TheRPGSite

A recent thread on another board has started some discussion about the level of description that desired for an enjoyable combat in an role playing game. Since its mostly a matter of preferences compressing the various degrees of description into a simple poll would be difficult so I thought I'd ask people to post examples of what they like to see in their games.

Describe a combat hit that inflicts notable but moderate damage to the target in manner you would consider:

Ideal for your table.

To scant for you table

Overwrought and florid in your opinion

http://www.sfwa.org/2005/01/on-thud-and-blunder/

QuoteWith one stroke of his fifty-pound sword, Gnorts the Barbarian lopped off the head of Nialliv the Wizard. It flew through the air, still sneering, while Gnorts clove two royal guardsmen from vizor through breasplate to steel jockstrap.

:p

Quote from: Piestrio;691310http://www.sfwa.org/2005/01/on-thud-and-blunder/



:p

To scant?

Ideal:

QuoteI stab the monster for 12 points

To Scant:

Quote12 points

To Florid:

QuoteZorg the ranger slowly circles his foe and with panther like speed and grace makes a quick lunge toward the orc, his sword snakes out with impossible speed and touches the vile green skin for 12 points of damage.

I prefer the description of combat to be circumstantial and ad hoc. Basically, I prefer to have me and the players describe their actions, roll the dice if need be, and then describe the outcomes on a case by case basis.

Player: "I raise my sword and swing it upwards, trying to cut down the negotiations with the orc chieftain before it has time to react." *rolls, succeeds, damage.*
DM: "The orc is visibly startled as the blade strikes its cleft chin. It bleeds abundantly as it takes a few steps back and seizes its enormous mace, throwing a menacing look at you as its servants leap forward to protect its life..." *rolls a bunch of d20s*

I do not like games systems spelling everything out as much, for I do not like to be needlessly contrived in my imagining by the game's system and rules, though there is a world of excluded middle in between, from the RQ6 combat moves you describe ad hoc, to the critical hit and miss charts of Rolemaster and DCC RPG and the like.

Quote from: Benoist;691314I prefer the description of combat to be circumstantial and ad hoc. Basically, I prefer to have me and the players describe their actions, roll the dice if need be, and then describe the outcomes on a case by case basis.

Player: "I raise my sword and swing it upwards, trying to cut down the negotiations with the orc chieftain before it has time to react." *rolls, succeeds, damage.*
DM: "The orc is visibly startled as the blade strikes its cleft chin. It bleeds abundantly as it takes a few steps back and seizes its enormous mace, throwing a menacing look at you as its servants leap forward to protect its life..." *rolls a bunch of d20s*

I do not like games systems spelling everything out as much, for I do not like to be needlessly contrived in my imagining by the game's system and rules, though there is a world of excluded middle in between, from the RQ6 combat moves you describe ad hoc, to the critical hit and miss charts of Rolemaster and DCC RPG and the like.

pretty much this

Doesn't it usually go like this at most tables?

Player: "I swing my sword."
DM: "At what?"
Player: "The goblin."
DM: "Which one?"
Player: :points finger at mini: "That one."
DM: "Ok. Roll."
Player: :rolls dice and looks at sheet: "21".
DM: "Hit. Roll damage."
Player: :rolls dice: "15."
DM: "The goblin is dead."

Quote from: Endless Flight;691320Doesn't it usually go like this at most tables?

Player: "I swing my sword."
DM: "At what?"
Player: "The goblin."
DM: "Which one?"
Player: :points finger at mini: "That one."
DM: "Ok. Roll."
Player: :rolls dice and looks at sheet: "21".
DM: "Hit. Roll damage."
Player: :rolls dice: "15."
DM: "The goblin is dead."

not at my table.  Benoist pretty much nailed it.

Quote from: Endless Flight;691320Doesn't it usually go like this at most tables?

Player: "I swing my sword."
DM: "At what?"
Player: "The goblin."
DM: "Which one?"
Player: :points finger at mini: "That one."
DM: "Ok. Roll."
Player: :rolls dice and looks at sheet: "21".
DM: "Hit. Roll damage."
Player: :rolls dice: "15."
DM: "The goblin is dead."

I think it happens at my game table, usually after we've started a fight as I described and everyone's in the groove while the fight drags on: there's a point you reach when you don't need to describe every move any more, because people just see it, and it kind of flows from there.

If all the fights were nothing BUT like this, however, I could end up bored pretty fast.

Benoist's is good, though often I go with less verbosity, especially for large combats.

"You counter the orc's strike and down he goes. The other two are undeterred and pummel you with their axes, but you catch the blows with your shield" etc.

Or even "The melee continues; you've been battered for 6 points of damage, and the second goblin is bleeding badly" – it's a good idea when narrating to vary the depth of your descriptions, and besides, it's a fight, so sometimes it's a bit of a blur.

Not gonna lie, though, sometimes it gets to the "you hit. The gnoll's still up. The gnoll hits you back for 5 damage. You miss." when people are tired or distracted.

Depends on the game. I run three

D&D 3.5

Its more just the numbers and I save exposition for critical blows or down to the wire events. I don't waste time going deeper (I have 2-3 hour sessions on a week night a fight takes a fair bit of that.)

To me that level of rules and combat is a lot of boring non narrated fighting, not worthy of specific details.


My Amber Game is all descriptive and very specific to build excitement and express differing ranks and what may be effecting them. Some of it is simpler but I gloss over that and move on speeding time forward to the more crucial events.


My Sunday game

This is a Seventh sea conversion to Space opera / Firefly sort of Genre. Here I do more of a middle ground, while some blows are not defined to much a larger portion are than in a 3.5 game.

I think it comes down to the rules and how granular they are and how much is deserving of attention. If it takes twenty rolls to kill one dude, doubtful I will describe each one compared to game were it is done in 3 rolls. Then each blow is more dramatic and telling.

