Lets see if I can post this question in a way that will inspire discussion and not condemnation.

A PC (Warrior in mail with sword and board) has just been hit by a ranged bow attack from a distant Goblin and a melee attack from one with a spear. (They both acted on the Goblin group's initiative.)

Im assuming any of a hundred conventional RPG systems where, understanding all too well that some take into account various details this generality will ignore.

The damage rolls are 4 from the bow, which is stopped almost entirely by the PCs mail (leaving only 1 hit to get through) but the spear does 8, yielding 5 more points of damage. The total of 6 drops the PC down from say... 15 to 9, a fairly egregious effect but not critical to his health.

How do you describe this in your games?

A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

B) The archer sends a shaft whistling your way and you feel the impact at your side. The arrow doesn't penetrate but youll have a bruise tomorrow. The spear wielding Goblin however works past your shield and with a thrust shoves his weapon hard into your armored midriff, knocking the air out of you. You feel several of the mail links part and stab into your flesh but without its protection you might have been dead right there. Take 6 off your Health.

How much color do you provide in combat exchanges? Are you players happy with a numbers exchange, just the facts or do they dramatize their actions as you do? Do you worry that your descriptions may complicate or confuse? Such as mentioning bleeding or a limp from a wound and not really planning on applying the effect in game terms?

Always the "color" commentary. Whether that's with an abstract system (like Call of Cthulhu) where the results need to be interpreted, or with a complex system (like RuneQuest) where the results clearly provide the "color".

My players describe their actions in real terms, though it's probably not as verbose as your "B)" example. The "numbers" are tacked on after the description, like your example.

If there's any confusion about the descriptions then my players will ask questions. I don't typically tack on side effects (bleeding, physical impairment) unless I'm leveraging a rules system that provides those kinds of mechanics. Basic Roleplaying, for example, includes a major wound table for serious injuries that result in these kinds of side effects. Or I can use bleeding rules based on the results of a Special success from a slashing weapon. There are times when I want this level of detail and times when it's not as important to me.

I encourage my players to put colour in their combat descriptions. When I am running T&T they can actually get mechanical advantages for doing so "I duck behind the giant and slice at his Achilles tendon" actually gets them a Saving Roll to do just that and cripple one of the giant's legs.

I don't put that kind of color on every attack as it can slow the game too much, especially if it is a game where hit points are high and damage points are low. But I definitely put some colour into it as I want my players to have frontal awareness that their characters are engaged in life or death struggle.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915893I don't put that kind of color on every attack as it can slow the game too much, especially if it is a game where hit points are high and damage points are low. But I definitely put some colour into it as I want my players to have frontal awareness that their characters are engaged in life or death struggle.

This is my feeling. Sometimes a vivid description is called for, and sometimes a quick result work can be better. The advantage of a colorful description is obvious, but simply giving a quick mechanical result can be effective at times. If you are trying to move through the action quickly, it allows for a fast pace that keeps the game moving. Not using vivid descriptions on every action also makes the ones you do use more effective.

I don't really like mandatory descriptions or mechanical advantages for verbose descriptions. It tends to lead to quantity over quality over in descriptions, and descriptions become a chore rather than an expression of spontaneous creativity. I like it when players come up with a good description, but I don't push them on it.

EDIT: I cross-posted with DavetheLost. I want to be clear I wasn't not replying to him when I mentioned mechanical advantages. I think the example he is using is fine. It's rewarding a particular tactic, not just a colorful description.

I prefer option B, though my current group is about an A and a quarter. I'm sure most of us have been involved in both styles. I agree with Baulderstone as well. Overusing it can grow tedious. And when time is of the essence, quick and dirty to beat the clock or increase the pressure on the player to come up with something quickly rather than stalling the combat looking up feats, spells, special abilities, etc. can be great. As with anything in gaming, use what works best for you and your group and don't sweat it.

In my perfect gaming world as the dice and typically the modifiers and such are common knowledge there on the table top, there would be no need to discuss the numbers and everyone would be free to dramatize the results as they saw fit and we would all bask in the theatre. Unfortunately this isn't anywhere close to reality and the mechanics of most attacks have to be at least mentioned in brief before or after the color. As some of you stated too when the action gets 'hot and heavy'  too much color threatens the pace and has to be sacrificed. I hate it but I do it. "You hit the guard by the truck for 5 of 13 HP and he flinches from the impact but is still fighting...next!"

