Consider the following responses to the event: "A vampire suddenly rises out of the ground in front of you"

Post A:

"Joe quick draws, and hits (2 levels of damage), then he steps back"

Post B

"Joe was surprised by the vampires entrance but he didn't loose his head, he quickly drew his pistol and took a shot at the vampire. The vampire didn't seem to be effected by the shot so Joe took a step back."

Post C:

"Surprise catches Joe for a instant but instinct quickly takes over: he pulls out his pistol as quickly as he can and shoots in it's general direction. The shot connects, but just barely, so Joe starts moving backwards trying to get out of reach."

Analysis

All three posts amount to the same thing in terms of the game: Joe shoots the vampire, but with bugger all damage and then steps back out of reach*. However, Post A is very dry and quite Spartan. The reader gets no feeling for the game, or for Joe, and it fails to express any of the tension that the situation would provoke. Post B is much better, the reader is getting a feel for the action, and the game mechanics (the two levels of damage) have been removed**. However, it has been written in a passive voice, and past tense; the reader is reading about events that occurred in the past and probably don't matter much now. Post C is better again. It has been written in present tense with an active voice. In the mind of the reader everything is happening right now, and the reader is right there, sitting on the edge of her ring side seat waiting to find out what will happen next. Active voice engages and compels the reader. Active voice rocks.   * For all the good that is likely to do him... :-) ** They are still important, but they shouldn't get in the way of the game. This is specially important when the entire game is in text. For more information please see "Keeping Track of the Game Mechanics"