I went through a phase where I narrated every die roll. Then I came to the conclusion that was a waste of time for us. The player can see the dice as well as I.

They know whether or not they hit (or were hit).

I will give them some periodic feedback on an adversary's condition if it's noteworthy: "He's reeling." "He laughs off your hit."

If it's not useful data, it's color.

If it's color, it's redundant because my players already see what's happening.

If it's redundant, it's slowing down the combat which (a) makes the focus about combat and (b) makes the combat not feel like combat.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1000131Sure, I do. I only describe serious wounds in the last hit die or so worth of hit points (for classed/leveled/humanoid kinds of characters -- monstrous foes often get different treatment since their hit points more often represent physical toughness). Everything up to that point is described as bruises, nicks, fatigue from defending against your furious assault, et cetera. My players tend to use my descriptions to gauge how powerful an enemy they're facing. If they're dealing out quite a bit of damage and the guy they're fighting is just getting cuts and bruises, they know he's probably got a lot of hit points. Giving him an actual wound of some sort signals that he's near the end of the line.

You are among many that have described this way of handling it and in every circumstance I have to reply that all those nicks, bruises and fatigue do not recover any faster or in any way differently from the actual wound you say they receive at the end of the line. In function they are exactly the same so why describe them differently? Because they, at least temporarily, knocked the guy out of action?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1000136I have to reply that all those nicks, bruises and fatigue do not recover any faster or in any way differently from the actual wound you say they receive at the end of the line.

Recovery/healing making perfect sense isn't something I worry about.

QuoteIn function they are exactly the same so why describe them differently?

I like the clues it gives to players about their enemy's capabilities.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1000080Geeze, wouldnt know where to start. Done a lot of gaming in 35 years but most of them allowed for some sort of meaningful injury in combat other than death and a somewhat realistic rate of healing. If you described a hit as 'smashing into your ribs, and you feel something crack" you would probably not be at full health for several days or longer and face some sort of deficit until then. It was much easier but yes, typically much more complicated.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1000136You are among many that have described this way of handling it and in every circumstance I have to reply that all those nicks, bruises and fatigue do not recover any faster or in any way differently from the actual wound you say they receive at the end of the line. In function they are exactly the same so why describe them differently? Because they, at least temporarily, knocked the guy out of action?

Thus far, in your other statements we've mostly gotten what you don't like, and between these two statements, I am not getting a good grip of what you would like the world of your game to look like. Can you please give us an example of a game you have played where you liked the wound system, and how you narrated the blow-by-blow in it? I think that might help us find something that meets your needs.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1000221Thus far, in your other statements we've mostly gotten what you don't like, and between these two statements, I am not getting a good grip of what you would like the world of your game to look like.

I find these discourses endlessly fascinating.

It's like watching a team of surgeons desperately coming up with solutions to save a patient, but the patient isn't injured.

In fact, the patient is a boulder.

Please, continue.

I think for monsters it doesnt matter - they are going to die anyway, you can narrate hits as blood letting etc from the first hit if you like. The issue is only with narrating hits on PCs.

I am personally a fan of the "bloodied" status where its tend to be minor bruises etc until half hp, then some kind of serious wound, and at zero dead (player can narrate the awesome death scene if thye wish).

For PCs and 5e I have found the best way to think about it is that because Hp is a mix of meat and stamina/luck/determination etc - there is no reason why a PC can't be beaten to hell, cracked rib, etc - but still be max hp - simply because he's had a second wind, been reinspired to keep on battling because he just saw his NPC friend die earlier in the day, etc etc. Your PC might have a stack of injuries, cuts and nicks - some quite serious - but the PC can still be restored to max hp (and have those injuries still showing) partly coz "it's magic" and /or partly coz "it's stamina/training/luck/grit baby". Full hp doesnt have to mean no visible wounds, alhtough at teh start of an adventure it does.  But as the adventure unfolds, it might be all grit that is keeping the guy going (eg: the end of Die Hard).

For low fantasy gaming i went with a 5 min short rest to restore half of damage suffered (with certain limitations, inlcuding max 3/day and needing to make a Will check) with this kind of thinking in mind. The intangible/stamina side of HP comes back fast. Albeit in LFG you can also get lingering injuries that sometimes last months, but that is a separate mechanic to hp.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1000135I went through a phase where I narrated every die roll. Then I came to the conclusion that was a waste of time for us. The player can see the dice as well as I.

They know whether or not they hit (or were hit).

I will give them some periodic feedback on an adversary's condition if it's noteworthy: "He's reeling." "He laughs off your hit."

If it's not useful data, it's color.

If it's color, it's redundant because my players already see what's happening.

