Combat descriptions...?

[Bibliophile]

I'm starting up a new 3.5 campaign soon, and I came across a problem while thinking about combat descriptions. The last game I was involved in was more of a "you take x points of damage from NPC A shooting at you."

Now, I'd like this new campaign to be much more in-depth and roleplaying oriented, but where do you draw the line? Should each parry and feint be described in detail? Or should things be left with "you take X points of damage" in the interests of saving time?

So how do you all manage it and what seems to work well?

 

[psyronin]

Monte Cook wrote a few words on this in his latest DM's Only column.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I think describing each action might be a bit much but if you give really good descriptions for some of them, and just basic info for others you should be fine. Check out some of the story hours and see how people describe combats. Get a thesaurus and look up different, interesting words to describe things to make them more vidid. I think it will make it more fun for you & the other players. You don't have to do it for every hit but throwing in a few now and then will add some flavor.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Not every stroke needs in-depth description, but they all should (IMO) be more than "The orc hits you for 6 points of damage." Even if it's just something as simple as "The orc's club slams into your shoulder, and you think you hear something crack; take 6 points of damage" or "The dragon's jaws snap shut an inch in front of her nose; you can actually smell its breath," descriptions like that don't take any more time, and they really add to the atmosphere.

Actually, I've found that simply imitating the sword stroke, so the player knows if it's an overhand slash, a thrust, or what have you, goes a long way toward helping, too, as long as you don't get goofy with it.

 

[Umbran]

Description is not an end in and of itself. It is a tool, a means to an end. The end you are trying to reach is an entertaining game. Exactly how much and what kind of descriptions you give will depend upon the effect you want to have.

In general, the issue is boredom. The trick is to stop describing before the descriptions become tedious. Before you start running out of synonyms.

It is probably better to focus descriptions on the hits that actually have a dramatic effect, or that change the tactical situation. There's not usually much to be gained from describing a character chopping wood. If the player is going to have to go through 27 hits that inflict 5 HP damage each, only the last couple will be really noteworth on their own, as they'll indicate the party is reaching the end of the battle. If a hit is likely to make the enemy turn and run, you describe it to justify the NPC's action. Critical hits are frequently dramatic, so you describe them.

So, in essence, I think the secret to descriptionis picking your battles. Describe at the right time, and you'll have impact. Dpon't bother describing that which will have little impact.

 

[Voobaha]

Description is not an end in and of itself. It is a tool, a means to an end....Don't bother describing that which will have little impact.

I agree. The secret to telling a good story, or a good joke, or just making interesting conversation is to tell enough to convey your meaning without rambling on and on.

If you want to tell somebody about how you got into a car accident (for example), you should concentrate on the main ideas...the interesting things that happened to you. Not all the fiddly details.

If you blew a tire and lost control of the car, say that happened, don't ramble on about the fact that they were Firestone 2001 steel belted eagle tires with the whitewall stripes and you got them at a discount from the nice tire dealer who was wearing a pink bowtie and eating twinkies from a box...you know I think twinkies are underrated as a snack cake, but they're not as good as little debbie snack cakes but...


you get the picture.

When describing a combat, concentrate on the essential, dramatic actions and keep the game moving. It's fun and helps in the suspension of disbelief.

I like to add to the gaming aspect as well by house ruling small bonuses to success rolls if characters think of creative ways to use their skills or make attacks. If a player thinks to try and throw sand in the eyes of the villain, or describes swinging from a chandelier to make it crash down on a cluster of mooks, I say, more power to them.

It encourages creativity and involvement in the game, as long as the rulings are consistent.

 

[Hand of Evil]

See this thread...

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59446

Take the time to write down some adjectives describing combat and have them ready for your game. You can also take them from books.

You do not 'hit' a foe, your sword slides between his ribs, the spear presses into their flesh, blood staining their armor, the dagger is driven into their leg, the orc's booted foot cracks against your knee.

 

[Norfleet]

Hitpoints are too abstractified to make for a good combat description, and frankly, when people start beating each other repeatedly when both parties have large quantities of hitpoints, even trying to justify this with a description starts to become silly.

Now when you bring in the specific damage tables of organ-mulching goodness, and treat hitpoints as secondary buffers for surviving gruesome specific injuries, combats become both more interesting, more realistic, more lethal, and much more descriptive.

It gets even better when you have a computer with you, since then you can even resolve things like who gets blood splattered on them when an orc is decapitated and his headless corpse falls over in a fountain of blood on short notice.

 

[ergeheilalt]

More often than not, I leave describing damage and such to the DM. When I DM, I tend to only go into a deep description for killing blows. Everything else is pretty much, "The orc swings his mace around in an arc, smashing into your ribs".

One thing I always make sure to describe with at least some detail are spells. For example, an acid substitution fireball from an old Dwarven mage:

Slowly Rodgar crouches down, grasping a small amount of dirt. Rodgar turns his head toward his right hand, canting in a language used long ago by ancient Dwarven spellsmiths, he channels the raw fury of the earth into his hand. Rodgar places his left hand on the ground, changing the pitch of his canting. A small green tendril of energy begins rising from the ground, snaking up his left arm, across his barrel-like chest, entwining his right hand in raw energy. Out of the corner of your eye it appears the tendril undulates slightly. The soil clenched in his right fist begins to glow eerily.

Suddenly Rodgar's eyes snap open from his arcane reverie; the tendril fades into nothingness as the earth in his right hand forms a small green orb of liquid. Swiftly Rodgar flings the small orb at the enemy down the road. The orb hits the ground and expands to fill the surround area, engulfing the enemy in a cloud of acid.

Spell descriptions can get pretty long, however, they put some mystery in magic and make Spellcraft checks for identification pretty important.

Heh, spell descriptions also provide some good bonus XP possibilities.

Erge

 

[Hand of Evil]

Also think about building a hit chart, this is not complex, just catalog location with light, mod, or heavy damage. Arm and legs would be for light minor damage, thighs and chest for mod damage, head and gut for heavy damage.

Example of this: Monster hits and rolls damage doing 12 points of damage, based on possible damage 3-15. You as DM say to player, the orcs swings wide connecting a glancing blow to your head, dazing and causing a ringing in your ears.

On your chart you have list for the Head: glancing blow, dazing, ring in the ears, bring tears to your eyes, smashing your nose, etc...