The play is the thing...

[Tim Kirk]

I've been examining Andrew Martin's concept of relying only on description to run a game. It's not new to me (and I've argued against it in general) and here is why.

There is a distinct difference between telling a story to an audience, even telling a story to an interactive audience and playing RPG's. Turning RPG's into pure storytelling ill serves many people.

There is nothing wrong with telling a story, its fun, entertaining, thats all good, however--
Not everyone has the same sense of dramatic tension, description, and the like as me.
So when we get together and game and they describe things. I sometimes find myself dissapointed, because some people don't live up to what I expect of their abilities.
I Cringe when they have a character perfom an action that violates my sense of the setting, yet with only descriptors you cannot entirely avoid such things. In order to maintain the setting integrity with just descriptors, you'd require a huge amount of lists detailing "What this descriptor means in this setting." Unless your players possess the ability to read minds, they cannot know all the physics of a given reality, based just on descriptors, and how many pages of prep material do you expect them to read before playing?

Relying solely on /their/ skills at telling a story isn't fair to everyone. Some people just can't tell a story without practicing their lines a thousand times. The Players are not their characters, they did not grow up in the setting, they do not have many elements of common knowledge someone from the setting would.


Systems that rely on harder referents, that is attributes with values, allow PC's to be /different/ than their players, they are not solely as good as the descriptive ability of the player, they are not solely as good as their memory for setting details you've fed them. They are as good (or bad) in ability as the mechanics allow. A Good swordsman is a good swordsman weather he's described by an adjective or a number. Yet if someone says I want my character to be a "skilled warrior" but has not real sense of tactics to use in their descriptions should they be penalized? Or should the game cover the discrepencies between player knowledge and character ability and knowledge?

I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.


I personally feel that the game should give the tools so that the best players/GM at describing things still can do so, but those who are the worst can at least make game passable attempts at playing the game without having to have an acting coach, writer's workshop, what have you.

[Jack Spencer]

Originally posted by Tim Kirk
[B]
Not everyone has the same sense of dramatic tension, description, and the like as me.


And not everyone is as good at manipulating the data in an attribute & stat RPG.

Almost everyone I know can spend the 200 point better on a GURPS character. I keep buying stupid things.


Relying solely on /their/ skills at telling a story isn't fair to everyone.


And relying on /my/ skill at combat tactics in a position-based combat system like, say D&D isn't fair, either. But I play anyway.

Attributes are not, unfortunately, are not a great equalizer, which is what it sounds like you're saying here. And like pure descriptive games, they aren't for everyone. They're just more widely accepted & played at the moment. But who knows what the future holds.

[Andrew Martin]

I, too, don't want storytelling. I don't want to turn an RPG into storytelling. The idea I've got is that players control the description of their characters (the descriptors) and can match those versus NPCs, PCs and the game world. So instead of a character being just a row of numbers allocated to skills and attributes, I intend players to use and manipulate descriptors, whether they be fixed to the character as written description or brought into being through roleplaying interaction. In a contest of PC versus PC, either character character can win, not necessarily the character that should win by virtue of "Story necessity". If a character brings more relevant descriptors to bear in contest (whether written character description or character action or both), that character is more likely to win that contest. By giving the players more power over the characters, while simultaneously giving them less statistical information of their skills and attributes, I'm fairly sure that players and GMs enjoyment of the game will be enhanced and that all players will find the game simple (not simplistic), deep and fun.

[Andrew Martin]

Tim Kirk wrote:
> I cringe when they have a character perfom an action that violates my sense of the setting, yet with only descriptors you cannot entirely avoid such things.

One can, by simply forbidding characters that don't fit the setting. To avoid having to do this, requires communication of the setting from the game organiser to the players, so that players don't create characters that violate the setting's boundaries.

> In order to maintain the setting integrity with just descriptors, you'd require a huge amount of lists detailing "What this descriptor means in this setting."

Nope. This is not required. For every setting that is based on the real world, all players have a huge amount of experience based on the real world. For fantasy settings that exist, say, in a book, TV serials or movies, like Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Gate, LotR, Buffy, [Your Favourite Soap Opera here], just refer players to that setting's source material. This then allows direct use of any relevant media as game setting material.

