What is the best way to describe combat? Minimalism >You

Describing them works. You just need to keep at it and get better with experience, maybe also get some better players.

Explain to your players about your 'flavor text' before hand, and there's no issue with you describing the hits and misses.

If your players aren't shitty retards, let them describe their own attacks; give them minimal information if required, ie: 'you wound him slightly' should be enough for a player to describe their own attack without the issue you brought up.

>>53544578
>But then you get retarded stuff
Only if you play with retards.

Don't do that.

>>53544578

I generally keep it short and sweet with a few more elaborate descrptions here and there, usually for player attacks and enemy badass attacks. Mooks get simpler treatment. Elaborate descrptions can also be a way to help give some spotlight - e.g if a combat bruiser hasn't had a lot to do for a while and then a fight starts, then exciting and gory descriptions of their fighting tend to warm them up a bit.

>I've tried the latter but in my experience players get too confused with you separate mechanics with the narrative to that degree ( "wtf dm so you're saying I hit them but I didn't do any damage?" and "but I rolled low how did I hit them?" completely ignoring that mechanically they are the same thing) so I end up just going back to only describing hits. But there's only so many ways to describe a goblin getting hit with a sword so it devolves into you hit/miss too.

This is partly a case of having a different perspective, in this case a simulationist one. It doesn't help though that some systems, like DnD, have a weird mix of abstract and detail in their rules, especially as regards AC. I guess HYTNPDND? applies to some degree, but failing that then you'd just have to explain how the abstraction works to your players.

>But then you get retarded stuff like players saying they shoot an arrow through the enemies throat when they only did 1 damage and the enemy has like 50 HP

Sadly true. And then they get butthurt when they're called on their shit. This same mindset incidentally is why I don't like narrative systems.

>>53544578
I ask my players to describe what they are trying to do, have them roll to see if they do it/how well, and then I describe what actually happens.

Simple and easy.

>>53544578
I like to get the mechanics out of the way quickly, then, if it's a monster's attack I will describe it, if is a player's attack I like to ask what it looks like, not really the attack, but how they feel, their facial expression, and how their magic might look - in my games, magic is unique to each person, and no two spells look the same

>>53544578
Simple answer is "yes to all (within reason)"

My experiences tend towards scaling up, then back down again.

>Minimal early (combat might be short and pithy, no sense getting flowery)
>Damage only (fight builds heat, suggests that combatants mean business)
>Hit/damage (tension peaks, every move counts and is described as such)
>Damage only (one side gains the advantage; description pares down to expedite)
>Minimalist (cleanup. Why waste time?)

In a perfect world, this can lead to fun "upsets" when a badass opponent gets rocked in the "hit/damage" phase and dies at the peak of the combat narrative, while also ensuring long fights don't draw out surplus to requirements.

(I prefer to keep player's attack descriptions minimal to prevent issue--I wait for the results, then extrapolate)

Heavy damage, killing blows or critical hits get full descriptions, low damage or glancing blows get the minimalist treatment.

>>53544578
The latter one. It's not too hard if your players aren't downies.

It's always a mix, but here's my ideal.

>player describes their intent (with as much or as little flair as they like)
"I hack at the bandit's face with my sword"
>GM decides how to resolve the action, and obtains the mechanical result with whatever
"since he's is sloppy drunk, don't bother with the attack roll. Roll damage" (the player rolls a 6 for damage)
>The GM describes the result (as briefly or gruesomely as the situation calls for).
"You hack off an arm and the bandit crumples into the corner, babbling and shrieking as he holds the spurting stump. He may not survive long, but anyone nearby certainly hears the commotion"

Players job is to describe intent, GM's job is to adjudicate the result fairly and narrate the result. The GM should narrate the action to suit the tone of the game, which in an action adventure game usually means making the characters look good. Don't narrate the bad ass warrior falling on his ass just because he rolled poorly.

>>53544578
And what do you do if you're playing Ducks & Dildos and combat lasts for more than 6 rounds? Do you still describe every miss and every hit with the same amount of detail or do you default to
>you hit
>you miss
in the end?

>>53544578

Dialog.

P>I sweep up under his guard
M>Roll for it
P>Ooh. Did I make it?
M>Barely, roll damage
P>Hey, not shabby
M>Not bad at all, How does he die?
P> I think I caught him in the leg, since it was close, he probably brought his shield down too late.
M> Proving it's better to be lucky than good, your inelegant strike slips in the gap under his breastplate. He staggers for a moment, till his balance fails him and he crumples backwards into a pool of crimson. He tries to sit up, gaping incredulously. His ashen face soon turns blank, and he expires with only the clatter of his undamaged armor to announce his passing. The assembled nobles murmur, then cheer as his second comes forward to collect the body.
P> Like hell, I'm going to get them to shut up. Do I roll persuasion?
M> Perhaps intimidation would be more this speed.

>>53547188
this anon is on to something

>>53548655
save your good descriptions for when it matters