PDA

View Full Version : Do you prefer DM or player spell and attacks descriptions?



S@tanicoaldo
2017-08-06, 11:46 AM
When it comes to describing the attacks and spells effects, do you prefer that the DM does it for you or prefer to do it yourself?

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 12:40 PM
How the PC attacks is player stuff. How the NPC responds is GM stuff. I don't think this is particularly controversial....

BWR
2017-08-06, 04:03 PM
As a player and as a GM I prefer the GM to do the details unless the player is specifically asked. The GM is the lens through which the game world is perceived and can best describe what happens. Players tell GM what they (try to) do, GM tells you results.

Quertus
2017-08-06, 04:14 PM
... Neither? Combat takes too long as it is, showing it down with extraneous fluffy detail generally just wastes time.

Note that I say generally. I've played with a few players who, for specific characters, will break out the cool details, and it just emphasizes how that character is different than their other characters.

I've also played with GMs who will use it sparingly and well. That can be OK. Better, IMO. are the GMs who do so because at some point, that fluff will actually matter in a fight. As a silly example, "wait, isn't that the third kidney they've lost? Is it really just an illusion?!"

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-06, 04:47 PM
... Neither? Combat takes too long as it is, showing it down with extraneous fluffy detail generally just wastes time.

Note that I say generally. I've played with a few players who, for specific characters, will break out the cool details, and it just emphasizes how that character is different than their other characters.

I've also played with GMs who will use it sparingly and well. That can be OK. Better, IMO. are the GMs who do so because at some point, that fluff will actually matter in a fight. As a silly example, "wait, isn't that the third kidney they've lost? Is it really just an illusion?!"

I agree. Do people actually go out of there way to describe how a fireball is exploding rather than fireball centered on x,y,z,t.....

Darth Ultron
2017-08-06, 04:57 PM
Both?

In general the players describe only the things their character effects. The DM describes everything else.

Though I find a lot of players to be simple roll players and they won't even bother to describe anything beyond saying the dull, by-the-book mechanics. ''My character does X per the rules'' and such.

comicshorse
2017-08-06, 05:00 PM
I agree. Do people actually go out of there way to describe how a fireball is exploding rather than fireball centered on x,y,z,t.....

The first time one is used, yes. Apart from that, no. ( Same for any spell, new power)

MrNobody
2017-08-06, 05:06 PM
Both.
While DMing, i like to ask a short description of the attack/spell to the player, then i alter it myself to better suit the outcome of the dice rolls.

Player: "Krogarth screams as he furiously hit the enemy at full force with his greatclub: i enter rage and use a full round attack."
Player rolls all his dices, every attack hits and the enemy dies.
Me "As Krogarth screams, he smashes his enemy into a pulp, beating him dead before he could even ready his guard. The last blow crashes his skull covering Krogarth with blood."

Bicorn
2017-08-06, 05:20 PM
Though I find a lot of players to be simple roll players and they won't even bother to describe anything beyond saying the dull, by-the-book mechanics. ''My character does X per the rules'' and such.

That's boring.

JBPuffin
2017-08-06, 05:47 PM
How the PC attacks is player stuff. How the NPC responds is GM stuff. I don't think this is particularly controversial....

It's the internet, man. Everything's controversial :P.

I prefer giving descriptions for my characters, but honestly, I'd be fine if my DMs only asked for descriptions on kills and the rest of the fight was simple hack-and-slash.

Thrudd
2017-08-06, 06:23 PM
The player describes what their character is trying to do. The DM tells them the result of their attempt based on the results of the dice. You can't just say "I stab the guy through the neck!", because that is a definitely fatal wound and you don't know if your attack will be successful. You can say "I make a stab at the guy's neck.", and then you roll the die. If you miss, the DM will describe that the guy blocked it with a shield or parried your blow. If you hit but don't do enough damage to kill him, the DM will say "your stab is deflected but makes a scratch on his neck, he staggers back a step and looks angry."

