Blood or Spaghetti Sauce?

[Theory of Games]

Hi TTRPGers!

So I have a confession to make: I like a little gore in my gaming.

Even if it's D&D or something rules-lite (e.g. Barbarians of Lemuria or Freeform Universal), I like when the violence gets a little lively. Especially when an attack takes those last few points of life ... IMO the scene demands an appropriate level of color. Heads getting lopped off. Sword blades slicing right through the victim. The wet pink mist of a sudden death. I mean in my defense I was traumatized at an early age by sicko 70's flicks like Friday the 13th and Damien: Omen 2 and Jaws. And they were so gooooood!

So. I bring that into my ttrpg play as GM, when I can. During Session 0 some players will express a distaste for gore and even horror. And that's okay - not ideal, but okay. Am I the only person who likes gore at the table? Sometimes I'll describe how a PC decapitates a demon. Or I'll go the Matt Mercer route and let the player describe how their PC dispatched their foe. When I have to, I'll go the trad ttrpg path and tell the player they did enough damage to down the opponent:

"Okay your crit did 64 points of damage? Well that's enough to drop the Ogre Magi - HUZZAH!"

So lame.

I guess this rubs right up against "X-Cards": the little verbal disclaimers players and GMs can signal the group with when a scene is getting too excited. I play online mostly and it really is a thing, that usually gets sorted in Session 0 when I ask the players what they want from the campaign. I don't ask what they don't want, but they usually tell me anyway - and that's okay.

How do you guys handle and run violence in your games? Does it get bloody? Do you keep it PG-13? Is your combat safe as a Disney cartoon? Am I the lone sociopath out here running games?

 

[zedhatool]

I am relatively squeamish about people's inside parts, but I still try to give an interesting description for when one of my players dispatches an enemy, especially when the enemy is important or they land a critical hit. The most gore I would include is something like "your blade strikes true, blood spurting from the stump that only a moment ago held the ogre's head." So no detailed description of your hammer crushing the ogre's face into a fine paste, because I would gross myself out.

A lesson I take from video game combat is that players like feedback a lot. I never liked the combat in the 3D Fallout games, but people often praise it, usually because of VATS. I think what they find so satisfying about it is people's heads exploding when the player shoots them.

For me, it's about giving descriptions that make my players feel accomplished and heroic—or describing the enemy annihilating one of them in great detail to show the enemy's power—rather than gore as an end in itself.

 

[Theory of Games]

I am relatively squeamish about people's inside parts, but I still try to give an interesting description for when one of my players dispatches an enemy, especially when the enemy is important or they land a critical hit. The most gore I would include is something like "your blade strikes true, blood spurting from the stump that only a moment ago held the ogre's head." So no detailed description of your hammer crushing the ogre's face into a fine paste, because I would gross myself out.

I like your style. It's "soft-gore"

A lesson I take from video game combat is that players like feedback a lot. I never liked the combat in the 3D Fallout games, but people often praise it, usually because of VATS. I think what they find so satisfying about it is people's heads exploding when the player shoots them.

Right. I was thinking just today about the blood-splatter in Warzone. Ultimately IMO it's all about Simulation: some of us want it as real as we can get it. Not all the time, but at key moments.

For me, it's about giving descriptions that make my players feel accomplished and heroic—or describing the enemy annihilating one of them in great detail to show the enemy's power—rather than gore as an end in itself.

You are a great GM. I know for a fact that feeling accomplished and heroic is super important to most players. It isn't just killing the monsters, it's doing it with style

 

[Jd Smith1]

Depends on the system. Using Morrow Project 4e, the system makes extra description unnecessary, as the damage results are extremely specific. In other systems I use currently, players are eagerly waiting for their chance 'at bat', so unnecessary verbiage is not welcome except in the most extreme cases.

 

[Theory of Games]

Depends on the system. Using Morrow Project 4e, the system makes extra description unnecessary, as the damage results are extremely specific. In other systems I use currently, players are eagerly waiting for their chance 'at bat', so unnecessary verbiage is not welcome except in the most extreme cases.

I read the original MP and I remember when I was a kid older guys playing MP at the FLGS. I only glanced at the newest edition but The Morrow Project has always been impressive to me. There was that one game from Fantasy Games Unlimited - Aftermath - that was kind of like MP. That and Palladium's After The Bomb. The MP was better written IMO.

But those ttrpgs were super SIM (not a bad thing at all), but more about exploration than combat, so while I liked them, they weren't exactly my cup. Now if there were zombies ....

 

[Knaves Quill]

I'm fortunate that I and all my players enjoy a lot of gore and gross details in our games. We're all horror media fans and it shows in just about every setting/system we play.

Seeing how creative and wild my players can get with their finishing moves is great improv in the moment.

I don't admonish anyone for not liking overly violent things in-game though. Fun comes in all colors/flavors.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't intentionally hold back unless there are non-adults in the group. I also don't spend more than 10 seconds describing viscera. Usually.

Or I'll go the Matt Mercer route and let the player describe how their PC dispatched their foe.

This is not the Matt Mercer I know. But then, I haven't watched an entire seaso... session of Critical Role.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I read the original MP and I remember when I was a kid older guys playing MP at the FLGS. I only glanced at the newest edition but The Morrow Project has always been impressive to me. There was that one game from Fantasy Games Unlimited - Aftermath - that was kind of like MP. That and Palladium's After The Bomb. The MP was better written IMO.

But those ttrpgs were super SIM (not a bad thing at all), but more about exploration than combat, so while I liked them, they weren't exactly my cup. Now if there were zombies ....

MP is heavily into combat, and intense combat at that. I've used in zombie/aliens/occult settings It really should be only used in settings of WW1 or later, as the melee side of it is geared to 'only when desperate', but it rocks.

 

[aco175]

My table does not tend to get into details. We do not shy from it, but find it not needed that much.

 

[Theory of Games]

Yeah graphic description isn't ever needed IMO but depending on the ttrpg being used, it can add spice to combat. Like one of the things that always reminds me that D&D isn't SIM is how bloodless the game can be - compared to ttrpgs like GURPS and Mythras. A character losing some HP is nothing next to them losing an arm