I believe a lot of roleplaying is done in combat as well as a shopping trip in town. Sometimes the roleplaying is even more telling/intense in combat when lives are at stake.

Just my thoughts

I try for a middle ground when I am GMing.

I have ended up associating the florid descriptive combat with overacting GMs who want to imprint their concept of the "story" on my gameplay.

Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

What I like depends on the situation. Choosing rules with a certain level of detail (e.g., hit locations) implies at least so much in terms of description. Going beyond that (or sometimes even so far) is a matter of feel for when to keep up the pace of play and when to highlight notable events.

Quote from: Imp;691332Benoist's is good, though often I go with less verbosity, especially for large combats.

"You counter the orc's strike and down he goes. The other two are undeterred and pummel you with their axes, but you catch the blows with your shield" etc.

Or even "The melee continues; you've been battered for 6 points of damage, and the second goblin is bleeding badly" – it's a good idea when narrating to vary the depth of your descriptions, and besides, it's a fight, so sometimes it's a bit of a blur.

Not gonna lie, though, sometimes it gets to the "you hit. The gnoll's still up. The gnoll hits you back for 5 damage. You miss." when people are tired or distracted.

Oh yeah, if the battle's been going on for awhile the description grows more terse for us too until and unless some impressive results or some change of pace and exciting new tactic gets the momentum going again.

Quote from: Nexus;691350Oh yeah, if the battle's been going on for awhile the description grows more terse for us too until and unless some impressive results or some change of pace and exciting new tactic gets the momentum going again.

Weirdly enough I get the opposite, they start out rolling dice then as they get more excited and engaged the descriptions start flowing. It might be a function of the game system though, it was designed specifically to stoke the fires as it proceeds, the stakes get higher as the battle continues. I wonder do different systems have different effects like that or is it down to the group...

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;691335I believe a lot of roleplaying is done in combat as well as a shopping trip in town. Sometimes the roleplaying is even more telling/intense in combat when lives are at stake.

Just my thoughts

Absolutely. I really dislike the attitude that role playing stops when combat begins that some gamers develop.

Quote from: ptingler;691346Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

Perfection.

Quote from: Nexus;691353Absolutely. I really dislike the attitude that role playing stops when combat begins that some gamers develop.

Horsemanure.


"I hit him for five points" IS role playing in combat.  I want the other motherfucker as dead as possible as quickly as possible, just like in a real fight, and just like in a real fight, anything that does not lead me directly to that goal while avoiding a similar fate for myself is irrelevant.

I usually try to make it responsive to the player's actions. If they describe their attack, and succeed, something appropriate tends to happen. If they use a basic attack maneuver with no fluff, then I'll respond mechanically in turn. I don't mind either method, as Savage Worlds, our current game of choice, allows for the potential of downed enemies to not be dead. And as fun as it is to messily slay a zombie, if there's 50 more where it came from, flipping through the thesaurus is going to get old quickly.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691356Horsemanure.


"I hit him for five points" IS role playing in combat.  I want the other motherfucker as dead as possible as quickly as possible, just like in a real fight, and just like in a real fight, anything that does not lead me directly to that goal while avoiding a similar fate for myself is irrelevant.

I wasn't calling out disliking description as not role playing. I said "I don't like the attitude that role playing stops during combat". That's it. You know, I agreeing with the idea that it should be more intense in combat, not less or ignored: an attitude I've run into a few times.

As the DM, I prefer to describe what happens.  Benoist's description is pretty close.  

Factors that influence my description are of course the amount of damage and a relative description of the toughness of the monster.  

These are examples from a PbP, but are close to my preferred style for the table, too:

Nivor finally decides to heed Humphrey's mumbled advice and releases another arrow square at the ogre's chest. His aim is true, but the piled furs across the ogre's chest were designed to protect from just such a blow. The arrow lodges, but no blood spills forth indicating the armor ablated the attack.

....

The lack of armor once again makes a difference. The arrow slashes into the right eye at a downward angle, and punches back out through the right cheek. Flecks of blood and spit ooze from the wound.

.....

Fash releases any arrow into one of the orcs poking around. The orc raises a meaty paw and takes the arrow through the hand. Flinching, he pulls it out and utters a gutteral string of curses. Fash is glad he doesn't understand orcish, but even without comprehension his face flushes against the verbal onslaught.

....

I prefer a certain amount of description from the DM to feed my imagination.

Quote from: Shauncat;691358And as fun as it is to messily slay a zombie, if there's 50 more where it came from, flipping through the thesaurus is going to get old quickly.

Welcome to theRPGsite Shauncat, and welcome to your mesmerising avatar too. There's a lot to be said for brevity in terms of combat alright, but as far as zombies go there really are an infinite number of exciting possibilities. I was thinking I might do up a youtube video of the top 100 zombie (re)deaths.

Quote from: The Traveller;691352Weirdly enough I get the opposite, they start out rolling dice then as they get more excited and engaged the descriptions start flowing. It might be a function of the game system though, it was designed specifically to stoke the fires as it proceeds, the stakes get higher as the battle continues. I wonder do different systems have different effects like that or is it down to the group...

Now that's interesting. I can definitely see that happening and why it would but I can't say I've ever had it happen. Makes sense though and its pretty cool that your combats feed your player's excitement and energy so strongly

Quote from: Nexus;691359I wasn't calling out disliking description as not role playing. I said "I don't like the attitude that role playing stops during combat". That's it. You know, I agreeing with the idea that it should be more intense in combat, not less or ignored: an attitude I've run into a few times.

Okay, sorry, hadn't had any coffee yet.

I don't know if it's 'roleplaying' but fast, furious, exciting fights have their own kind of drama; in OD&D I can run a one-minute combat round almost real time.  It's interesting to see how things develop so quickly.