For a setting that only exists in a GM's mind, you've got more problems. But then you'd have this problem with any game system! Using descriptors just makes this problem far more obvious. Creating descriptive information about the setting, such as world and race details, is very easy (note: I don't mention quality :) ) and it's directly usable in the game mechanics! Because with a descriptor based game setting, the game's written description becomes the game's mechanics. There is no layer of interpretation into a "game system".

> Unless your players possess the ability to read minds, they cannot know all the physics of a given reality, based just on descriptors, and how many pages of prep material do you expect them to read before playing?

If they're enthusiastic about the proposed game, then you must have communicated at least some of the details to them. Those players that are confused, need some more information. It's just a matter of communication, and refering to or creating source material. This problem exists with all game settings, no matter what game system is used.

> Relying solely on /their/ skills at telling a story isn't fair to everyone. Some people just can't tell a story without practicing their lines a thousand times.

I agree. But this is not what the game system is about. Storytelling is what you're describing, not a descriptor based RPG which is what I'm describing.

> The Players are not their characters, they did not grow up in the setting, they do not have many elements of common knowledge someone from the setting would.

I agree. This is why it's a good idea for all players to learn about the setting, if they know nothing about it. Otherwise you'll get strange and weird problems. For example, the AD&D one where magic is reasonably cheap for PC mages, so why not use the Continual Light spell to light city streets and houses? After first level in the games I've been in as a player or GM, nearly all players soon had a Continual Light and Continual Darkness spell cast on items. This is an example of Game Mechanics changing a Game Setting.

> Systems that rely on harder referents, that is attributes with values, allow PC's to be /different/ than their players, they are not solely as good as the descriptive ability of the player, they are not solely as good as their memory for setting details you've fed them. They are as good (or bad) in ability as the mechanics allow. A Good swordsman is a good swordsman wether he's described by an adjective or a number.

What's wrong with simply using the descriptors:
Human swordsman
and leaving the rest to be added as the player keeps playing? It's not much, but it's extremely easy for novice player to see what the character is like. And by comparing the description to books they've read, or movies they've seen, or TV shows they've watched, they can expand the description as need be, whenever they meet a challenge. And if the character description crosses the boundaries of the setting or is inconsistent, other players and the GM can easily correct the new player.

> Yet if someone says I want my character to be a "skilled warrior" but has not real sense of tactics to use in their descriptions should they be penalized?

This is similar to the case of new players in any game system. I see these kind of questions with conventional games: What's initiative? Can I hit now? Why should I retreat? I've still got one hit point! So it's a dragon, I hit it (at first level?). By emphasizing character description, players will far more likely to do the right thing in a dangerous situation and are far less likely to escalate the conflict.

If the situation gets to the point of violence, players with descriptor based characters will be more likely to act as their character, instead of a row of numbers. This is because they can't be certain of their skills, and so will automatically use appropriate tactics, of which running away is one tactic that works just as well!

> Or should the game cover the discrepencies between player knowledge and character ability and knowledge?

With a descriptor based game, this problem is more obvious than in a complex, hard number based system. The same problem still occurs in both games! Think about new players starting out in a complex system game like AD&D or Rolemaster. While they can usually act out their actions OK, they don't know how to manipulate the game mechanics to achieve their roleplaying goals. Usually (at least in our group), a experienced player helps the new player. With a descriptor based game, the same things still happen. With combat versus GM controlled characters, the tactics in a violent encounter can reduced to a general level, much like a skill use of picking a lock with lockpicking skill or driving a car. Or the new player can be guided by a more experienced player who's acting as group leader. If descriptor based combat actions are used, the leader PC can apply their player skill as descriptors to be attached to other characters. Literally, by shouting out commands in character and having the novice players obey them!

> I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.

Remember that you're comparing storytelling to RPGs, but not the descriptor based game I'm working on.

I hope that clears things up. I also hope that you are interested in seeing the outcome.

I promise it won't be just another story telling system -- we've got enough of those all ready.