If it's redundant, it's slowing down the combat which (a) makes the focus about combat and (b) makes the combat not feel like combat.

This is my feeling. If a description comes to mind, I use the cool description, if not, I just adjudicate the attack. Even in a novel, will often elide portions of a combat without describing every blow. Not describing every little thing is part of the skill of describing things well.

I became firmly convinced of this back at the height of the fetish for giving mechanical benefits to an attack if the player described it in a cool way. Every fucking action came down to gratuitous, belabored over-description as the player fished for a bonus. It completely ruined the spontaneous fun of a player busting out an entertaining description when one came naturally to them.

If a genuinely entertaining description occurs to you spontaneously, then please, share it. If not, shut the fuck up and keep the combat moving. A combat that resolves quickly is more exciting to me than someone's warmed over Howard imitation.

Here's what I have. The time sink of this system comes when they rest and they have lost Health as well as Grit.

HIT POINTS, HEALING, AND FATIGUE
Hit points are a measure of the character's ability to withstand damage or injury until they are incapacitated or dying. Hit points are divided into two totals, Health and Grit. Health is determined by the maximum value of hit points per die for your class at 1st level. The character's Constitution modifier is added to Health at 1st level and every level gained thereafter. Grit is determined by the roll of the characters hit die at 2nd level and beyond. Thus, a fighter at 1st level would have 8 points of Health, plus their Constitution modifier, and 8 Grit. At 2nd level they would gain their Constitution modifier to Health. They would roll 2d8, and if the total was higher than 8 that would be their new Grit. If not, their Grit remains at 8.

Health represents the physical toughness of the character's body. Grit represents the characters physical or combat training, their tenacity, and their luck. As combat progresses damage to Grit represents minor wounds, near misses, muscle sprains, etc. When they start taking damage to their Health, however, then that represents actual cutting or bruising damage, or the shock of blood loss.

When a character takes damage Grit is lost first. When the character has lost all their Grit then hit points of damage are subtracted from Health. There are small number of attacks that bypass Grit and reduce Health directly. These include damage from critical hits, sneak attacks, and poison.

Characters regain hit points through rest. The quality of food and shelter also factor in. The assumed standard are for people who are sheltered and have preserved food.

COMFORTABLE- Stout shelter from the weather, adequate clothing and sources of comfort for climate, significant protections for personal safety. (City Inn)

SHELTERED- Soft shelter from inclement weather, adequate clothing for climate, and ability to rest in relative safety. (Tents, campfire, watches)

EXPOSED- No separation from inclement weather, inadequate clothing for climate, or inability to rest in relative safety. (Lean-to, cold camp, alone)
 

Food      Iron Rations......Preserved Food.....Fresh Food....Improved Rest
Health   1 pt.................1d3 pts................3 pts............1d3+3 pts
Grit           1d6 pts...............6 pts....................Half.............Half
Saves   -2 Fortitude........Par......................+2 Fortitude

+1 Column if at Full Health, Comfortable, or Doctored
-1 Column if Exposed, Diseased, Short Sleep

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1000229I find these discourses endlessly fascinating.

It's like watching a team of surgeons desperately coming up with solutions to save a patient, but the patient isn't injured.

In fact, the patient is a boulder.

Please, continue.

Goddamn this made me laugh

Quote from: Psikerlord;1000233I think for monsters it doesnt matter - they are going to die anyway, you can narrate hits as blood letting etc from the first hit if you like. The issue is only with narrating hits on PCs.

I am personally a fan of the "bloodied" status where its tend to be minor bruises etc until half hp, then some kind of serious wound, and at zero dead (player can narrate the awesome death scene if thye wish).

For PCs and 5e I have found the best way to think about it is that because Hp is a mix of meat and stamina/luck/determination etc - there is no reason why a PC can't be beaten to hell, cracked rib, etc - but still be max hp - simply because he's had a second wind, been reinspired to keep on battling because he just saw his NPC friend die earlier in the day, etc etc. Your PC might have a stack of injuries, cuts and nicks - some quite serious - but the PC can still be restored to max hp (and have those injuries still showing) partly coz "it's magic" and /or partly coz "it's stamina/training/luck/grit baby". Full hp doesnt have to mean no visible wounds, alhtough at teh start of an adventure it does.  But as the adventure unfolds, it might be all grit that is keeping the guy going (eg: the end of Die Hard).

For low fantasy gaming i went with a 5 min short rest to restore half of damage suffered (with certain limitations, inlcuding max 3/day and needing to make a Will check) with this kind of thinking in mind. The intangible/stamina side of HP comes back fast. Albeit in LFG you can also get lingering injuries that sometimes last months, but that is a separate mechanic to hp.