It also means there are five or six combat encounters per game session, PLUS several hours of exploration/interaction with NPCs.  IN a four hour game session, those 5 to 6 combat encounters take about an hour.

Depends on the game system. But my bad guys are always doing interesting stuff and so that affects my players. My fighters never get to you roll I roll you roll I roll.

But one thing I don't like her eis the fact that people are decribing hits.

So this

PC: Using my shield as a feint I swing my sword in a low arc and severe the orc's leg at the knee

Is right out

Its much more

PC: I use my shield to feint and then swing a low arc at the Orc's leg

GM: You connect a solid blow and take the orc's leg off below the knee he goes down screaming spraying blood from the wound.

So GM always describes the effect.

As Artifacts oA said up post Amber is the most descriptive becuase that is the way the rules engine works so in Amber I have to feed information to the PC that lets them know who thery rank against their opponent. I did have some real wiki examples but lost them all sadly but normally goes somethign like -

PC: I attack fast and hard. Reign down as many blows as possible so he doesn't have a chance to react.
GM: Conrad retreats desperately trying to blow your blows. His parries seem rather in effectual but despite this your attack fails to connect. He seems off balance but despite this you can't seem to get through
PC: Okay I try to lock blades and pull my dagger with my left hand.
GM: Conrad somehow regains his footing and as you go to lock blades he slips to the side and  delivers a stinging blow to your off hand that sends the dagger spinning. "tut tut he says lets stick to one blade at a time shall we" he says grinning.

Now an experienced Amber player should now see that their opponent has been faking a lower level of skill and has been trying to lure them out. They should now realise that their opponent has the upper hand in warfare and they need to either change the game, he didn't allow a lock of blades which might have moved the conflict to Strength or even Psyche so that might be the option' or to get out of their and reassess the situation. In any case the player needs to decide what action to take and how to take it in light os this information.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691356"I hit him for five points" IS role playing in combat.  I want the other motherfucker as dead as possible as quickly as possible, just like in a real fight, and just like in a real fight, anything that does not lead me directly to that goal while avoiding a similar fate for myself is irrelevant.

That's certainly tactical wargaming, and it's efficient and effective -- as tactical wargaming ought to be.  I just don't pretend it's "roleplaying."  It isn't.  Those things are couched solely in OOC system mechanics, and expressed pretty much solely in OOC system mechanics.

I admit my own combats aren't much more florid, and that pretty much because of GURPS' combat options: a NPC tries a Ruse against a PC, and I'm likely to describe it: "Make a roll against your Tactics skill or Perception, whichever is higher, please ... thank you.  The guardsman glances over your shoulder, distracting you for an instant, and your rapier is out of line ..."  But, sure, a lot of "Take six before armor" and suchlike.

I like it bare bones. Describing the expressions on the combatants faces and so forth is unintentionally comical at best.

Quote from: Nexus;691306Ideal for your table.

"Rachel mumbles incantations, charging the rune shot with her Gun Mage spells for greater accuracy and penetrating power, and presses the trigger as a lance of light pierces straight through the oncoming Thrall warrior."

QuoteTo scant for you table

"I shoot at the thrall on the left, it's got DEF 12 *roll* hit, armor 11 right? *roll* five damage."

QuoteOverwrought and florid in your opinion

"Rachel takes out her magelock pistol and reminisces about her trials in the gun mage academy where she got her first mechanikal device. It was lost three summers ago in the expedition into Thornwood when the whole company was ambushed by a Cryxian patrol and only a handful of them managed to flee for their lives successfully. Although it wasn't all bad because then Rachel got into her short but steamy relationship with Gabriella, the company bodger, heh. Wait, what were we doing again?"

Quote from: Ravenswing;691430That's certainly tactical wargaming, and it's efficient and effective -- as tactical wargaming ought to be.  I just don't pretend it's "roleplaying."  It isn't.  Those things are couched solely in OOC system mechanics, and expressed pretty much solely in OOC system mechanics.

Yes they are OOC mechanics but it is still roleplaying because the players are acting as their character would.Using the terms of the combat system rather than this.

Princess Bride Sword Fight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC6dgtBU6Gs)

The reason the way it is a compromise between accessibility, playability, and keeping the game going.

My combat patter goes like this.

Me: Your turn, John, what do you do?
John: I armlock the orc chief and twist hopefully knocking the sword out of his hand.
Me: Roll to hit
John: Got a 18!
Me:Nice! You got the guy in a armlock. Instead of damage, make a strength check you need a 15 or better plus your Athletic bonus. (I fold Bend Bar, lift gates, etc into a Athletic check that fighters get a bonus on)
John: Look at that a 15.
Me: Alright the Orc gets a saving throw (for any special action other than a damage, I generally have the target roll a saving throw. In classic D&D creature rarely have stats so I use saving throw which also conveniently scales up with higher HD creatures. )
Me: A 16! You still have a arm lock but you are still struggling with the orc chief.
Me: Jerry, your turn what do you do?

The general idea is that I have the player describe without mechanics. Most of the time it is simple I try to hit the guy. I then give the mechanics. The players rolls. I describe the result tersely. Ask for damage or a follow up roll. Player rolls, I describe the result of that tersely.

Player describes, roll, describe results tersely seems to work with many of the RPGs I run. Like anything you can overdo it but like a pinch of spice, in a small dose it can it liven the most basic of combat system.

I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

The player's in our group use their individual tastes. The older few in their thirties tend to give fairly detailed descriptions of their characters action; the other guys in their twenties tend to be less descriptive and more hard numbers orientated.

As DM I tend to like giving out descriptive combat descriptions for both.
Like many here the longer the combat the shorter the descriptions become before it's over.