[Misguided]

Great post, Tim.

[leviathan]

<i>"In a contest of PC versus PC, either character character can win, not necessarily the character that should win by virtue of "Story necessity". If a character brings more relevant descriptors to bear in contest (whether written character description or character action or both), that character is more likely to win that contest."</i>

Well, I've been saying that also. Taking into consideration all of the elements of the situation, you determine who would be most likely to succeed. Then you play. Of course, one player might do something that turns the tables on the other player. So you keep playing, with the situation and the character's descriptors in mind.

Heh, I even wrote a long scenario pointing out how this would work. :P But who's listening to me anyway?

~Lev~

[Tim Kirk]

Originally posted by Jack Spencer Jr

Attributes are not, unfortunately, are not a great equalizer, which is what it sounds like you're saying here. And like pure descriptive games, they aren't for everyone. They're just more widely accepted & played at the moment. But who knows what the future holds.


I reiterate:

I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.

[Tim Kirk]

One can, by simply forbidding characters that don't fit the setting. To avoid having to do this, requires communication of the setting from the game organiser to the players, so that players don't create characters that violate the setting's boundaries.


----
But that isn't enough.
Consider this Jaes the Smith is a big strong guy, tough guy "built like a barrel"
He decides to do a backflip. Nothing in the descriptor says he /cannot/ do that in the game, it would not be out of place if I were running a Xena game. But if I'm running a gritty fantasy game it would be silly and inappropriate. And as I said "Some people don't have the same sense of drama as I" meaning to them it's completely acceptable for them to have their massive barrel shaped guy to do a backflip. Again it requires /massive/ amounts of decisions before the game begins to make it work, and very explicit instructions on making a character--and even then things slip through the cracks far to easy. If you know your

---

Nope. This is not required. For every setting that is based on the real world, all players have a huge amount of experience based on the real world. For fantasy settings that exist, say, in a book, TV serials or movies, like Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Gate, LotR, Buffy, [Your Favourite Soap Opera here], just refer players to that setting's source material. This then allows direct use of any relevant media as game setting material.
---

But again that presumes your copying someone elses material, and can refer them to the material. If not your left to write a huge amoung of reference which isn't needed. As for the real world, yeah, to some extent true..but the real world always go so far.

Both "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "DragonSlayer" are
fantasy movies--but you would find your sense of reality jarred if the Apprentice wizard made running leaps through the trees and screemed KAIIIIAEE! Or something similar.

Yet both are fantasy. And understand these are extreme examples, there are many worlds that look a look similar on a cursory glance, but careful examination reveals deeper differences.

--




> Unless your players possess the ability to read minds, they cannot know all the physics of a given reality, based just on descriptors, and how many pages of prep material do you expect them to read before playing?

If they're enthusiastic about the proposed game, then you must have communicated at least some of the details to them. Those players that are confused, need some more information. It's just a matter of communication, and refering to or creating source material. This problem exists with all game settings, no matter what game system is used.

--
But giving abilities that can show them how characters relate one gives them a way to compare, that isn't amorphous and vague.

--



> Relying solely on /their/ skills at telling a story isn't fair to everyone. Some people just can't tell a story without practicing their lines a thousand times.

I agree. But this is not what the game system is about. Storytelling is what you're describing, not a descriptor based RPG which is what I'm describing.

--
It relies on the same elements of being able to use language in such a way to convey your vision of what is happenning, and what characters are capable of, as I said "very strong" means different things to different people. But a Strength 18 in D&D means exactly that because the game defines what that means.

---



> Systems that rely on harder referents, that is attributes with values, allow PC's to be /different/ than their players, they are not solely as good as the descriptive ability of the player, they are not solely as good as their memory for setting details you've fed them. They are as good (or bad) in ability as the mechanics allow. A Good swordsman is a good swordsman wether he's described by an adjective or a number.

What's wrong with simply using the descriptors:
Human swordsman
and leaving the rest to be added as the player keeps playing?
--
Because not all swordsman are equal in raw talent, or in trained experience. I as a GM cannot challenge a player as easily or completely if I don't know what he's capable of until he does it.

