[DMs] How Detailed Do You Get In Your Descriptions of Wounds and Gore?

[el-remmen]

From where he was, firing arrows from the level above, Derek had a moment of confusion as time itself seemed to slow down. He saw something go flying high into the air, as the monster’s swing came up and away from Jeremy. It something limp and just about two feet long, and it trailed line of thick red liquid behind it and then flipped end over end down to where Beorth had fallen.

He saw Jeremy’s blade hit the ground, and a moment later Jeremy’s body was next to it, a pool of blood spread out too quickly on his left side, spurting strongly from where his arm had once been, but now there was only raw jagged flesh and bone. Jeremy’s eyes rolled back into his head and his body began to shake violently.

Looking over my latest story hour installment, I began to wonder how detailed other DMs got in their description of the wounds PCs both dish out and receive and the general blood, gore and pain of combat.

Do you describe gouts of blood? Torn muscles? The pain of sharp sword, the weight of heavy blows? The crunch of armor? Etc. . .?

I was also curious as to how much liberty you take in the results of grievous wounds even when the rules do not specifically state such things happen.

While in the above example, the character lost his arm due to a critical hit result using the tables we use in my Aquerra games, in the past I have made rulings based on damage taken that had in-game effects.

An example was a fight with a black dragon where the femal barbarian character failed her save versue the dragon's acid breath and took so much damage it brought her below -20 hit points. I ruled that she took so much damage tha ther body was literally turned into a pile of mush, as did everything on her person.

In that same combat, a priestess in the party took enough bite damage to bring her way below -10 as well and I ruled she was not only bitten in half, but the lower part of her body was swallowed by the dragon - meaning that raise dead would not be an option to bring her back (it would take at least Resurrection).

Do other DMs make rulings like this? If you did, do you think your players would be pissed? Do you think it is fair as it does not fall within the rules as written?

I would not make up results from just taking lots of damage that would affect the character (as I have a crit system for that), but I guess some DMs might do that, too -especially for those that come back from death's door.

 

[Mark]

Do you describe gouts of blood? Torn muscles? The pain of sharp sword, the weight of heavy blows? The crunch of armor? Etc. . .?

Yes. Usually just verbally. When things are moving along, I try to to get overly descriptive, so as not to dull the pace, but I make sure to add in some serious gore whenever time permits. It's good to keep people's minds off of the numbers, I think.

 

[diaglo]

ditto Mark's remark.

 

[Gnarlo]

I get into some detail if it's an important fight, a PC or important NPC dies or is crippled, or if a particularly nasty amount or type of damage is done. Otherwise, it tends to take the form of "you barely scratched her" or "that was a nasty pinch, he'll feel the bruise in the morning."

I used to get quite graphic in description of torn limbs, squirting blood, ruptured organs and blood dripping from orifices and holes; finally, we all kind of burned/grossed ourselves out on it and decided we were just engaging in "gore porn" and stopped. Not that there is anything wrong with that if you enjoy it, we just didn't enjoy the whole blood-gore-show me zombies munching on intestines in color and 3D-splatter phase anymore

 

[Psion]

Generally, I just talk about where they hit, throw in a little description of blood, and npc reactions, perhaps some more recognizable impact if it is a critical or has a special effect (I have a house rule to model specific injuries.)

That said, I try to keep it not too gory. In my first 3e campaign, I described a killing critical hit by a spiked chain rather vividly and managed to draw stunned looks from my players.

 

[Henry]

I get somewhat detailed, but rarely dip into the "R" rated gore. I'd say about the level of the LotR films, with the occasional "Kill Bill"-level reference.

For some reason, I don't mind decapitations, but I avoid broken bones. Perhaps it's a subconscious thing, as I dislike broken bones in real life. Scabrous diseased pock-marks, spurting bloody wounds, decapitations, eviscerations - none of these bug me, and occasionally get used. But most of the time, it's grevious wounds and heads getting bashed.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, I've always described part of my game as "5% extreme bloody violence". I get fairly detailed enough, but I've also used a W&V-derived system for nearly 2 years now, so "wounds" and "hits" aren't necessarily the same thing.

I'm currently looking into adopting Bastion's Torn Assunder to help remove the arbitrary manner currently used to determine a wound and its effects. Currently, though, I divide wounds into 3 categories: Minor (any time Wound Damage is sustained), Major (any time a single attack causes Wound damage equal to 50% or more of the character's Health Points), and Maiming (any time a single attack causes Wound Damage equal to 100% or more of the character's Health Points). I'll likely retain these "levels" of Wounds, although TA will assist in placing them and determining specific events.

Additionally, while players keep track of their Resilience Points (Vitality), I keep track of the Wound Points behind the screen; Wounds taken are then described (where and how bad), allowing the player to decide what to do about the wounds as they begin to accumulate. Obviously, Heal, Profession: Surgeon, and Field Surgery (Feat) are valued assets, but the term "disembowelmet" still makes everyone squirm.

 

[el-remmen]

I guess I like George R.R. Martin level gore (with some George Romero thrown in) with brain matter having to be wiped from hammers and maces, and swords getting stuck in bones and having to be wedged out of corpses by putting foot down on them, etc. . .

For me it has to do with keeping up the verismilitude and keeping folks aware of the consequences of combat in a less abstract way than hit point.

I also find that the more innocent the victim of the violence is the more graphic I am just to hit the point home even more - thus the innocent by-stander struck by a quarrel will gurgle blood and whimper pathetically as his eyes open wide in shock and grief as he reaches out with one hand for help that never comes, while clutching his throat with the other, blood cascading through his fingers.

 

[WayneLigon]

Do other DMs make rulings like this? If you did, do you think your players would be pissed? Do you think it is fair as it does not fall within the rules as written?

Oh, yeah. Depends on what's doing the damage, or the exact rolls, but I've done stuff like that a great deal.

Dire bear against a fighter. Both paws crit, the bite almost crits, does enough damage to kill the fighter twice over.. The bear reaches down and swats your head off with one powerful blow. Then he scoops up the morsel and swallows it, helmet and all. There is a burp, and the bear turns to the sorcerer....

 

[Hand of Evil]

I don't go into blood and gore too much (unless playing WFRP ), mostly staying with the description of the blow...the sword rips into you, slicing armor and flesh, tearing into your flesh. The greater the damage, the more detailed the description...the sword cleaves into you, slashing into armor and flesh, tearing your flesh, you feel it pierce your body deep and fatal.

I try to have words that mean the same but sound more intense, the greater the damage the more intense the words.