Here's an example I gave after a character attacked with a battleaxe in one hand followed by a second attack shield-punch.
"His battleaxe flashes, cleaving one bandit's head down to the chin, blood spraying; a jet of blood and brains wide. With a roar, he crushes the face of the second bandit with the edge of his shield."

Quote from: vytzka;691444I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

Ditto.

It depends on the game for me, also.

For games where the state of combat is entirely represented by quantitative variables (initiative order, position on grid, attack bonus, etc.), I tend to get more mechanically focused.  I'll still say a sentence or so, like:

GM: Your blade catches the orc under the chin of his helmet, and he staggers backwards.

For games where there's not nearly so much quantified state (e.g. Dungeon World, The Regiment), I'll describe a lot more, and ask for more description.

Player: I attack the ogre!
GM: How?

Quote from: vytzka;691444I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

Same here. I find it easier to come up with something with the mechanics and dice result providing a framework too. Usually anyway. Sometimes the dice can produce some odd results but OTOH, combat in real life can have some outcomes that seem, at best, highly improbable.

Quote from: The_Shadow;691435I like it bare bones. Describing the expressions on the combatants faces and so forth is unintentionally comical at best.

This.  A big part of the problem is that I can't take it seriously.  After three or four "I slice his neck and he gurgles and falls" I'd be giving descriptions like "I hit him in the face so hard he shits his own entrails" or "I kick him in the nuts so hard his brains squirt out his ears."

Quote from: estar;691442My combat patter goes like this.

Me: Your turn, John, what do you do?
John: I armlock the orc chief and twist hopefully knocking the sword out of his hand.
Me: Roll to hit
John: Got a 18!
Me:Nice! You got the guy in a armlock. Instead of damage, make a strength check you need a 15 or better plus your Athletic bonus. (I fold Bend Bar, lift gates, etc into a Athletic check that fighters get a bonus on)
John: Look at that a 15.
Me: Alright the Orc gets a saving throw (for any special action other than a damage, I generally have the target roll a saving throw. In classic D&D creature rarely have stats so I use saving throw which also conveniently scales up with higher HD creatures. )
Me: A 16! You still have a arm lock but you are still struggling with the orc chief.
Me: Jerry, your turn what do you do?

The general idea is that I have the player describe without mechanics. Most of the time it is simple I try to hit the guy. I then give the mechanics. The players rolls. I describe the result tersely. Ask for damage or a follow up roll. Player rolls, I describe the result of that tersely.

Player describes, roll, describe results tersely seems to work with many of the RPGs I run. Like anything you can overdo it but like a pinch of spice, in a small dose it can it liven the most basic of combat system.

:eek: So, to try and disarm the orc, the player needs to roll to hit, THEN succed at an athletics check, THEN the orc gets a saving throw?

The end result of all that action: the PC is holding the orc's arm and nothing happened. Really, three failure points for a simple non-damaging action?

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;691445"His battleaxe flashes, cleaving one bandit's head down to the chin, blood spraying; a jet of blood and brains wide. With a roar, he crushes the face of the second bandit with the edge of his shield."

"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

Quote from: Old Geezer;691464"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691460This.  A big part of the problem is that I can't take it seriously.  After three or four "I slice his neck and he gurgles and falls" I'd be giving descriptions like "I hit him in the face so hard he shits his own entrails" or "I kick him in the nuts so hard his brains squirt out his ears."

Gotta add those to the critical hit charts!

I think most people are in agreement that at the start of battles, and when there are exceptional rolls, we embellish in our descriptive narrative, while there are also times where we just roll to hit and declare damage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;691467I think most people are in agreement that at the start of battles, and when there are exceptional rolls, we embellish in our descriptive narrative, while there are also times where we just roll to hit and declare damage.

Yeah, I think most people embellish at some point and relay numbers at others.  Its when and how much it happens and how much its desired that varies.

Quote from: ptingler;691346Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

Pretty much this in my B/X game.  We play it primarily as an exploration game, and combat is but merely a part of it.  The goal is to resolve combats, not wallow in them.

In a 4e game, though, as a GM I'd want more description from a player, since the game is designed for very granular, virtually blow-by-blow combat.

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

I can see this happening in a game where a PC scores a home run critical on a bad guy for 40 points of damage! The bad has 120 hp and is still very much ready to keep fighting. Describing such a blow as " you slice open his belly and his entrails spill out like a pile of steaming spaghetti!!" really looks ridiculous.

For this reason I'm not a fan of even having critical hits in abstract HP game systems.

What I mean by Roleplaying in combat may not be necessarily covered by " I roll to hit, got an 18" versus A character who power attacks almost all the time because he is an aggressive mother fucker, or a Druid who decides to heal her companion and let the Cleric who has healed her quite a few times lay almost dying.

Its more about the decision on what you do then did I hit or not or describing combat. I throw in enough so that is not purely a numbers game.

Most fun I have had describing combat is using Spacemaster ( chart master in space . . .) And changing the criticals to fit the situation. I kept the damage and effects just changed the criticals cause after while they did get repetitive.

just my thoughts

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

You don't get it, man, you didn't play with Gygax.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691471The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

Well maybe don't describe crushing their throat if they weren't incapacitated by the action? I mean I could describe an attack destroying the whole Solar System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InNHB9J0eqs) but it would probably be excessive if I just hit them for 20% their hitpoints (unless I'm playing 4e which jumps off the cliff with that dissonance). Also wow, that animation didn't age well, did it.

Not to mention that in some media or even modern wargames heroes can actually be thrown through walls and jump back into fighting so it's not automatically inappropriate, just probably inappropriate for D&D I guess.

Quote from: vytzka;691473Not to mention that in some media or even modern wargames heroes can actually be thrown through walls and jump back into fighting so it's not automatically inappropriate, just probably inappropriate for D&D I guess.