I play Tal the Swordsman, during the game, we are faed with a forbidding castle...my character flies over the castle wall.

What? Flies?

Well yes, my character was not explicitly denied the abilitiy, and since all I had to begin with was "Tal is a good swordsman" you as the GM have no leg to stand on. Now the whole concept of diplomatically negociating the entrance which you had in mind is gone.




---

It's not much, but it's extremely easy for novice player to see what the character is like. And by comparing the description to books they've read, or movies they've seen, or TV shows they've watched, they can expand the description as need be, whenever they meet a challenge. And if the character description crosses the boundaries of the setting or is inconsistent, other players and the GM can easily correct the new player.


--

Again see above different people find different levels of Fantasy acceptable, I found Xena and Hercules silly, some people don't.
Yet that is what some peoples concept of fantasy will be derived from. Just like some peoples ideas of anime' are Robortech, Gatchaman, and Speed Racer, and other peoples ideas of cartoons are exclusivly aimed at kids.


> Yet if someone says I want my character to be a "skilled warrior" but has not real sense of tactics to use in their descriptions should they be penalized?

This is similar to the case of new players in any game system. I see these kind of questions with conventional games: What's initiative? Can I hit now? Why should I retreat? I've still got one hit point! So it's a dragon, I hit it (at first level?). By emphasizing character description, players will far more likely to do the right thing in a dangerous situation and are far less likely to escalate the conflict.

--
I don't beleive so, the player will do what they want, it has less to do with anything they are capable of, or even common sense at times (I have and often am a player and know that even I choose absurd things because they fit my sense of character)
--

If the situation gets to the point of violence, players with descriptor based characters will be more likely to act as their character, instead of a row of numbers. This is because they can't be certain of their skills, and so will automatically use appropriate tactics, of which running away is one tactic that works just as well!

--

Not true at all, if someone has tactics +10 they can make a roll against a difficulty and the GM should give them a hint about how he thinks the creature should be handled, because he is their eyes and ears, and knows how the creature will react. Without that number, the GM is not guarenteed to have to give them information they need.



> I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.

Remember that you're comparing storytelling to RPGs, but not the descriptor based game I'm working on.

--
No I'm considering only your idea of a descriptor based system, it still relies on both players and GM's ability to describe things.
So far it appears to be just another name for storytelling.

[Tim Kirk]

Don't get me wrong either, I'm not specifically point at just Andrews game. But so far I've not seen it do anything new and different than I've seen before.

[Andrew Martin]

Tim Kirk wrote:
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> > One can, by simply forbidding characters that don't fit the setting. To avoid having to do this, requires communication of the setting from the game organiser to the players, so that players don't create characters that violate the setting's boundaries.

> But that isn't enough. Consider this Jaes the Smith is a big strong guy, tough guy "built like a barrel" He decides to do a backflip. Nothing in the descriptor says he /cannot/ do that in the game, it would not be out of place if I were running a Xena game. But if I'm running a gritty fantasy game it would be silly and inappropriate.

Then at this point, it's important to stop the game right then and there and explain this. It's a clear example of miscommunication of the game setting. It's not the fault of the game system or of this one descriptor. You can have exactly this same problem in any game system. Consider describing the same character in AD&D terms with Con: 17 -- this attribute in AD&D doesn't prevent the character from doing a backflip! Consider any RPG with a health or size attribute -- do any of them prevent this character from doing a back flip?

A descriptor based game system allows this problem to be seen sooner and quicker. And the way to solve it is to communicate better the intent of the setting. And this description is itself a descriptor.

> But again that presumes your copying someone else's material, and can refer them to the material.

I don't advocate people copying or pirating stuff! I'm offended! :mad: Just read the books and watch the TV show or movie. That's all.

> As for the real world, yeah, to some extent true..but the real world always go so far.

There's always far more real world experience in one person than there is in any RPG game line books.

> Both "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "DragonSlayer" are
fantasy movies--but you would find your sense of reality jarred if the Apprentice wizard made running leaps through the trees and screemed KAIIIIAEE! Or something similar.

