Logically its possible to convey four factors per attack:
apparent accuracy(a), accuracy(A), apparent damage(d), damage(D), e.g.:
Tokamak's sure bludgeon smashes the goblin to pieces.
Tokamak's (a) bludgeon (A)(d) the goblin to (D).
Tokamak's sure bludgeon misses the goblin.
Tokamak (a) bludgeon (A) the goblin.
Tokamak wildly bludgeons the goblin, who barely notices.
Tokamak (a) (A)(d) the goblin, who (D).
Tokamak's devastating slash misses the goblin.
Tokamak's (d) slash (A) the goblin.
It might be necessary to "hand parse" expanded combat report sentences instead
of cookie cutting and expecting them to work. If not careful, messages
like these can come off like death blow reports or be distracting or "TMI".
e.g.:
Tokamak's critical, devastating bludgeon barely scratches the goblin.
Tokamak's (a) (d) bludgeon (A)(D) the goblin.
Reports would only contain additional information in cases of exceptional
accuracy or damage, or such that does not come to fruition. I haven't
playtested it to see if significant prowess differences generate distractingly
long reports throughout a fight. The preliminary goal is that if no report is
prolix they won't be absurd.
It begins to approach what a paper and pencil D&D DM might say except is still
algorithm determined. Is this a good idea or does it lead to pages and pages of
descriptions per attack type and how much characters beat their THAC0, etc.?
