How do you discribe combat?

[Dremmen]

No, but your example could barely be called a combat. More like NPC interaction that required some of the combat rules (which sounds about how I would have run it). Having 8 players run into a trapped room filled with bugbears, their shamens and an evil necromancer (Secret of Bone Hill) is a combat.

While you weren't advocating fifteen minute descriptions of bullet time, the OP of the semi-rant pretty much seemed to be.

I always advocate for more narrative rather than less, but some level of description, as multiple posts have shown on this thread, is pretty standard. For me I gauge how much description I'm going to use by how crucial the battle is. If its 2 - 3 really nasty bad guys, or the big lich type or something, there will be lots of description and "fluff" (although the term fluff seems to say that the description is wasting time. To me "AC 18, 8hp" type description is fluff in the sense that is has no worth in all its banal unimaginative glory). But if the encounter is in the middle of the woods with bandits with ranged weapons in the trees, a few more charging from the rear on destriers and a few more on foot coming out of hiding from the bushes to unsaddle the party, then description is cut down to what is needed to serve the mechanics as there are simply too many bad guys to go into a great level of detail, specially for an encounter that has less plot weight than other impending encounters. So I stick to details of what weapon the bad guy is using, where or how he is using it, and a short descriptor of the outcome based on the roll and/or damage done. There is still narrative but it is curtailed as is appropriate for the encounter.

 

[DonTadow]

Description is always great for submersion. I try to encourage my players to describe their actions briefly and then follow it with the dice result.

So I"ll say, Syxen's flachion shatters into the soldier's armor, dealing him no damage despite a dead on hit.

Or the solidier's blade pierces your ribcage, hurting you massively for 43 points of damage.

 

[Dakkareth]

I'm not advocating loving, fifteen minute descriptions in bullet time between the opponents.

I however am. But then I'm currently playing Exalted .

 

[Wil]

I however am. But then I'm currently playing Exalted .

I play Exalted too, and there is a limit to my patience with long-winded descriptions. Of course, the combat system is set up to facilitate descriptions, which almost take care of themselves as a result. My nod towards that is not using a method I use in a lot of other games - holding up a finger and counting down 1 a second for each point of [insert initiative stat/skill/score/mechanic] that the PC has, which gives the player a definite time period to declare an action. I use that technique to help simulate that the less experience a combatant has, the less likely they are to make an informed decision. It also keeps descriptions on the brief side. In Exalted, I typically forgo that method entirely.

 

[Dakkareth]

I play Exalted too, and there is a limit to my patience with long-winded descriptions.

Obviously - 'long-winded' after all implies, that it is *too* long . Five minutes of inspired description from one player can be awesome while twenty seconds from another or in a different situation can be painfully long. Thus, the more description without it becoming long-winded, the cooler it is by definition. Bring on those fifteen minutes if you're up to it !

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm focusing on the following with my new campaign - keeping in mind that we use a battlemap and miniatures for almost all combat:

- Overuse of description muddies the player's understanding of what's going on as much as lack of description confuses it. Haphazard spats of large description followed by spats of minimal description ruins the consistency of a DMs role. Following a set of guidelines in terms of description is thus very important to build up a consistency and clarity of communication to the players.
- Sometimes relaying the numbers involved tells the player most directly what's going on and it keeps things moving.
- In a combat, there are a few big pivotal moments. To miss the opportunity to describe these to the players is cheating them of their due.
- When it comes to description, gory details can be mildly amusing until overused. Keep the good stuff up the sleeve for when it counts.
- The most important thing I can do as a DM is convey the motivations of the PCs opponents through describing their actions. For example a hungry wolf will act differently to a wolf protecting it's young to a wolf defending its territory. An addendum to this is that if I find myself describing monotonous motivation (for example all the opponents are just trying to kill the PCs with little concern for their own lives), I need to mix up the encounters somewhat. By focusing on the opponents motivations, combat becomes twice as interesting for the players.
- Never describe to the Players what their PCs are feeling, only what they see, hear or perceive. Leave how their characters react to stimuli up to them.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Wil]

- Overuse of description muddies the player's understanding of what's going on as much as lack of description confuses it. Haphazard spats of large description followed by spats of minimal description ruins the consistency of a DMs role. Following a set of guidelines in terms of description is thus very important to build up a consistency and clarity of communication to the players.