Players should also be declaring their actions according to the level of abstraction which the game rules support. In D&D, the above example would be too specific an action for what the rules are describing (a period of time during which fighting occurs and both combatants are moving and making attacks and defenses which are not specified). So the player should basically specify what their goal for that period of time is, generally it is delivering a fatal wound to the opponent, though sometimes it might be knocking them to the ground or disarming them or pushing them somewhere. If you said "I want to stab him through the neck", but then don't do enough damage, the DM might say "you weren't able to stab him in the neck this round, his defenses were too good, but you did manage to give him a gash on the arm."

For spells, I'd let the player describe aesthetic stuff, like that their magic missile is purple colored or their stinking cloud is brown - but of course the DM describes its results based on how much damage or whether targets make their saving throws.

The exception to this is when fatal damage is dealt. In that case, I am a fan of the "Mercer method"(tm) aka "How do you want to do this?" Tell the player they've done enough to kill the opponent and let them describe how their character kills or disables them.

goto124
2017-08-06, 07:42 PM
As a silly example, "wait, isn't that the third kidney they've lost? Is it really just an illusion?!"

OotS dwarves have two livers! If my character isn't a doctor or the like, how do I know how many kidneys the humanoids of the world have? :smalltongue:

Psikerlord
2017-08-07, 07:36 AM
For us, generally the GM describes the NPCs actions and reactions, and the players describe the PCs. But when a foe goes down, we usually have the player describe the killing blow and what it does to the NPC.

Nothing more boring than "Hit AC 18, 10 damage, that's my turn". If there's no description, might as well be playing a boardgame. If combat "takes too long" with description - find another game with better combat rules.

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-07, 07:38 AM
We have "RP" in "RPG" for reason.

Quertus
2017-08-07, 08:30 AM
OotS dwarves have two livers! If my character isn't a doctor or the like, how do I know how many kidneys the humanoids of the world have? :snalltongue:

And this can lead to many painful and humorous mistakes. "Attempt to disbelieve" is a two-edged sword in 2e D&D.


Nothing more boringefficient than "Hit AC 18, 10 damage, that's my turn". If there's no description, might as well be playing a boardgamewargame.

FTFY. I started as a war gamer, it's my first love. Don't diss the war game, man. :smalltongue:


We have "RP" in "RPG" for reason.

Totally agree. Role-playing doesn't stop when the dice come out. But, IME, describing how you hit someone is rarely role-playing. It can be, but not so much in my groups.

Who you hit? why you hit? what you hit with? Whether you try to hit? Or even who you hit on? Yes. How you hit? Rarely role-playing.

If your groups actually express their characters, how their years of woodworking leads to certain styles of cuts, because those motions are most natural to the character, or how his attacks are always at the feet, because his uncle wouldn't teach him any advanced techniques beyond "break his root", etc, then that's y'all's good. But that level of characterization is beyond most of my players. So, since there's no role-playing in it, I'll stick to efficient, thanks.

Now, if there was role-playing, cool. I spent a whole season once just having the characters on watch chat. But if it has no value to the RP or the G, why does it belong in an RPG?

Frozen_Feet
2017-08-07, 08:50 AM
As a GM, I occasionally find I have to do the descriptions because the players are so passive about it. I'm thinking I'll need to be more encouraging of colourfull descriptions in the future.

Generally speaking, for tabletop games I prefer it when players describe their actions, and the GM describes their result. For freeform it's attacker describes action, defender describes result.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-08-07, 08:55 AM
On anything concerning the character the player has the first right. if they don't fluff it up, the DM is generally allowed to do it. On anything else the DM has a pretty big veto, but the players can still try and get away with describing what happens and even giving it in world consequences if they make things sound cool enough. Used sparingly it can be massively fun to throw in descriptions like "After that last sword blow the witch melts away, as witches do when getting decapitated."

goto124
2017-08-07, 10:15 AM
"After that last sword blow the witch melts away, as witches do when getting decapitated."

"I thought witches melt when they get water thrown at them!"

Haldir
2017-08-07, 10:30 AM
Players have incomplete knowledge, meaning their descriptions aren't necessarily going to be the best for the group.

That' being said, I'd gladly have players who were as excited to describe their actions as I am, but for the life of me I can't recall a game where the players took such liberties. Most don't want to do that much intricate roleplaying.

