919613You started the thread. Have you really forgotten the question that you asked?



Let's be honest: I think it's becoming increasingly clear that he only considers it "dramatic play" if it's purple prose that he wrote before the game session and then railroaded his players into. And that he's only posting these threads so that he can passive aggressively attack other people while hypocritically pretending (a) not to and (b) to be the real victim.

Wrong on every account. Your example had some good exchanges but also a lot of dry mechanical ones. That's all I was saying.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919584And what are we supposed to take from all that? It was a pretty involved tactical exchange certainly but in my opinion suffered from exactly the kind of rules heavy, drama light dynamic that my group fights hard to avoid. A certain amount of it is unavoidable of course, some aspects of the rules have to be mentioned at least in brief but when the conversation at the table is dominated by it the whole scene becomes a tactical skirmish game instead of a roleplaying game. That's just my opinion though, Ill refrain from making openly demeaning statements about your game despite your inability to do the same for me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919659Wrong on every account. Your example had some good exchanges but also a lot of dry mechanical ones. That's all I was saying.

Your transparent lie is transparent, troll.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919421I 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'd love to believe you were serious, but I doubt it. Out of curiosity, how many variations of the same thread are you going to post?

"I like to do [basic rpg activity] this way. How do people play? Oh, you play that way? Well, I guess you could do that, but I find it [juvenile/boring/inferior/disappointing/whatever]. That's just my opinion, of course, but I can't see why anyone would enjoy playing that way. What? Why are you so defensive? Don't you see my way is different in the way that is clearly better? Well, I guess no one can express an opinion here...so I'll start another thread!"


Keep at it, though, because these threads are pretty amusing.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919662Your transparent lie is transparent, troll.

Ah, the Troll tactic... sort of like "your momma" or "up yours"... the place to go when you come up empty - as if after 9 pages any idiot would continue to participate for the "pleasure" of arguing. Maybe some, but sure as shit not me.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;919663I'd love to believe you were serious, but I doubt it. Out of curiosity, how many variations of the same thread are you going to post?

"I like to do [basic rpg activity] this way. How do people play? Oh, you play that way? Well, I guess you could do that, but I find it [juvenile/boring/inferior/disappointing/whatever]. That's just my opinion, of course, but I can't see why anyone would enjoy playing that way. What? Why are you so defensive? Don't you see my way is different in the way that is clearly better? Well, I guess no one can express an opinion here...so I'll start another thread!"


Keep at it, though, because these threads are pretty amusing.

Go back and read more closely. I start the thread being very neutral and open about the various opinions. Before long though, sometimes almost immediately Im insulted and even then I try to proceed without too much negativity but eventually it gets a little combative. Im sorry Im not more passive and open to having my own opinion ridiculed openly.

(http://i.giphy.com/GjYjLvGErsggg.gif)


I can't wait for the next topic.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919584And what are we supposed to take from all that?

Seems to me you started this thread with:

Quote from: rgroveHow do you describe this in your games?

Quote from: rgrove0172;919036Well Im no fan of DW either but criticizing it for an element that is at its core seems kind of silly. Its like saying Monopoly is stupid because it uses money. It makes much more sense to just say you don't like it.

I can criticize it on the basis of the baseline of how regular RPGs are supposed to work.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;919613And that he's only posting these threads so that he can passive aggressively attack other people while hypocritically pretending (a) not to and (b) to be the real victim.

Quote from: rgrove0172;919688Go back and read more closely. I start the thread being very neutral and open about the various opinions. Before long though, sometimes almost immediately Im insulted and even then I try to proceed without too much negativity but eventually it gets a little combative. Im sorry Im not more passive and open to having my own opinion ridiculed openly.

Called it!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;920960Called it!

Called what exactly? This thread was done a while back and m9st of us have moved on.

Quote from: rgrove0172;921036Called what exactly? This thread was done a while back and m9st of us have moved on.

The thread had been "dead" for a little over three hours when I made my post.

Your transparent lie is transparent, troll.

No, you and the Pundit both commented on a dead thread. It was dead days before. TROLL POWER!

Quote from: rgrove0172;921358TROLL POWER!

I knew I should have vocally predicted you admitting that you were a troll. My next prediction is that you will claim to have done it ironically.

No admission, just being sarcasric. I honestly didn't think the troll accusation was serios.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;921555I knew I should have vocally predicted you admitting that you were a troll. My next prediction is that you will claim to have done it ironically.

Quote from: rgrove0172;921685No admission, just being sarcasric.

Called it!