My combat patter goes like this.

Me: Your turn, John, what do you do?
John: I armlock the orc chief and twist hopefully knocking the sword out of his hand.
Me: Roll to hit
John: Got a 18!
Me:Nice! You got the guy in a armlock. Instead of damage, make a strength check you need a 15 or better plus your Athletic bonus. (I fold Bend Bar, lift gates, etc into a Athletic check that fighters get a bonus on)
John: Look at that a 15.
Me: Alright the Orc gets a saving throw (for any special action other than a damage, I generally have the target roll a saving throw. In classic D&D creature rarely have stats so I use saving throw which also conveniently scales up with higher HD creatures. )
Me: A 16! You still have a arm lock but you are still struggling with the orc chief.
Me: Jerry, your turn what do you do?

The general idea is that I have the player describe without mechanics. Most of the time it is simple I try to hit the guy. I then give the mechanics. The players rolls. I describe the result tersely. Ask for damage or a follow up roll. Player rolls, I describe the result of that tersely.

Player describes, roll, describe results tersely seems to work with many of the RPGs I run. Like anything you can overdo it but like a pinch of spice, in a small dose it can it liven the most basic of combat system.

I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

The player's in our group use their individual tastes. The older few in their thirties tend to give fairly detailed descriptions of their characters action; the other guys in their twenties tend to be less descriptive and more hard numbers orientated.

As DM I tend to like giving out descriptive combat descriptions for both.
Like many here the longer the combat the shorter the descriptions become before it's over.

Here's an example I gave after a character attacked with a battleaxe in one hand followed by a second attack shield-punch.
"His battleaxe flashes, cleaving one bandit's head down to the chin, blood spraying; a jet of blood and brains wide. With a roar, he crushes the face of the second bandit with the edge of his shield."

Quote from: vytzka;691444I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

Ditto.

It depends on the game for me, also.

For games where the state of combat is entirely represented by quantitative variables (initiative order, position on grid, attack bonus, etc.), I tend to get more mechanically focused.  I'll still say a sentence or so, like:

GM: Your blade catches the orc under the chin of his helmet, and he staggers backwards.

For games where there's not nearly so much quantified state (e.g. Dungeon World, The Regiment), I'll describe a lot more, and ask for more description.

Player: I attack the ogre!
GM: How?

Quote from: vytzka;691444I prefer to describe AFTER the roll, actually, that way you can just say what happened and don't need to keep things ambiguous until the second part.

Same here. I find it easier to come up with something with the mechanics and dice result providing a framework too. Usually anyway. Sometimes the dice can produce some odd results but OTOH, combat in real life can have some outcomes that seem, at best, highly improbable.

Quote from: The_Shadow;691435I like it bare bones. Describing the expressions on the combatants faces and so forth is unintentionally comical at best.

This.  A big part of the problem is that I can't take it seriously.  After three or four "I slice his neck and he gurgles and falls" I'd be giving descriptions like "I hit him in the face so hard he shits his own entrails" or "I kick him in the nuts so hard his brains squirt out his ears."

Quote from: estar;691442My combat patter goes like this.

Me: Your turn, John, what do you do?
John: I armlock the orc chief and twist hopefully knocking the sword out of his hand.
Me: Roll to hit
John: Got a 18!
Me:Nice! You got the guy in a armlock. Instead of damage, make a strength check you need a 15 or better plus your Athletic bonus. (I fold Bend Bar, lift gates, etc into a Athletic check that fighters get a bonus on)
John: Look at that a 15.
Me: Alright the Orc gets a saving throw (for any special action other than a damage, I generally have the target roll a saving throw. In classic D&D creature rarely have stats so I use saving throw which also conveniently scales up with higher HD creatures. )
Me: A 16! You still have a arm lock but you are still struggling with the orc chief.
Me: Jerry, your turn what do you do?

The general idea is that I have the player describe without mechanics. Most of the time it is simple I try to hit the guy. I then give the mechanics. The players rolls. I describe the result tersely. Ask for damage or a follow up roll. Player rolls, I describe the result of that tersely.

Player describes, roll, describe results tersely seems to work with many of the RPGs I run. Like anything you can overdo it but like a pinch of spice, in a small dose it can it liven the most basic of combat system.

:eek: So, to try and disarm the orc, the player needs to roll to hit, THEN succed at an athletics check, THEN the orc gets a saving throw?

The end result of all that action: the PC is holding the orc's arm and nothing happened. Really, three failure points for a simple non-damaging action?

Quote from: baran_i_kanu;691445"His battleaxe flashes, cleaving one bandit's head down to the chin, blood spraying; a jet of blood and brains wide. With a roar, he crushes the face of the second bandit with the edge of his shield."

"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

Quote from: Old Geezer;691464"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it!"

Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

Quote from: Old Geezer;691460This.  A big part of the problem is that I can't take it seriously.  After three or four "I slice his neck and he gurgles and falls" I'd be giving descriptions like "I hit him in the face so hard he shits his own entrails" or "I kick him in the nuts so hard his brains squirt out his ears."

Gotta add those to the critical hit charts!

I think most people are in agreement that at the start of battles, and when there are exceptional rolls, we embellish in our descriptive narrative, while there are also times where we just roll to hit and declare damage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;691467I think most people are in agreement that at the start of battles, and when there are exceptional rolls, we embellish in our descriptive narrative, while there are also times where we just roll to hit and declare damage.

Yeah, I think most people embellish at some point and relay numbers at others.  Its when and how much it happens and how much its desired that varies.

Quote from: ptingler;691346Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

Pretty much this in my B/X game.  We play it primarily as an exploration game, and combat is but merely a part of it.  The goal is to resolve combats, not wallow in them.

In a 4e game, though, as a GM I'd want more description from a player, since the game is designed for very granular, virtually blow-by-blow combat.

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

I can see this happening in a game where a PC scores a home run critical on a bad guy for 40 points of damage! The bad has 120 hp and is still very much ready to keep fighting. Describing such a blow as " you slice open his belly and his entrails spill out like a pile of steaming spaghetti!!" really looks ridiculous.

For this reason I'm not a fan of even having critical hits in abstract HP game systems.