Ranging from "You hit the enemy" to "You slice the ogre open from throat to groin. As he cries out in excruciating pain and desperately tries to keep his organs inside of his body, you teleport behind him, kick him in the balls, punch him in the back so hard it shatters his spine and tears his skin, pull out his heart, eat it, teleport in front of him once more and cut him into a million pieces", how graphic are you when describing battles when you're a DM? How do you find the balance between being bland and too detailed?
>>44113141
>How do you find the balance between being bland and too detailed?
By being detailed to the point where it becomes just bland.
Or, when I'm actually on top of things, by generally saying something like "He manages to just barely block your strike but is forced to take a step back" or " You thrust your sword in stomach, and as you pull it out he crumbles to the ground with an expression of agony on his face" or "With a mighty swing you decapitate him". It all depends on how important the enemy is and how long the fight has lasted already, but generally just saying something more than "You hit him", keeping it to one sentence at most and avoiding repetition is enough.
I describe stuff like that for important monsters. You can't do it for everything.
>>44113141
As a DM, I have players explain what they want to do, then interpret it based on how much HP the creature has left.
>100% - Attacks seem to do very little
>about 50% Creature is starting to show wear and tear. Tired, bleeding. etc
>Less than 15% is where mortal wounds start happening. Cutting off digits, severing arteries, poking out eyes. etc.
With live groups I like to let them describe their kills. They're pretty sensible about it. No, picking up and tearing in half and drinking the blood then jacking off in the mouth.
Here's some emotes from my last campaigns
>You peel his withered dick off, toss it into your chainsword to mash it thoroughly, then spoonfeed it to his whimpering, armless form as his compatriots watch, unmoving.
>You kick the goblin hard enough to split him partially in half
>He is now more salsa than man
>You cannot process how dead you've made that man
>>44113141
Honestly, the first part is completely reasonable when fighting with swords or really any weapon that opens big holes in people. If a person's abdominal cavity is ruptured by a projectile or sliced open with a blade, their organs and gravity are going to have a bit of a disagreement, and gravity is going to win.
Legends of the Wulin is great for this. Every mechanical element is linked to a small narrative prompt that you have to incorporate into your fluff. Targetting a particular defiance, taking advantage of a weakness in your opponents style or fighting on despite an injury you've suffered all give you little cues that let you add to an attacks fluff and make it interesting without being overwhelming.
>>44113141
>You managed to shoot him. He doesn't seem to give a fuck.
![409[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xljuwyF.jpg "409[1].jpg")
>>44113383
>He is now more salsa than man.
>>44113141
I usually describe my own attacks, as a player. When the GM says I hit, I just say real quick how I hit him and then we go from there.
Last time, for example, I ripped off a 1m wide x 1,5m long stone slab because we had been ambushed. Then I used said stone to uppercut one of the enemies into the ceiling. I described it myself because the GM said I had hit him with my roll and then I crit on the damage roll. The GM just acknowledged it and finished "Yeah, you smash your stone into him and then see his legs dangling from the ceiling. Derp, it's your turn."
A little bit of description is always nice, in my opinion.
>>44113141
Moderation in all things. There's no reason to be bland, but no reason to go overboard.
Toss in a fluff detail or two and move on.
>>44113141
>not making the PCs describe their own finishers
>>44113141
I've been failing, I must admit. I used to give detailed descriptions, but then moved into the "you hit" descriptions, which admittedly gets boring, especially because the players also do it.
As a player I once described pulling a possessing demon out of a woman.
One that took the form of a mutant, foetal gnoll-featured child, with a single huge dissented arm that had replaced her own arm.
Praise Lamashtu.
Apart from that I usually stick pretty vanilla unless its something truly fun to describe like using necromancy, I could scenery porn necromancy for days basically.
>>44113549
I like to say as a GM "you hit, give a brief description of how you hit" and then I'll go on to describe the results of that hit.
My players tend to not go for the gorey options, so that gives me a bit more focus instead of focusing on hypergore or so on.
"Your strike passes between the plates on his shoulder, leaving a vicious gash"
"You strike is knocked to the side by the orcs axe, and only collides with steel armor plates"
I find that it is best to save the excruciating description for the death of an important character. Maybe he has a short monologue whilst choking on his own blood.
For mooks, anything just a little more than "you hit successfully" is good, not too much. But that's where I like to mix it up depending on the margin of success.
If it's barely a victorious roll e.g. :
>"Your foe attempts to dodge by taking a step back, but moves too late, as the very tip of your blade slices his throat open, and he gurgles on the ground until silence."
To an overwhelming success:
>"Swinging with all your strength, your blade plows through his abdomen like a white-hot knife through butter, spilling his intestines at his feet below."
>>44117231
knife through butter is the worst idiom known to the english language, please self-respecting DM do not use this
>>44117600
>knife through butter is the worst idiom known to the english language
Nah, that'd be "literally" literally meaning "figuratively". If you think that "like a knife through butter" is bad, now realize that you can say "literally like a knife through butter" without being wrong.
>>44117600it's just an asspull example m80 but thank you for the concern
>>44113141
Am I the only player that would like to describe what happens after the dice tell me the result?
Its more fun for me, and presumably takes work off the GM.
Like, if I miss with a gun I'd say "The bullet go wide slamming into the wall behind the enemy" or something
>>44117638
>"literally" literally meaning "figuratively"
This bothers me to no end. I know its just my personal brand of autism but still, why make a word mean the exact opposite of what it means?
Every time someone does this I literally want to punch them in the mouth or throw a dictionary at their head.
>>44113141
We use a table.
>>44118366
>ants ants ants ants
>>44118468
You might need new glasses mate, I read it fine. Did you try zooming in?
>>44113383
I like it.
I get cinematic if someone important is killed. If it's just an enemy, a simple descriptor of how he was killed suffices.
>slices the bandit's head off, flings the blood off my katana
>With a smirk, I quip "Now THAT'S what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!"
>>44116828
I totally agree with your opinion anon
"Just got passed his AC? Okay you swing your greatsword at the ogre and he seems to restrain before getting pummeled backwards from the force of the blow" not that hard.
>>44124984
Come on, are you even trying?
>Heads up!
>Don't get ahead of yourself
>Didn't you see my blade heading your way?
>Dark times are ahead
>At least you had a good head on your shoulders... had
>Quit flailing around like a headless chicken
>You'll never become head of staff like this
>So, I heard you give great head
Pick one, then turn around and silently walk away as your badass cloak/scarf swishes in the wind.
I have my players describe their own attacks most of the time if they feel like it, and if there is a particularly noteworthy attack then we start to ramble on about it.
