Who should describe actions? [D&D 3.5

[Saruman]

Hi, a long time ago in the DMG I read that actions such as attacks, should be described by the DM (I'm almost sure I read that).

Who does usually describe the actions in your campaigns? The DM, players, both, 75% the DM and 25% the players or otherwise, etc...?

[3.5]

[Phelix-Mu]

Players can describe what they are trying to do, or what they just did. But the DM is the final arbiter on what actually happens. So, while the player might want that punch to remove the teeth of that orc, only the DM can say what the actual result of the punch is. Many DMs let players have their fun describing stuff, but, on the other hand, many players enjoy having the DM tell them just how badass that confirmed critical was.

I'd really just ignore the book and go with whatever seems to work best in a given group. With the caveat that players that try to exploit this should be dealt with, and probably out-of-game.

[Ravens_cry]

I describe the results of hits by players and attacks and and hits by enemies, while players describe their attacks if they so choose, and a particularly cool description might merit a +2 circumstance bonus to hit, though this is a 'hidden' bonus.

[MonochromeTiger]

I agree with both phelix and raven, players generally describe how they go about an action but the DM describes the result (and how it actually played out if they fail on one of their oft dramatic actions).

[Psyren]

Seconding Phelix and Raven - the DM has ultimate say in how an action plays out, and something sufficiently cool can and should grant a bonus to the check.

I once, on a Warforged Totemist, flung myself down a green dragon's throat the party was having trouble hitting due to its hard scales. The DM loved the idea so much that I got a circumstance bonus to my Jump check (not that I needed it; thanks, Sphinx Claws!) and, once inside, had no trouble hitting its greatly reduced AC to rearrange its internal organs and save the day.

[Averis Vol]

For me it depends really. If one of my PC's says "I lunge forward, driving my longsword into the mans stomach" and they hit and roll decent damage, yea they stabbed that guy right in the gut. If they roll low damage I say "you manage to connect with his stomach, but the bandits leather catches up your blade, leaving only a shallow wound." And a great damage roll might include the sword bursting out the back of his armor (missing vital organs, of course. thats reserved for crits)

on the other hand, if every hit is "I slam my blade into his skull", well, I can't really justify having multiple solid hits to the skull on something that isn't something massive. So I'll say you clipped the shoulder, the shape of his helmet caused the flat of the blade to strike instead, etc etc.

I try to give them as much freedom with their character as I can, because it really isn't my place* to dictate what they do and how they do it. Again though, if they keep making inordinate claims, I have to dial back the awesome meter to an appropriate level (the 10 str elf with a longsword isn't cleaving anyones head off for example, and regardless of the intended effort, the 30 strength barbarian is probably going to bisect the similar target) and while I want my PC's to be awesome, I like them to correctly guage their capabilities, even if I have to kind of remind them.

* There are exceptions like charms and such, but generally, my players control their characters, not me.