At times however, especially in a critical or one on one fight its kind of fun to keep some of the mechanics a secret. The players roll of course is going to give them a good idea of how well they did but they don't need to know the extent of the targets armor protection (other than what is obvious) defense and health. Keeping them guessing as it would be in a real battle can lend a lot of drama.

In a recent game the 1870s southern belle found her self accosted by a couple river toughs. She was unarmed but managed to defend herself with a piece of lumber. She dodged a grapple attempt and then tried to clobber the guy but as she has no real melee skill and the weapon is pretty crappy did only moderate damage (1/4 his HP) and caused a stun. Rather than tell her the specifics I merely informed her that the guy wheezed painfully as she connected with his rib cage and dropped to a knee. She wasn't sure if he was out of it, about to pass out or would be back at her throat any second. She decided to clock him one while he was down and again got about the same result. The guy completely collapsed, seeing stars and she moved on past but effectively he was only stunned and would be back up in another round with still half his HP and a good piss off worked up.

This kind of thing adds a lot to a game but granted slows things down and is sometimes hard to pull off with very knowledgeable and experienced players. They know about how good an NPC should be, his Health, abilities etc. and can judge his condition with more accuracy.

Only place I've seen people do B is in threads on message boards. I've never seen it in real life in 30 years of gaming regardless of game system being played.

100% "A".

I have rarely seen anybody put in any description and my inevitable reaction is "And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882How do you describe this in your games?

A) The archer hits you for a single point as your armor soaks up the rest but the spear hits pretty hard, doing 5 more points of damage after armor. That's 6 total. Your down to 9 right?

B) The archer sends a shaft whistling your way and you feel the impact at your side. The arrow doesn't penetrate but youll have a bruise tomorrow. The spear wielding Goblin however works past your shield and with a thrust shoves his weapon hard into your armored midriff, knocking the air out of you. You feel several of the mail links part and stab into your flesh but without its protection you might have been dead right there. Take 6 off your Health.

I think B is really long-winded.

A little description is OK, but in general I want to emphasize the important stuff for the ongoing action, like how badly wounded they are - how they react to the attack, whether they're hesitant or fanatic in attacking, and so forth. Color descriptions of little details aren't important to my groups. The emphasis is on actions, reactions, and things that effect them.

Quote from: jhkim;915930I think B is really long-winded.

A little description is OK, but in general I want to emphasize the important stuff for the ongoing action, like how badly wounded they are - how they react to the attack, whether they're hesitant or fanatic in attacking, and so forth. Color descriptions of little details aren't important to my groups. The emphasis is on actions, reactions, and things that effect them.

I agree that B is long-winded.  One of the reasons it's long winded is that there two forms of information passed, a number and description.  If you really like the descriptions, then keep track of the numbers yourself.  When you do that, then the essential information the character needs to know IS contained in description form.  Otherwise, the description, while vivid, is meaningless if it doesn't alter the reality of the PC.  That's why I prefer combat systems with a little more variation in wounding, then any description isn't just to tart up the numbers, or to "bask in the theatre" but is transmitting key information that matters in the description, whether florid or concise.

A.

I might embellish a touch ("The guard slashes you for 4 points of damage" or "Woah - the troll almost took your face off" on a miss), but anything more isn't going to win me any awards with my players.

Maybe a very abbreviated version of B... "The arrow slams into you but it doesn't stick... but the spear... THAT got through and you're bleeding... but not impaled."

Both.

I give out a description of how they hit, or were hit, and then I tell them the number.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;915940A.

I might embellish a touch ("The guard slashes you for 4 points of damage" or "Woah - the troll almost took your face off" on a miss), but anything more isn't going to win me any awards with my players.

Exactly.  And for my players it'd better be funny, too.  "You hit him on top of the head so hard his tonker explodes."

Quote from: rgrove0172;915882How much color do you provide in combat exchanges?

Why limit the question to combat exchanges?

If a description doesn't have any mechanical weight there's little incentive to add one. This is why you get "I roll persuasion" as opposed to players interacting with NPCs. And the systems which do give mechanical weight to descriptions tend to give all of them equal weight, which makes them just as meaningless.

Regardless, such descriptions should be able to fit in a tweet. Anything longer becomes tedious.