Player/GM complaint thread

>>54800935
If the GM isn't doing it why don't you describe it?

>>54800935
>I hate GMs that refuse to describe what happens when I attack someone!
I don't know what kind of flavor you're going for with your character, you describe what kind of attack you want to do then I'll describe how well it goes based on the rolls. You can't just give nothing and expect me to come up with everything.

>>54801235
>>54801201

I think in this case, it would be on the GM to describe where the arrow actually hits and how the enemy reacts to it. Otherwise I'm gonna say I hit him in the left nutsack or something.

>Players REEEE at me and threaten to leave if I don't start describing every single one of their basic attacks because they're a special snowflake that deserves to be recognized
>Start planning combat around fighting one extremely weak enemy because otherwise we'd be here all fucking week

>>54801283
So you're saying given any creative power you immediately start acting like a retard?

>>54801314

I was just making a joke as an example, but I'm sorry if I offended you.

>ITT: Lots of GMs who would be better off just having their players play WoW or some shit if they want anything engaging.

>>54801377
>No, everyone is wrong but me!

I'm a bit on both sides of this argument. Yeah, it does eventually frowning a little stale for the GM to describe every hit, but just counting something as "damage" kind of ruins the immersion. A simple 'the brigand takes the arrow with just a flinch, gonna have to try harder than that' would do. This is a hobby meant for storytelling. Have fun with it. If you are getting tired of descriptions and just want a game, go play a video game or something.

>>54800935

Well I mean, when you just say
>I pull out my bow and try to hit X

It's kind of hard to be say anything really exciting besides the fact that you either hit or missed him. Now if you were to, and I know this is corny here but fuck it, go like

>"And I nervously don my arrow and, while my hands are nervously shaking, I ready an arrow to strike X"
and then roll for attack then your DM could say something clever or give a little more explanation on the event

>>54801518

Don my bow*

fuck

>>54801283
If its firing an arrow, yes, but for every melee attack and spell cast you as a player have enough creative freedom to say
>I attack like this
So i can react to the way you're characterizing your dude.

>>54801359
I do think the question was asked with the intent of getting a serious answer, not one of your jokes, anon.
Time and place for silliness, which >>54800935 needs to accept. I am not going to describe EVERYTHING that happens in a game if only because we are working on a time limit.

>>54801548

Yeah, which is why I said GM describes where it hit and how the enemy reacts. A player can only describe what they do, and then the GM gives a bit of feedback like what >>54801493 shared. I think that's the thrust of OP's A N G E R Y

There are other people in the game waiting for their turns who would really prefer if I didn't drag the combat by jerking you off every time you attack. If the hit didn't do massive damage or kill the guy, then it isn't worth describing.

>>54801559

Sorry I offended by not taking the thread or the game seriously enough.

Playing Call of Cthulhu I wouldn't even describe damage in raw stats. Attacks bounced off the creature seemingly doing no damage.

chunks of flesh were carved away, but the enemy bounded on unfazed.

It increased the tension, my players not knowing if what they were doing was right/having any effect

>>54801633
>angry at the GM when he isn't serious enough
>not at fault when he isn't the one being serious
Delicious hypocracy.

>>54801633
Then I think you need to lurk moar, because /tg/ threads are usually serious, it's why shitposters, frogposters and /pol/tards are so easy to spot and hated by the regulars.

>>54801674

I was told by someone that ran CoC pretty regularly that it's hard to put like hard-numbers to damage when in combat due to the way the lore works around the various creatures. It could make it look, justifiably, OP or at worst make it weaker than they should be.

>>54801724
>Anon makes a point to force "muh /pol/" into a completely unrelated thread.
>Anon then claims /tg/ is oh so very serious
>It's the other posters that are newfags

>>54801799
>Anon tries too hard: the post
So explain to me why 18 of the 22 posts in this thread are on topic, on face?
This isn't /b/, anon, people generally post on topic about the thread topic.

>>54801769
depends what you're fighting, lesser monsters the party can usually kill. If the eldar gods themselves are rocking up then, eh, they're dead anyway