But one is wire fu martial arts action while the other is western fantasy. Players will know the difference if you're clear on what you want and give examples if you're not clear. Give players some credit please! :)

> But giving abilities that can show them how characters relate one gives them a way to compare, that isn't amorphous and vague.

But this doesn't match reality! :) "Very Strong" is easy to relate to "Strong" -- the first is simply more than the second, which more than some thing that's not specified.

> It relies on the same elements of being able to use language in such a way to convey your vision of what is happenning, and what characters are capable of, as I said "very strong" means different things to different people.

And in the descriptor system, we can state that "Very Strong" is one descriptor more than "Strong" and one descriptor more than what the average member of the race has, if one wants hard-ish numbers. :)

> Because not all swordsman are equal in raw talent, or in trained experience.

Then simply describe this difference in skill. That difference acts as a modifier within the scale of swordsman.

> I as a GM cannot challenge a player as easily or completely if I don't know what he's capable of until he does it.

But one can easily challenge the party to a group of weak monsters, such as a pack of marauding goblins who are individually poor fighters. There the newcomer can be tested in a reasonably safe setting.

> I play Tal the Swordsman, during the game, we are faced with a forbidding castle...my character flies over the castle wall.

> What? Flies?

> Well yes, my character was not explicitly denied the abilitiy, and since all I had to begin with was "Tal is a good swordsman" you as the GM have no leg to stand on. Now the whole concept of diplomatically negotiating the entrance which you had in mind is gone.

You're divorcing character description from setting again. This is clearly a fault of not describing the setting and blaming the system instead! :eek: This action is totally appropriate in a Wire Fu martial arts movie, where character can run up walls and over buildings, and can fly in the air. If the player was thinking that this is OK, and you don't think it's OK, then there's clearly a miscommunication of setting. It's not the fault of a descriptor based system. The exact same problem would happen in AD&D, where Tal is described as first level fighter. Nothing but the game setting prevents this from happening, not even the AD&D rules for first level fighter prevent this. So clearly it's not the fault of the system, is it?

> ...if someone has tactics +10 they can make a roll against a difficulty and the GM should give them a hint...

Simply have the descriptor: Tactician. Then ask the GM for advice, and you should get it. Other descriptors could get similar information, if the characters have opportunity to do so or think about it.


> > > I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.

> > Remember that you're comparing storytelling to RPGs, but not the descriptor based game I'm working on.

> No I'm considering only your idea of a descriptor based system, it still relies on both players and GM's ability to describe things.

No. It's just simple character description, as can be found in any book or screen play, plus spoken character action. These elements of description are found in virtually all other RPGs, but are mediated through a Game System -- attributes, skills, gifts and flaws describe the character, while special tactics are used for the spoken description.

A descriptor based system, such as I'm describing, uses written and spoken description together with a randomizer to influence the course of events.

> So far [descriptor based system] appears to be just another name for storytelling.

Untrue. Storytelling is one person telling a story to listeners. A roleplaying game like this descriptor based game and other RPGs can change direction as players and GM drive the action. Players are active participants, not passive listeners.

I hope that clears things up a bit more.

[Andrew Martin]

leviathan wrote:
> Taking into consideration all of the elements of the situation, you determine who would be most likely to succeed. Then you play. Of course, one player might do something that turns the tables on the other player. So you keep playing, with the situation and the character's descriptors in mind.

That's exactly right. There's going to be a randomizer as well in it, so that players work to move the odds to their side and can never be too certain of their chances.

[Tim Kirk]

Then at this point, it's important to stop the game right then and there and explain this. It's a clear example of miscommunication of the game setting. It's not the fault of the game system or of this one descriptor. You can have exactly this same problem in any game system. Consider describing the same character in AD&D terms with Con: 17 -- this attribute in AD&D doesn't prevent the character from doing a backflip! Consider any RPG with a health or size attribute -- do any of them prevent this character from doing a back flip?
--
No but one with a Dexterity of 10. (average )
won't be doing it. That's the difference. One game gives us a list of common elements we might need to make use of /much/ of the time. So far the other relies on using only what's pertinent at the moment, and that is bothersome. Its very 2 dimensioal--just as leaving an atrribute profile all alone without a description of who or what is attached to the profile.