This is actually very helpful. I dont suppose I considered a complete disconnect between HP and Injuries where the first causes the second but then recovers completely on its own. Recovery of Injuries is therefor sort of a moot point, a bit of color for the GM to include in his narrative if he wants to. I does require a sort of suspension of belief that all characters are Bruce Willis types that are NEVER affected by their wounds until they are actually slain but just keep pushing on based on a separate measure of performance, be it Will or Stamina or Hootzpah or whatever. ITs an odd notion but there is something about it that makes sense.

Thanks! Ill have to think about this one.

Like psikerlord, I was rather fond of the "bloodied" rules that 4E came up with: lose half your HP, and now shit is getting serious. It's why certain monsters perk up when a target is bloodied ... death is getting closer.

Other than that, we just treated HP as the pacing system they are.

Narrating loss of hitpoints seems to be a big thing with some, but I´ve never done it, nor played with a group that does.
Usually when the attacker roll for damage, everyone can see the roll and know what it means to the victim.
Somebody might say "Ouch! 8 points", "Bastard!" or something - but unless there´s some other effect than lost hitpoints we just move on with the fight.

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860I am well versed in what a HP actually represents and understand that hitting someone in D&D and applying damage does not necessarily represent physical injury to them, BUT...

...you narrate the results of any hit point loss as a noticeable physical injury anyway. I'm not surprised that this causes some confusion. Your preferred description of a hit doesn't match the reality of the hit in the game world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860"Your swing is a good one and he really has to dodge out of the way to avoid it, looks like you are pressing him hard, defenses are weakening!"

I mean, seriously? Does anyone actually do that?

Yes. Yes I used to do this when describing hits on NPCs since that is what the hit point loss means in D&D. For hits on the players I don't need to describe the hit since they know what a loss of 5 hit points means to their character. But eventually I tired of D&D hit points and switched to systems where hit point loss does represent a noticeable physical injury. That way my description of physical injury aligns with the rules rather than conflicts with the rules. Problem solved.

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860How the hell does a GM then narrate the fight?

Quote from: rgrove0172;999883

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;999865"He hits you for five points of damage."

Sorry Gronan but thats just not how I like to run the game.

This right here is causing your problem. The game you want to run and the game you are playing are two different games. Or just read what K Peterson said.

Quote from: K Peterson;999911

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860In becoming reacquainted with D&D I am struck by an oddity in the narration of combat effects.

QuoteI am well versed in what a HP actually represents and understand that hitting someone in D&D and applying damage does not necessarily represent physical injury to them, BUT how the hell does a GM then narrate the fight?

Quoteit creates a very odd situation when these apparently nasty injuries suddenly dissappear without any magical assistance after the guy takes a nap.

Do you ever get the feeling that you're just not running the right game system for what you're trying to achieve? That you're not really satisfied with the results you're getting; that there has to be some way to model the behavior more to your liking, and maybe it's the system that's confining you? That you're pounding a square peg into a round hole with a mallet, and the bastard will just not fit no matter how much effort you put into it or how you strike the peg?

That's what a number of your threads about your 5e experience sound like to me.

Sounds that way to me too.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1000449This is actually very helpful. I dont suppose I considered a complete disconnect between HP and Injuries where the first causes the second but then recovers completely on its own. Recovery of Injuries is therefor sort of a moot point, a bit of color for the GM to include in his narrative if he wants to. I does require a sort of suspension of belief that all characters are Bruce Willis types that are NEVER affected by their wounds until they are actually slain but just keep pushing on based on a separate measure of performance, be it Will or Stamina or Hootzpah or whatever. ITs an odd notion but there is something about it that makes sense.

Thanks! Ill have to think about this one.

Yeah, this is basically what everyone else was saying when they meant hit points are supposed to be treated abstractly.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;1000229I find these discourses endlessly fascinating. It's like watching a team of surgeons desperately coming up with solutions to save a patient, but the patient isn't injured. In fact, the patient is a boulder.

Eh, I think even on a toxic or abrasive forum, gamers will generally try to assist one another, earnestly, by answering questions and proposing solutions. Probably because it's a rewarding or charitable feeling to help out. You take the original poster on good faith that they honestly want solutions.

Quote from: Bren;1000471This right here is causing your problem. The game you want to run and the game you are playing are two different games. Or just read what K Peterson said.

His hands are apparently tied, and he's forced to run D&D 5e. I feel a little sorry for him; that he's got to do all these gymnastics to make the experience palatable, to himself.

IMO, find the right tool for the job, and use it. You want to be able to narrate combat actions, with explicit effects? You want 'realistic' healing and injuries? There are tools out there that achieve these results. It seems like a waste of effort and time to use the wrong tool.