Hence why "Champions," the HERO system superhero game, has rules for "knockback," so when the referee says "he throws you through the wall and you skid 100 feet," she's actually telling you what the rules indicate happened.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691471The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

I can see this happening in a game where a PC scores a home run critical on a bad guy for 40 points of damage! The bad has 120 hp and is still very much ready to keep fighting. Describing such a blow as " you slice open his belly and his entrails spill out like a pile of steaming spaghetti!!" really looks ridiculous.

For this reason I'm not a fan of even having critical hits in abstract HP game systems.

True, that's why I prefer to describe in stages and let the GM handle the results with me and the gm riffing off each other. Particularly in more abstract systems.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691461:eek: So, to try and disarm the orc, the player needs to roll to hit, THEN succed at an athletics check, THEN the orc gets a saving throw?

The end result of all that action: the PC is holding the orc's arm and nothing happened. Really, three failure points for a simple non-damaging action?

To Hit vs Armor Class
Needed because in classic D&D this is the mechanism to do something to a target in melee combat. Opposed checks get complicated because they tend to minimize or ignore character level/HD which is at the heart of classic D&D.

Succeed at an Athletic Check
This is in lieu of the damage roll.

Saving Throw to avoid losing weapon
In GURPS and other system with more tactical detail the target will do a some type of opposed strength check. That mechanism is not available in classic D&D.  

What do I have to use then? I could just make up a strength stat on the spot but I already have a abstract indication of the creature's capabilities its HD. In classic D&D saving throws are used to avoid "bad things". Saving throw also scale with HD and Level. Getting your arm wrenched and losing your weapon is a "bad thing". Hence my ruling that the target gets a saving throw.

More so trying to grab somebody arm and trying to twist or grab the weapon out of their grip is not a optimal attack strategy compared to whacking them with a sword. Like many similar forms of attack it shines only in specific circumstances or something born of desperation. I felt that having a save as the third and final step abstractly reflects this difference.

I find that the general resolution of to hit, make a check, and the make a save works out well in classic D&D to handle all kinds of non damaging attacks.

And produces similar results with various combinations of level/HD compared to GURPS or Hero System with similar combination of point totals.

Quote from: estar;691479To Hit vs Armor Class
Needed because in classic D&D this is the mechanism to do something to a target in melee combat. Opposed checks get complicated because they tend to minimize or ignore character level/HD which is at the heart of classic D&D.

They don't have to. Opposed to- hit rolls, whomever hits by the most or misses by the least is the winner. This keeps HD/level very much a part of the contest.
 

Quote from: estar;691479Succeed at an Athletic Check
This is in lieu of the damage roll.

Ah. Ok, so the arm lock scored some damage then? It wasn't apparent from the flow of the dialogue.

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

In Old Geezer defense what you think you will do after your 1000th roll hitting a target for 8 points of damage.

I don't think it has to be quite as barebones as Old Geezer describes. But I can say that after the Nth time florid descriptions get old. Which is true of anything that too repetitive.

There seems to be a cycle in Horror films where they try to one up each other in blood and gore. Then out comes a film or show that is really good and keeps all that to a minimum. Then there is a rash of minimalist horror and the cycle starts up showing once again why more is not always better.

Well the same with florid combat descriptions. I think the trick over the long haul is just keep it to a minimum. "He rocks back on his heel, staggers to one side, etc). And save the florid when it truly warranted by the result.

Player: I kick the Ogre Chief in the balls.
Player: I roll a nat 20!
Me: OK roll damage and add your max damage on top that.
Player: 38 points woohoo!
Me: The Ogre chief falls and you kicked him so hard that his brains squirted out of his ears.

Quote from: estar;691481In Old Geezer defense what you think you will do after your 1000th roll hitting a target for 8 points of damage.

I don't have a problem with how he likes his games. That's his business. He seems to have a group that enjoys his style and he has fun with them. Its the jumping in to mock how others are playing their games that beginning grate after running into it across three threads. Once is funny but multiple times... well its like "I hit. 6 dmg." over and over again...

Though if the GM is tossing opponents with over 8000 HP at characters that average 8 dmg per attack or creatures in the 1000s against characters that'll have to slog through them one by one, maybe its not descriptions that are making the combats tedious. :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691480They don't have to. Opposed to- hit rolls, whomever hits by the most or misses by the least is the winner. This keeps HD/level very much a part of the contest.

Except there is no subsystem in classic D&D that uses opposed to hit rolls. Yes I modify my D&D game. But I try only to use changes that are D&Dish.

For example I use Ascending AC with the numbers that give the same odds as they do in OD&D. So to me this is an acceptable D&Dish change. Compared to say adding 1st Edition Arms Law to my game. Arms Law work perfectly fine with D&D but I don't consider D&Dish as it radically changes the game's mechanics.

So while an opposed to hit rolls would make sense for another RPG. It doesn't to me for D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691480Ah. Ok, so the arm lock scored some damage then? It wasn't apparent from the flow of the dialogue.

The "damage" is the loss of the sword. The Athletic check* replaces the dice of damage the character would normally do.

Quote from: estar;691483The "damage" is the loss of the sword. The Athletic check* replaces the dice of damage the character would normally do.

How?

The hit succeeds. Per classic D&D when a hit succeeds you get something for it a.k.a. damage. (barring special defenses)

This would be like scoring a hit vs AC, then having to make a DR check to see if any got through, then the monster gets a save to avoid the damage. So the damage isn't the loss of the sword because the saving throw determines that.

There is no incentive or logical reason to attempt anything like this in a 3 failpoint/ 0 gain system.

Quote from: ptingler;691346Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

This is us most of the time, with more colorful bits thrown in here and there when it makes sense and creativity allows. For my own part as a gm I tend towards "less is more" when describing things.

Quote from: Nexus;691482Its the jumping in to mock how others are playing their games that beginning grate after running into it across three threads.