ChaiGuy
2017-08-07, 01:38 PM
OotS dwarves have two livers! If my character isn't a doctor or the like, how do I know how many kidneys the humanoids of the world have? :smalltongue:
Indeed, this is why dwarves can handle their alcohol so well and have bonuses against poison. :P

Mastikator
2017-08-07, 01:52 PM
I prefer you take no more than 10 seconds to make a decision and then no more then 10 words to describe it. If you were paying attention to the game you'd know what you wanted to do BEFORE it was your turn.

Also learn to throw dice without throwing it off the table and all the way under the sofa where we have to wait for you to find it and throw it again.


The GM is of course expected to provide the players with all the relevant information in beforehand. Otherwise the first line isn't true.

goto124
2017-08-08, 09:02 AM
Also learn to throw dice without throwing it off the table and all the way under the sofa where we have to wait for you to find it and throw it again.

Take a tray and throw dice into it, it'll stop the dice from rolling off.

Scripten
2017-08-08, 10:17 AM
Combat actions are exactly like every other type of action in an RPG for me.

The players describe what they attempt to do. The dice arbitrate the extent of success if needed. The DM describes what actually happens.

LordCdrMilitant
2017-08-08, 02:25 PM
As a player, I'm hesitant to give any description more elaborate than "I cast Fireball" or "I shoot him with my Boltgun", since everything is up to the dice. Sometimes I can be a bit more colorful, such as "I set up the BAR's bipod on the crate and unleash hell at the first mate," but as a whole, the GM gives descriptions of what happened after the rolls are complete.

When I GM, descriptions can range from "target dies" to the Dark Heresy Crit Table. I do like the Crit Table, and using descriptions like those on it no matter what game or how called for they are, but the do get old after the 150th enemy and are reserved for when people die from serious overkill.

Mastikator
2017-08-08, 02:34 PM
Take a tray and throw dice into it, it'll stop the dice from rolling off.

I've seen players actively throw the dice outside the tray when one was presented exactly for this express purpose.

The DM decided a few sessions later that he'd be throwing all the dice.

S@tanicoaldo
2017-08-08, 02:40 PM
I'm talking about, after the dice results.

Velaryon
2017-08-08, 03:52 PM
Our group tends to keep the descriptions pretty simple, for the most part. Sometimes as the GM I will ask "how do you kill them?" when someone finishes off an enemy. Otherwise, the only time I really go into anything more than basic description is to highlight something unusual. For example when they fought a frenzied berserker and he went into Deathless Frenzy, I described in somewhat gory detail how he was taking wounds that should have put down any normal living being, but he kept fighting.

Thrudd
2017-08-08, 04:18 PM
I'm talking about, after the dice results.

The DM describes the result, unless it's a "how do you want to do this?" moment.

TheIronGolem
2017-08-08, 04:59 PM
My rules on this matter:


Encouraged, not required: I encourage players to describe their combat actions if they want, because that's fun and increases immersion. I don't require it because 1) you don't need the ability to write fun combat descriptions to be a good roleplayer, 2) it's a game, not a creative-writing class, I'm not going to assign you homework on your turn, 3) there are only so many variations of "I hit him with my axe" anyway, and 4) sometimes the pace of the game is better served with a simple "12 damage, OK your turn". I do expect more effort in a play-by-post game, since there's no immediate pressure to come up with something on the fly.
Defender Describes Damage: Where combat actions are described, the attacker generally gets to decide what their attack looks like, but the defender gets to decide how they're affected (narratively speaking). This is mostly independent of the game mechanics, meaning a "hit" prescribed by the dice doesn't necessarily have to look like a "hit" to the characters. Yes, the orc's axe did six damage to your hitpoint total, but you still get to say you narrowly dodged the blow, took it on your armor/shield, or whatever - as long as you frame it as some kind of momentary disadvantage, you're fine. And as above, you don't have to describe how you deal every knife slash that comes your way if you don't want to.
Fluff Your Kill: The exception to the "defender describes" rule comes in for fatal (or otherwise fight-ending) blows. Here, the attacker gets to exercise some control over the narrative and describe how, for example, they tricked the defender into dodging right instead of left and ran them through. You still have to respect the concept of the character you've defeated, so you can't say that Sir Dignity McBadass slipped on a banana peel and landed on your spear. A PC defeating an NPC gets more narrative control than the reverse, so when you finally have the BBEG at your mercy you can make him deliver the setup for that awesome one-liner you've been saving for this moment.

