Combat's a big part of RPGs, we all agree on that.  What I'd like to know is how the folks on here describe their combats.  Do you use minis?  Do you get into gory detail about hits and kills?  Do you like to describe the little things: stances and such?

This isn't really meant to be a discussion of combat systems, more of one about how we translate those systems into words.

I like to use battleboards in combat, myself.  I don't trust myself to keep a running tab of the locations of each NPC in relation to their PC foes.  At the same time, it helps to have something concrete in front of you when you want a cool power or ability to have a big, visceral impact.

When my PCs ran into a demon (the first supernatural enemy of the campaign), what cemented it as a threat in their eyes was the 100' jump it made from the edge of the board to their very midst.  Being able to see it broken down into something visual, something they subconciously compared to all the 20' moves taken by their human enemies, made it more real to them.  Some of them leaned back in their seats, a couple put their noses right above the chit I used as as a mini.

It was pretty damn cool.  First time in a while I felt like I was doing something right.

Some systems make describing combat a lot easier. With TROS, you don't have to add much, the player's actions mirror the character's pretty good. D&D is another issue. I'll tend to describe most slashes, if there's time, but still end up with lots of flesh wounds, especially for the lesser armed combatants.

I'd recommend reading some fighting manuals or stage swordfighting books. But don't get lost in obscure vocabulary. It might help playing sports announcer to a good movie fight (anything Bob Anderson has been in is a good start).

It totally depends on how important I want the combat to be. The more important you want it, the more description you use.

RPGPundit

I normally descibe combat according to the degree of success in to-hit and damage rolls. I also juice it up more when they fight the BBEG.

It's been like a month now and I still can't get over that one fight scene in End of Evangelion. You know the one... Where Asuka rips those horrible whale headed things limb-from-limb. Then they get back up all mangled and pwn her in teh face... and then the disemboweling/cannibalism

never could get nothin like that in a game though.

I love minis.  Love 'em.  A well-drawn environment on a hex map with some minis, and the possibilities for the characters (and me) just explode.

As for description, the big moments get the most description - turning points, critical successes and failures, moments when somebody brings the pain or moments when somebody brings the weenie.

Quote from: fonkaygarryWhen my PCs ran into a demon (the first supernatural enemy of the campaign), what cemented it as a threat in their eyes was the 100' jump it made from the edge of the board to their very midst.  Being able to see it broken down into something visual, something they subconciously compared to all the 20' moves taken by their human enemies, made it more real to them.  Some of them leaned back in their seats, a couple put their noses right above the chit I used as as a mini.

Exactly!  

I can't tell you what I do because it hurts my mojo.

It depends on the game, by which I mean the setting more than the rules.

In my Vikings game wounds are routinely fatal or crippling, and I describe shattered shoulders, cleaved heads, arms lopped off at the elbow and pumping blood such that the wound is clearly mortal.

Lots of lopped limbs actually, even though the game has no hit location mechanic.  Why?  Because in the sagas that's how they tend to describe wounds.

In CoC I describe wounds more briefly, and they tend to be gunshots or punches, so I take a different approach.

In a game with rapiers, I describe the rapier lancing through an abdomen or skewering the enemy's shoulder, more descriptive than CoC but less so than the vikings game.

So, it depends on the game and as Pundit says on how important it is.  That said, a game with tons of combat, say wading through goblins in a DnD game, I would keep descriptions brief or it would get old really fast.

Don't like minis.  Hell, I don't even use maps anymore.  I'd rather keep things fast and loose, relying on description and flavor.  I tend to run cinematic, high action games so time wasted fiddling with minis just kills my pacing.  Further, both the games I run now have mechanics to let the players add scenery to the combat, so I'd hate to sketch everything out then have to change it halfway through.  If there's no representation then it doesn't feel like something just appeared, more like we just noticed it was there.

I keep arguments down by not getting bogged down in minutae.  What I mean is if a player starts asking about exactly how far apart someone is from someone else, or how far they are from the wall, I'll simply cut to the chase and ask them what they're trying to achieve, then give them a roll.  This works because my players trust that I'm not out to hose them.  I *want* them to do cool stuff, and give them consequences for their actions.

Just depends on the situation.  I generally don't use mini's and maps unless they really want a visual to the situation.  Also I'll play off the players if they are getting detailed I tend to get more descriptive if they just feel like rushing it and  there's no real need to get dramatic then I'll just rush it also.

Typically I find myself beeing more inspired in games like Warhammer, TROS and Feng Shui then I do in games like D20 or Heroes.  The less chart flipping and page turning I have to deal with the more creative I'll get because I have the time to do so.

I don't use minis, rarely use maps and don't talk in terms of 5' steps or whatever.

That said, I can see why minis could add to the game in some circumstances, the demon example or putting down a giant dragon mini to show the scale of it v the pcs.

But currently I don't bother.