You have been put into the world for my amusement.  Dance, monkey, dance!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485How?

The hit succeeds. Per classic D&D when a hit succeeds you get something for it a.k.a. damage. (barring special defenses)

The to hit mechanism is only to hit something for damage in classic D&D particularly OD&D plus supplements.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485This would be like scoring a hit vs AC, then having to make a DR check to see if any got through, then the monster gets a save to avoid the damage. So the damage isn't the loss of the sword because the saving throw determines that.

Yes it would be like that but in my view the 'to hit for damage' is the optimal attack. Everything else is inferior. I feel this represents real life consideration accurately which fits the gritter nature of my D&D games.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485There is no incentive or logical reason to attempt anything like this in a 3 failpoint/ 0 gain system.

Except when you need to disarm an opponent and can't the opponent out in one more hit. You can think of situations where that would come up.

Quote from: estar;691499Except when you need to disarm an opponent and can't the opponent out in one more hit. You can think of situations where that would come up.

Situations where that would come up? Sure. Situations where I would actually try it when the odds are roughly equal to an insect plague spontaneously coming out of my ass to devour the enemy, can't say that I would.

Get a room, you two.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691506an insect plague spontaneously coming out of my ass to devour the enemy, can't say that I would.

What level spell is that?

To all: does the length of combat in real time affect the level of detail you prefer in your descriptions?

I have found that the "Roll vs. AC 20.  I hit.  6 damage.  It's dead" thing comes up a lot when I'm playing Pathfinder, but when I was testing out both RQ6 and MHR, despite the individual attack resolution mechanics taking a lot longer and being fairly complex, the fights as a whole only lasted two or three successful hits.  So we got a lot more descriptive per strike.

Quote from: Nexus;691306Describe a combat hit that inflicts notable but moderate damage to the target in manner you would consider:

It really depends on circumstances: Sometimes you need to just cruise through the mechanics for a stretch. Other times you'll want to lavish detail onto a single blow. Sometimes you'll resolve several actions mechanically and only afterwards string those together into a narrative of what happened.

Things to pay attention to include:

- The mood of the table. (Are the players not particularly interested in the current encounter? Sometimes that means you need to speed through mechanical resolution. Sometimes it means you need to paint a more vivid picture of the situation.)

- Effective pacing. (Kinda ties into the last one, but there's both a creative pacing and a mechanical pacing: If you know that Bob is still looking up the spell he wants to cast, it can be useful to fill a little more time with a vivid description. Sometimes you ask Mark what he's doing while Clara is rolling the dice and sometimes you don't; it depends on how portentous Mark's dice roll is and whether or not Clara's action is likely to be impacted by Mark. Do you describe the action up to its penultimate moment of resolution and then wait for the dice roll to provide closure? Or do you resolve the whole thing mechanically and then apply a description in its totality?)

- The stakes involved. (The PCs sneak into a room and shoot a ratman in the back of the head: If it's just some random guard, that can probably be quickly dispatched with. If it's actually a major villain that they've been tracking for several sessions, I'll probably spend some time on that moment.)

- The sense of cool in the mechanical resolution. (And this can go both ways. Sometimes the dice roll itself is so awesome or so dreadful that you'd only detract from it. Often, though, you can take moment and propel it to even greater heights with properly executed description. For example, the time that one of my PCs used a vorpal sword to cut the head off a major villain on the very first action of a combat... twice in a row. Or the time that the last PC standing had been reduced to 0, so that firing his crossbow at the last remaining NPC was going to make him fall unconscious no matter what.)

- Information that needs to be conveyed. (While you can certainly just tell the players "this thing has DR 5" it can often be more effective, IME, to describe the effect of the DR narratively.)

Quote from: daniel_ream;691518To all: does the length of combat in real time affect the level of detail you prefer in your descriptions?

I have found that the "Roll vs. AC 20.  I hit.  6 damage.  It's dead" thing comes up a lot when I'm playing Pathfinder, but when I was testing out both RQ6 and MHR, despite the individual attack resolution mechanics taking a lot longer and being fairly complex, the fights as a whole only lasted two or three successful hits.  So we got a lot more descriptive per strike.

Thats probably because RQ is more simulationist and not an abstract AC/HP system like Pathfinder. Detailed descriptions work better with those systems because there is less ambiguity as to whats going on behind the numbers.

When your blow cripples a leg per the rules, its easier to describe it as such.

Quote from: daniel_ream;691518To all: does the length of combat in real time affect the level of detail you prefer in your descriptions?

Yes, I'd say its a factor.

Quote from: Nexus;691565Yes, I'd say its a factor.

Excellent point; also, how long you WANT combat to take, and how many combats you plan to have, and what percentage of the time you want taken up by said combats.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691464"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

:D C'mon I like my fakey REH descriptions. The player's don't seem to mind either.

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;691600:D C'mon I like my fakey REH descriptions. The player's don't seem to mind either.

If everybody at the table is having fun, you're doing it right.

There are people who eat green peppers, too, and I'd literally rather go hungry.

Quote from: estar;691441Yes they are OOC mechanics but it is still roleplaying because the players are acting as their character would.Using the terms of the combat system rather than this.

No.  Sorry.  "Alright ... I rolled a six, so I hit.  Here goes ... I did 11 points of damage before armor" is not, and never will be, roleplaying.  The character has no notion of rolling dice, and no notion that he can do "11 points of damage" with his axe.  That's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873No.  Sorry.  "Alright ... I rolled a six, so I hit.  Here goes ... I did 11 points of damage before armor" is not, and never will be, roleplaying.  The character has no notion of rolling dice, and no notion that he can do "11 points of damage" with his axe.  That's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."

Fancy descriptions of what occurs on a successful hit isn't roleplayer either. Its narration. It can also be inaccurate narration in an abstract system such as D&D. During combat in a D&D round the damage you inflict on a successful attack roll represents the fruit of your efforts for the round. There is no direct mapping to one specific hit to one application of damage.