---

A descriptor based game system allows this problem to be seen sooner and quicker. And the way to solve it is to communicate better the intent of the setting. And this description is itself a descriptor.
---

Sooner doesn't matter, it's a problem scored systems don't have nearly as often.

> But again that presumes your copying someone else's material, and can refer them to the material.

I don't advocate people copying or pirating stuff! I'm offended! :mad: Just read the books and watch the TV show or movie. That's all.


--
Which to me is the same thing to some extent. If I run Buffy the RPG, and use Buffy and those characters to tell a story, I'm using someone elses ideas, it's not a bad thing in this context, but it isn't /my/ thing usually. I rely on original works most of the time (but I am tempted to use the Buffy RPG when it comes out with original PC's)




> As for the real world, yeah, to some extent true..but the real world always go so far.

There's always far more real world experience in one person than there is in any RPG game line books.

--
Not true.
Many people know nothing about how a sword is /really/ used. Or how armor really works, how can you rely on real world experiences that don't correlate to the world your running?


> Both "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "DragonSlayer" are
fantasy movies--but you would find your sense of reality jarred if the Apprentice wizard made running leaps through the trees and screemed KAIIIIAEE! Or something similar.

But one is wire fu martial arts action while the other is western fantasy. Players will know the difference if you're clear on what you want and give examples if you're not clear. Give players some credit please! :)


--
Again I'm using extreme examples to make a point. We could compare Willow and LOTR, or Dragonslayer and Dragonheart.

Each one is /similar/ but uses fundamentaly different worldviews. LOTR is heroic, but people got dirty, bloody and hurt. Willow was less realistic in it's conveyance of a fantasy world. Yet both covered very similar ideals of the fantastic, one just had a more over the top director who played up humor, and the other didn't.
In the same vein Dragonslayer was a fairly decent movie about a pseudo medieval world with wizards, and dragons, and Dragonheart, wasn't anything like it, although it had some of the same reality contructs--so is your game more like Dragonheart? or Willow? or LOTR, and that is if we are comparing only games based on those concepts. What if we are using all original concepts, like my Dark Fantasy World? I've no references to point people at other than those I create.




> But giving abilities that can show them how characters relate one gives them a way to compare, that isn't amorphous and vague.

But this doesn't match reality! :) "Very Strong" is easy to relate to "Strong" -- the first is simply more than the second, which more than some thing that's not specified.
---
And then why not use numbers--if your going to put thing in an order of magnitude, numbers are the best way to do it..

1 apple, 2 apples, 3 apples, Count with with me the COUNT ahah!
See magnitudes are numbers, even if you don't admit it. If very strong is better than strong, and theres nothing in between Strength is N, and Strong is N+1 but without anything between Strong and Very Strong it becomes N+2



> Because not all swordsman are equal in raw talent, or in trained experience.

Then simply describe this difference in skill. That difference acts as a modifier within the scale of swordsman.
--
And how does a modifier with nothing to modify?

> I as a GM cannot challenge a player as easily or completely if I don't know what he's capable of until he does it.

But one can easily challenge the party to a group of weak monsters, such as a pack of marauding goblins who are individually poor fighters. There the newcomer can be tested in a reasonably safe setting.
---
And yet, again if it's descriptive, the player can fail against goblins and succeed against dragons. And that to me is just hack and slash, encounters in order to value a characters abilities? Why bother with yet another step?
---

> I play Tal the Swordsman, during the game, we are faced with a forbidding castle...my character flies over the castle wall.

> What? Flies?

> Well yes, my character was not explicitly denied the abilitiy, and since all I had to begin with was "Tal is a good swordsman" you as the GM have no leg to stand on. Now the whole concept of diplomatically negotiating the entrance which you had in mind is gone.

You're divorcing character description from setting again. This is clearly a fault of not describing the setting and blaming the system instead! :eek: . If the player was thinking that this is OK, and you don't think it's OK, then there's clearly a miscommunication of setting.


