"Color" without "Number" game effects is useless to me. I very occasionally narrate a relevant critical hit, like a crit on a named bad guy during a critical encounter, and then give it a in-game effect to boot. I had such a situation where the bad guy showed up, and a player got the draw on him and plunked him with a crit from a bow and arrow. It was so dramatically appropriate, that I gave it a knockdown effect and had the bad guy miss his next turn.
And I sometimes describe the condition of a foe, like "He's hurting really bad." if he's down to only a few hit points.

Other than that, I don't want to bore the players with descriptions.

[video=youtube_share;l1YmS_VDvMY]https://youtu.be/l1YmS_VDvMY[/youtube]

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;915958Why 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.

For us the incentive is the additional detail which aids in imagining the situation in a real world focus. Call it immersion I suppose. Flat numbers and bland mechanical descriptions break that for us.

Our group isn't bored by such descriptions but rather expects them. A game without a little theatre is just a game, an interaction of abstract concepts towards a goal. At least that's how we see it.

Oh, and I don't know that any of my players has ever attempted something like "Ill roll Persuasion". It doesn't make any sense at all without at least a general description. That pretty much goes for any roll honestly.

Back in the day, I used to run RoleMaster/Space Master and really enjoyed the color (as well as the mechanical detail) added by their critical tables, so much so that I adapted the crit tables to the Shadowrun combat system when I was running that.  WFRP and other systems which make use of hit location were also naturals for inserting description, since the mechanics provided the core of a description automatically.  D&D-type games, where those prompts aren't provided, however, have historically tended to be 95% A, with just the occasional embellishment as others have described above.

The last group I played with, though...  I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.  I wasn't trying to suggest we do that (I actually said I didn't think it was workable, due to the extra burden placed on the GM), but a couple of players latched on to that and convinced me to try it as an experiment.  They loved it.  And then they started pushing to take it further and further, until, half a dozen sessions later, I was the only one handling dice or interacting with the game mechanics at all, with a table policy of "no numbers" when talking about actions and their results.

In the end, it worked surprisingly well and I liked it enough that, the next time I get a game together, I want to at least try using that style right at the start, because it removes the need for players to learn the rules at all - they just tell me in plain English what they want to do, then I tell them in plain English what happens as a result.  No numbers.  No charop.  No system mastery.  Just straight-up exploration of an imaginary world.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915893I 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 like that idea and, like great authors before me, will try to steal, I mean "adapt", it for my own homebrew.

I stick with the numbers for most combat exchanges. Given how often combat systems rely on abstractions and attrition, trying to tie each blow to the fiction can lead to pretty jarring results. Even more so when firearms are involved.

Descriptions work best I find is saved for the, the final, killer blow, the one that finally succeeds in taking its opponent. At least then you aren't limited to shooting someone in the shoulder all the time but you can describe something fun.

Quote from: nDervish;915978I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.

I've played that way as GM and Player and always enjoyed it. Not everyone is willing, but non-Gamers are usually just fine with it (along with playing without character sheets).

Quote from: nDervish;915978The last group I played with, though...  I don't recall how it came up, but I mentioned that I'd heard of groups playing D&D without the players knowing their HP status.  I wasn't trying to suggest we do that (I actually said I didn't think it was workable, due to the extra burden placed on the GM), but a couple of players latched on to that and convinced me to try it as an experiment.  They loved it.  And then they started pushing to take it further and further, until, half a dozen sessions later, I was the only one handling dice or interacting with the game mechanics at all, with a table policy of "no numbers" when talking about actions and their results.

In the end, it worked surprisingly well and I liked it enough that, the next time I get a game together, I want to at least try using that style right at the start, because it removes the need for players to learn the rules at all - they just tell me in plain English what they want to do, then I tell them in plain English what happens as a result.  No numbers.  No charop.  No system mastery.  Just straight-up exploration of an imaginary world.

I had a group that played that way for a time. I rolled all the dice as GM, they concentrated on character. EVERYTHING was described to them in realistic terms, no 'game speak' at all. It was actually pretty freaking fun but requires a certain type of player that trusts the GM completely and doesn't mine giving up those dice.