I take nearly the opposite view - combat is muddied, and confusing, and unless the character is a hardened combat veteran they will not have a clear view of what's going on. To me, nothing breaks the suspense of the combat more than the obvious noncombatant PCs planning their moves along with the warriors like it were a game of chess. Battlemats eliminate confusion by eliminating all trace of ambiguity - something which in real life only happens when you're the general sitting in the ops center, watching the live satellite images of the battle. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, it just isn't for me - I tailor the information that each PC receives based on their combat experience and ability to have a clear idea of what is going on around them. Hence, from the article I wrote the example of a (mostly) noncombatant character being told, "You hear someone scream for help, but you're too busy fending off your attackers to pay it much heed" while the veteran warrior is told, "You hear Imelda scream for help, you can see that she's being mobbed."

- Sometimes relaying the numbers involved tells the player most directly what's going on and it keeps things moving.

This I can see, but usually I like to back up the numbers with something "real"

- In a combat, there are a few big pivotal moments. To miss the opportunity to describe these to the players is cheating them of their due.

That is a definite given.

- When it comes to description, gory details can be mildly amusing until overused. Keep the good stuff up the sleeve for when it counts.

Overusing anything can lead to it become passe, so I agree here.

- The most important thing I can do as a DM is convey the motivations of the PCs opponents through describing their actions. For example a hungry wolf will act differently to a wolf protecting it's young to a wolf defending its territory. An addendum to this is that if I find myself describing monotonous motivation (for example all the opponents are just trying to kill the PCs with little concern for their own lives), I need to mix up the encounters somewhat. By focusing on the opponents motivations, combat becomes twice as interesting for the players.

Most definitely. This goes hand in hand with what I was saying earlier about keeping interest - if you have players that are zoning out during combats when it's not their turn, then something isn't working right. In fact, it should be vital to their PCs' survival if they pay attention, especially when it's not their turn. Keeping each player in isolation until their character acts is probably the single biggest beef I've had with GMs over the years. EDIT: I don't mean literally...I mean treating each character as if they're in a vaccuum without relating to the other PCs. In my experience, those have been the most boring combats I've ever been subjected to.

- Never describe to the Players what their PCs are feeling, only what they see, hear or perceive. Leave how their characters react to stimuli up to them.

This I can totally get behind as well.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I pretty much do what Henry said, except that I occasionally leap around the room acting out the action.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I take nearly the opposite view - combat is muddied, and confusing, and unless the character is a hardened combat veteran they will not have a clear view of what's going on. To me, nothing breaks the suspense of the combat more than the obvious noncombatant PCs planning their moves along with the warriors like it were a game of chess. Battlemats eliminate confusion by eliminating all trace of ambiguity - something which in real life only happens when you're the general sitting in the ops center, watching the live satellite images of the battle. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, it just isn't for me - I tailor the information that each PC receives based on their combat experience and ability to have a clear idea of what is going on around them. Hence, from the article I wrote the example of a (mostly) noncombatant character being told, "You hear someone scream for help, but you're too busy fending off your attackers to pay it much heed" while the veteran warrior is told, "You hear Imelda scream for help, you can see that she's being mobbed."

Hmmm... I can understand where you are coming from here but I'm not too sure we are as opposite as what you think. What I am highlighting here is the channel by which you the DM communicate with the players. This needs to be as clear and consistent as possible. However, the message you then send through that "perfect" channel can be as muddied as you want if that is the mood/atmosphere/conditions you are trying to convey.

The battlemat and figures do give you a satellite image feel, however, it is then up to the players not to metagame. Some of my players are pretty "anal" when it comes to this so on the whole, I trust my group. If I were DMing a younger/less experienced/different group, it would most likely be something I would keep an eye on.

By the way, if I'm doing a special encounter and I want to up the tension to match the conditions, (dark/minimal lighting, frenetic combat) I'll run a combat without battlemap or minis. For my upcoming game in fact, I'm planning an encounter exactly like this.

Anyway, what I wrote above is pretty much my guidelines. I don't follow them as well as I'd like at times but they are certainly handy to keep in the back of the mind.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise