NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6846671" data-attributes="member: 42582">This resonates with me very much.I don't read as much fiction as I would in principle like to, but I know what you mean about sparse versus overdone writing. I see this in my students, also: although they are writing non-fiction, they over-embellish and use far too many adjectives and adverbs. I call it "Sunday supplement" style, and in the case of my students it is a result of high school teachers encouraging floridness as a substitute for dynamism and structure in their writing.And I like your application of this point to roleplaying. I've got nothing against a player adding colour via description and characterisation, and done well it enhances the RPG experience. But for me it's not at the core - what's at the core is the making of choices by the players which express their characters by orienting them in some way or another within and/or towards the fiction, and letting the participants at the table see how - in virtue of this - PC A is different from PC B because A cares about and does this thing, whereas B cares about and does this other thing.To put the point really bluntly, I should be able to tell that one PC is a fighter and another a wizard from their action declarations. And if the fighter has high INT rather than the stereotypical low-to-modest INT, that should be coming through too (eg the fighter is making meangingful INT checks, either because a scholar as well as a warrior - Siegfried Sassoon or TE Lawrence - or because a great tactician, using INT to (say) help gain the party a buff on the first round of combat, as Tactics skill can do in classic Traveller).</blockquote>

Verification