Faily
2017-08-09, 11:14 AM
Eh, doesn't matter to me. And one of my groups take forever in combat anyway, so when it's my turn I just want to finish it quickly so we can move on. :smalltongue: I've had one GM who insisted that we narrate and RP combat/spellcasting, and it was fun for a session or two, but it got a bit boring to narrate casting your most used spells all the time. He's a good GM, but for me, there's a limit to often I can be bothered to describe the fluff of how I cast Detect Magic and Cure Light Wounds.

In Play-by-Post, I prefer to narrate my post open-ended enough for the GM to round out the fluff.

Quertus
2017-08-09, 03:02 PM
Off hand, I think the only time I can remember successfully narrating an attack was the time I didn't bother explaining the mechanics of an attack. I was playing a joke character, and simply commented, "I bounce a ball off his head, next!"

The GM, noting that I had actually rolled dice, asked if I had hit. I responded that yes, I had even rolled a natural 20. But since my character had attacked with a bouncy ball, it didn't really matter. The DM asked if I was a cleric, and I responded in the affirmative. He asked if the ball had some significant to my religion. I responded that, yes, as a Cleric of Pong, it was actually my holy symbol.

The GM then explained that the Death Knight we had been fighting was down to a single HP before my attack. Receiving a critical hit from a holy symbol - even if not normally a valid attack form - was sufficient to down this foe.

Thus was the single greatest warrior in the campaign defeated by the fluff of an otherwise ineffective attack by a joke character.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-09, 03:35 PM
When it comes to describing the attacks and spells effects, do you prefer that the DM does it for you or prefer to do it yourself?


Both.

My ideal is a robust exchange of description both ways, involving attempted actions, their outcomes, and the resulting new situations, in a cycle of creative cause and effect.

Minty
2017-08-12, 12:35 PM
My general approach is that it's the player's job to describe what they're trying to do, and it's the GM's job to describe the outcome. As a player, I refuse to do the latter. All spell effects and results of attacks (heads flying off and such like) are the GM's job to describe. I would drop out of a game rather than do that as a player.

Some players in my group have recently been taken in by this silly storygaming thing where, for instance, you decide the result of a social encounter beforehand with a dice roll, then "play it out", which basically consists of describing the action in a way that fits the pre-determined dice roll. In some cases, this means if you lose the roll, then you have to actually play out a conversation where you get convinced of the other person's point of view. I will resist that nonsense until my dying breath. I'm not going to play out or describe anything for which the outcome is already determined. That's acting, not roleplaying.

Mastikator
2017-08-13, 05:51 AM
I'm talking about, after the dice results.

That adds an extra caveat, whoever describes it must do so plausibly. Not just succinctly. The player shouldn't get to add conditions or change the circumstance after the dice is rolled.

Yuki Akuma
2017-08-13, 09:21 AM
In my group, attacks generally follow the following formula:

Player: "I attack x using y attack." *roll* "I rolled a z."
GM: "You hit." or "You miss."
IF hit:
Someone, going in order of preference of player who attacked, GM, then anyone else, describes the attack.
IF miss:
GM describes how the enemy dodged or blocked the blow.

Quertus
2017-08-13, 10:19 AM
In my group, attacks generally follow the following formula:

Player: "I attack x using y attack." *roll* "I rolled a z."
GM: "You hit." or "You miss."
IF hit:
Someone, going in order of preference of player who attacked, GM, then anyone else, describes the attack.
IF miss:
GM describes how the enemy dodged or blocked the blow.

The GM describing how an attack missed can provide vital strategic information, particularly in but not limited to D&D. Are their defenses based on armor? Dodging? Deflecting blows? Luck? This affects what valid counter strategies exist.

So, while I generally don't care about describing hits, I greatly endorse describing misses.