Unless of course you believe that someone only attacks once in a 10 second or 1 minute combat round?

GURPS combat of course IS more accurately mapped to each blow and damage as well as effects from said damage and thus more compatible with desciptive narration that accurately reflects what took place.

Some narration and description is fine when you stab a monster.
Too much might conflict with what actually happened though, or create baggage.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691532Thats probably because RQ is more simulationist and not an abstract AC/HP system like Pathfinder.

The reason I mentioned RQ6 and MHR is that RQ6 puts all the description at the end of resolution, which in other similar systems (like Rolemaster) tends to suppress description as the players just wait for the dice to tell them what happened.  And MHR is a lot more abstract than D&D.

The fact that I see a lot more player description out of both led me to believe that speed of play was more of a factor than anything else.  When a fight is only going to last two or three hits, players seem to want to maximize their spotlight.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873No.  Sorry.  "Alright ... I rolled a six, so I hit.  Here goes ... I did 11 points of damage before armor" is not, and never will be, roleplaying.  The character has no notion of rolling dice, and no notion that he can do "11 points of damage" with his axe.

And I don't have an axe and am not swinging it in real life.  It's what my character is doing, so it's roleplaying.

QuoteThat's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."

Yes, that's roleplaying.

It's "roleplaying", not "roleperformance".  It can be, if that floats your boat.  But any time I'm describing the will and actions of someone who's not me, it's roleplaying.

Quote from: Iosue;691964And I don't have an axe and am not swinging it in real life.  It's what my character is doing, so it's roleplaying.


Yes, that's roleplaying.

It's "roleplaying", not "roleperformance".  It can be, if that floats your boat.  But any time I'm describing the will and actions of someone who's not me, it's roleplaying.

Pretty much. The CHARACTER has no concept of "11 points of damage" but his player certainly does. Where did this idea come from that roleplaying isn't a game? Games have rules and games have jargon; using such jargon while playing the game doesn't detract from the overall experience.

Quote from: Iosue;691964Yes, that's roleplaying.

It's "roleplaying", not "roleperformance".  It can be, if that floats your boat.  But any time I'm describing the will and actions of someone who's not me, it's roleplaying.

This. Language can sometimes be a blunt instrument and in this as in much else in our hobby, it hasn't quite caught up yet.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873That's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."[/COLOR]

It IS roleplaying.  Just not the way you like it.

"And the NPC says "Gladly, stud!" and opens the door to her bedroom."

Quote from: Brad;691966Pretty much. The CHARACTER has no concept of "11 points of damage" but his player certainly does. Where did this idea come from that roleplaying isn't a game? Games have rules and games have jargon; using such jargon while playing the game doesn't detract from the overall experience.

Hush, you and your "being sensible."

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873That's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."

Of course that's roleplaying.

Roleplaying is more than in-character dialog. It's all of the decisions you make for your character.

Quote from: Iosue;691964And I don't have an axe and am not swinging it in real life.  It's what my character is doing, so it's roleplaying.

Yes, that's roleplaying.

It's "roleplaying", not "roleperformance".  It can be, if that floats your boat.  But any time I'm describing the will and actions of someone who's not me, it's roleplaying.

Absolutely.

As a GM, I think the player deserves an explanation as to how his blow affects his target, and what his relative state is compared to how he was prior to the blow. Since it's a role-playing game, I try to provide an in-world description.

Player: "I attack the ogre. I hit for 6 damage."
Judge: "Your blow would have killed a normal man, but the ogre merely lurches backward. It's barely bleeding."

When there's a killing blow I'll generally wax more poetic, unless it's against a low-HD monster and there's a series of Cleaves (an ACKS mechanic). Then I'll simply run the mechanics of it and then provide a narration at the end.

Player: I hit. 7 damage.
Judge: Kill. Cleave!
Player: I hit. 6 damage.
Judge: Kill. Cleave!
Player: I hit. 11 damage.
Judge: Kill. Cleave!
Player: Missed. Damn.

"Your swords flash out in a series of whirling slashes. Three orcs crumple to the ground. The fourth ducks out of range of your last slash."

I interspinkle RP commentary by the enemies in between. This has worked well for me as a method for years.

Quote from: Bill;691941Some narration and description is fine when you stab a monster.
Too much might conflict with what actually happened though, or create baggage.

What sort of baggage?

Quote from: Nexus;692028What sort of baggage?

Well, if the level of abstraction of the combat doesn't match the level of abstraction of the description, for one example.

OD&D has quite abstract combat, with a single die roll representing a full minute of furious swording.  Most people, it seems, would rather have a much shorter combat turn.  This caused confusion almost instantly, as people thought the die roll represented a single swing, when it does no such.

Quote from: Nexus;692028What sort of baggage?

If you describe a mace strike as 'over powering' it kind of implies you might have struck down or stunned or killed the enemy.

An over the top example might be "I swing my sword with the fury of the Nine Hells and cleave my foes in half"

Or "I leap at the Bugbear and use him as a shield vs his fellows as I put my rapier in his eye"

I always interpret that sort of thing as "I try to leap at the bugbear and use him as a shield against his fellows as I put my rapier in his eye" and if it sounds ludicrous I might say "uh, the bugbear outweighs you by 50-100 pounds, are you sure about that?"

Quote from: Bill;692034If you describe a mace strike as 'over powering' it kind of implies you might have struck down or stunned or killed the enemy.

An over the top example might be "I swing my sword with the fury of the Nine Hells and cleave my foes in half"

Or "I leap at the Bugbear and use him as a shield vs his fellows as I put my rapier in his eye"

"Overpowering" can just describe a powerful blow that, if your target shrugs it off just proves they're tough (or lucky). The rest can be avoided by not describing the results of attack (leaving it to the gm or at least waiting for the damage results) or describing them as an attempt.