---
Not at all, you see, I didn't tell you Tal was also a 300 year old sorcerer, who made himself young and doesn't like to use magic anymore.

See so its completely legitimate for him to be capable of using any magical effect in the setting.

--

It's not the fault of a descriptor based system. The exact same problem would happen in AD&D, where Tal is described as first level fighter. Nothing but the game setting prevents this from happening, not even the AD&D rules for first level fighter prevent this. So clearly it's not the fault of the system, is it?

--
Actually yes--it describes prety much that X character has Y abilities, and flight is a spell relegated to magical types of a certain level.


> ...if someone has tactics +10 they can make a roll against a difficulty and the GM should give them a hint...

Simply have the descriptor: Tactician. Then ask the GM for advice, and you should get it. Other descriptors could get similar information, if the characters have opportunity to do so or think about it.
--
But how good is he at tactics? Fair? Average? Rommel level? Patton Level? Why didn't he reveal his tactical skill before?
Say at character creation. You've posited that abilities can be added through the course of play, so why has the character suddenly become a brilliant tactictian when all previous fights he wasnt?

---

> > > I think that both styles serve purpose in the game, but neither one alone is truly comprehensive.


No. It's just simple character description, as can be found in any book or screen play, plus spoken character action.
--
One if you want plays or movies, or books--do those. Gaming is /not/ those things. It may share some elements, but it's not the same thing.
--

These elements of description are found in virtually all other RPGs, but are mediated through a Game System -- attributes, skills, gifts and flaws describe the character, while special tactics are used for the spoken description.

--
Indeed because it gives everyone a common referential point.

Which so far you non-system doesn't provide. If you speak only english and I speak only Spanish, do either of us understand the words of the other?

Games create a language that can be shared as a common use language.
---

A descriptor based system, such as I'm describing, uses written and spoken description together with a randomizer to influence the course of events.


--
Randomizer? Like what? Dice? Cards? Tossed chicken bones?
How do you determine if someone wins if they've got disparate language descriptions.

You have the excellant ability to use a mace, I've got the wondrous ability to use a sword, hose better?
How does the randomizer alter it? if you roll a die, and Wondrous is worse than Mace, a number only makes sense--because your modifying the die which, most of them use numbers.

--
Untrue. Storytelling is one person telling a story to listeners. A roleplaying game like this descriptor based game and other RPGs can change direction as players and GM drive the action. Players are active participants, not passive listeners.

--
One Upon a Time is a card game of Storytelling. It has all people putting input and all people can change the direction at the behest of the cards. It's still a game, but isn't role-playing. IN this context we were covering Storytelling RPG's...which is /what/ yours is so far. If you use a randomizer, it might not be entirely a Storytelling RPG, but it has the structure of one.

Again, how do you modify the randomizer when comparing two difference scales within the ability swordsman?

[leviathan]

Thank you Andrew. I was going to start breaking random things if someone didn't listen to me sooner or later. (;

<i>"Untrue. Storytelling is one person telling a story to listeners. A roleplaying game like this descriptor based game and other RPGs can change direction as players and GM drive the action. Players are active participants, not passive listeners."</i>

I agreee, but I'm sure this will bring up the other arguement that this will no longer be a roleplaying game... but just a play where the GM acts as director. Before the arguement is made, I would just like to say that this is untrue. As long as the GM doesn't impose actions upon the characters beside those that are out of the characters' hands (which is a guideline all GMs in all settings/systems should follow)... and that players continue to act out characters on the fly in environments that the GM has created... then it will <b>still be an RPG</b>. It just has nothing to keep the characters from becoming completely immersed in their character's roles... thus maybe increasing the fun factor to some degree (in the hands of good GMs).

<i>*snickers*</i> Iono.. It just had to be said. ^_^

~Lev~

[Andrew Martin]

:cool: It's OK. I'm friends with Tim. I'm chatting over ICQ and are having a long discussion about character generation in a various descriptor based games.

The roleplayers in our group who also act in plays (one was in LotR), know the difference between plays and roleplaying. :D So do the players and GMs. :)