I have played in "no numbers" games. Also in games where the players roll their own dice and report the result to the GM, but do not know even their own specific hit points.

It certainly can boost immersion.

I play either in mode B (especially with players who don't know the rules, or not very well), or B with A data included. Sometimes a bit less flowery in wording but I also tend to communicate the severity in tone and possibly with side effects or gestures.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915943Exactly.  And for my players it'd better be funny, too.  "You hit him on top of the head so hard his tonker explodes."

Yes, so for me and my group the color commentary tends to come when the roll goes badly, or catastrophically, or when it goes incredibly well.

Ill have to add that in many cases a single die roll or task attempt can represent several seconds or more of time, several individual actions or even a short scene in itself. IF someone say rolls to intimidate someone or persuade. Surely these are more than just one quick dirty look or a witty remark. In a story it might take a paragraph to cover how the attempt was successful or failing. Someone attempting to climb up a wall as another example or perhaps performing medical treatment on the injured. "You fix them" hardly seems sufficient. Or at least for some it wouldn't be.

I think there are games conductive to b), but you won't find them among the more number-crunching, D&D/Shadowrun-like ones.

A with an occasional splash of color for particularly notable critical hits and such. D&D combat is abstract and designed to be resolved quickly not embellished and drawn out.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;916082A with an occasional splash of color for particularly notable critical hits and such. D&D combat is abstract and designed to be resolved quickly not embellished and drawn out.

That's a good point. Getting detailed with wound results ultimately feels like wankery when every mechanical result is actually "Character loses x hit points." If you are playing by the book a nasty, bleeding scalp wound, a slash to the Achilles tendon, and a jab to the abdomen all amount to the same thing. If I want to play with that kind of detail, I will break out RuneQuest 6/Mythras. If I am playing D&D, then I explicitly want simplicity over detail when it comes to wounds.

While I have liked hidden hit points since Unknown Armies first introduced me to the concept, I don't find that it fits that cleanly with D&D. D&Ds combination of things that hurt you and things that heal make tracking hit points a notable part of play. When do you want to use that heal potion? How deep into the dungeon do you risk going? Deciding those things based on loose GM descriptions seems a bit weak. And the descriptions will have to be loose, as characters are rarely ever impaired. If a character is down to 25% HP, do I describe him as weakened? If so, do I have to back that up with action penalties? If I don't it feels a bit flimsy.

It's purely subjective on my part though. I am perfectly happy to equate hit point loss to wounds with appropriate penalties that I whip up on the spot when I run Unknown Armies. I only run into dissonance when I try to mix it with D&D.

Quote from: Baulderstone;916086That's a good point. Getting detailed with wound results ultimately feels like wankery when every mechanical result is actually "Character loses x hit points." If you are playing by the book a nasty, bleeding scalp wound, a slash to the Achilles tendon, and a jab to the abdomen all amount to the same thing. If I want to play with that kind of detail, I will break out RuneQuest 6/Mythras. If I am playing D&D, then I explicitly want simplicity over detail when it comes to wounds.

While I have liked hidden hit points since Unknown Armies first introduced me to the concept, I don't find that it fits that cleanly with D&D. D&Ds combination of things that hurt you and things that heal make tracking hit points a notable part of play. When do you want to use that heal potion? How deep into the dungeon do you risk going? Deciding those things based on loose GM descriptions seems a bit weak. And the descriptions will have to be loose, as characters are rarely ever impaired. If a character is down to 25% HP, do I describe him as weakened? If so, do I have to back that up with action penalties? If I don't it feels a bit flimsy.

It's purely subjective on my part though. I am perfectly happy to equate hit point loss to wounds with appropriate penalties that I whip up on the spot when I run Unknown Armies. I only run into dissonance when I try to mix it with D&D.

Ive played my share of D&D in various versions and I cant say Ive ever had issue with a bit of creative description. The way some of you make it sound D&D seems like an abstract adventure board game (Descent anyone?) where resource management and tactical decisions are front and center above Roleplaying. That's just my perception, I may be focusing too closely on a few particular posts. Obviously the game can be played any number of ways but I agree certain systems, genres, settings etc. lend themselves towards particular approaches.