Quote from: Nexus;692068"Overpowering" can just describe a powerful blow that, if your target shrugs it off just proves they're tough (or lucky). The rest can be avoided by not describing the results of attack (leaving it to the gm or at least waiting for the damage results) or describing them as an attempt.

Yes. That's why I feel too much description can be counter productive.

Quote from: Bill;692069Yes. That's why I feel too much description can be counter productive.

I don't think that what you described was an issue of too much description but more poorly timed or executed description.

I liked the method suggested in the RQ3 Gamemaster Book - which is labeled "Dramatic Narrative":

QuotePlayer: Cormac chops desperately - and connects!
Gamemaster: He tries to parry with his spear and, uhh, misses completely.
Player: Good solid hit here, 7 points. Caught him flatfooted, chopped him in the right leg.
Gamemaster: Sure did! The sword slashes through the leather, blood gushes out, and he is staggering around on that leg. But he looks more mad than hurt.

Descriptive, immersive, not too heavy in game lingo but the necessary parts stated.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873No.  Sorry.  "Alright ... I rolled a six, so I hit.  Here goes ... I did 11 points of damage before armor" is not, and never will be, roleplaying.

I agree with this, but only on a technicality. What you're quoting there is merely a narration of mechanical resolution and it exists entirely in the metagame.

OTOH, saying, "I hit the orc with my sword and I rolled a 22." is roleplaying.

QuoteThat's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."[/COLOR]

That's also roleplaying.

Mistaking "bad roleplaying" or "roleplaying I don't like" as being "not roleplaying" is a common mistake, but it's not productive and it's not informative. Not only is it not particularly useful in making people get better at roleplaying, it can actually serve to inhibit that process.

Quote from: K Peterson;692071I liked the method suggested in the RQ3 Gamemaster Book - which is labeled "Dramatic Narrative":


Descriptive, immersive, not too heavy in game lingo but the necessary parts stated.

Good example. The primary difference being that the description was accurate because the hit, the location, and the effects of the injury were not abstract. Per the game rules, you know what taking 7 damage to that particular location does in game terms.

A D&D "hit" for 7 points would vary wildly in effect.

Quote from: Nexus;692070I don't think that what you described was an issue of too much description but more poorly timed or executed description.

One leads to the other in many cases, intentionally or otherwise.

Quote from: Bill;692158One leads to the other in many cases, intentionally or otherwise.

I can't say I've run into that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691873No.  Sorry.  "Alright ... I rolled a six, so I hit.  Here goes ... I did 11 points of damage before armor" is not, and never will be, roleplaying.  The character has no notion of rolling dice, and no notion that he can do "11 points of damage" with his axe.  That's like claiming it's "roleplaying" to say "My character tells the NPC to go screw."

The funny thing is how going through a combat like taxes is completely fine, roleplaying and immersive, but Fate Points or some "storygaming"/4e's abstract mechanics instantly ruin immersion for everyone.

Quote from: Rincewind1;692530The funny thing is how going through a combat like taxes is completely fine, roleplaying and immersive, but Fate Points or some "storygaming"/4e's abstract mechanics instantly ruin immersion for everyone.

Storygame mechanics aren't the least bit troubling if thats the kind of game I want to play. Including them in a game not about telling stories is jarring and unwanted.

Combat descriptions, unless useful for declaring your actions, are just narrative color. While they add to the fun for some people, they are not required  for first person roleplay any more than you or I need to colorfully narrate our actions as we perform them each day.

Quote from: Nexus;692418I can't say I've run into that.

Its rare in my experience but I have seen players do it. Usually with a motive of bending the rules in their favor.

Me: Ok, its your initiative turn, what are you doing?
Player: How far is the orc from me?
Me: 30 feet.
Player: Can I charge?
Me: Yes. Roll to hit, you get +1 from the charge.
Player: 17
Me: you hit! Roll damage.
Player: 10!
Me: You slice the Orc in two with your Two-Handed Sword.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;691314I prefer the description of combat to be circumstantial and ad hoc. Basically, I prefer to have me and the players describe their actions, roll the dice if need be, and then describe the outcomes on a case by case basis.

Player: "I raise my sword and swing it upwards, trying to cut down the negotiations with the orc chieftain before it has time to react." *rolls, succeeds, damage.*
DM: "The orc is visibly startled as the blade strikes its cleft chin. It bleeds abundantly as it takes a few steps back and seizes its enormous mace, throwing a menacing look at you as its servants leap forward to protect its life..." *rolls a bunch of d20s*

I do not like games systems spelling everything out as much, for I do not like to be needlessly contrived in my imagining by the game's system and rules, though there is a world of excluded middle in between, from the RQ6 combat moves you describe ad hoc, to the critical hit and miss charts of Rolemaster and DCC RPG and the like.

Yes please, description and intention before numbers and statistics (I don't have that kind of time anymore.) Especially with my new job. Meet Jo, Tech Specialist for DirecTV. Hilarious.:)

Though I love Warhammer Fantasy and Rolemaster's crit tables and Warmaster's use of reverse the number to find the" crit" totally fun and intuitive to myself. RQ overvelms me for some reason.

Quote from: Rincewind1;692530The funny thing is how going through a combat like taxes is completely fine, roleplaying and immersive, but Fate Points or some "storygaming"/4e's abstract mechanics instantly ruin immersion for everyone.

4e ruined Dnd for ME because it CODIFIED EVERYTHING, plus tells me magic is usable by everyone 3/4/4 per your slots. Slot this motherfucker......

Seriously, run a Mage game sometime it only works "off the cuff"...theater of the mind as the Old Skool people term it, I hear. (Yes, even MtAw is gridless).