| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is oookay, some of you are too squeamish to include blood and serious bodily harm, in a game involving killing (over and over, session after session) with melee weapons, ranged attacks and monsters. Which it will be remembered devour folk, crunch people into bloody bits, crush them, impale them on horns, or claw chest cavities and faces open and casting shredded bodies into the dirt. If you think -10 isn't gory, or -20 isn't, or crits aren't, or death via spiked pit traps is not and never will be gory, on you go. I cannot persuade you otherwise.
It is fine, it is the dao of squeamishness. Everyone finds their way.
It's not squeamishness. It's just a preference for what people want in their various types of entertainment. Are people who play Battleship or Risk squeamish for not describing, in detail, the death of every soldier?
Some people like to focus on tactics/strategy in their battles. Some people want an immersive roleplaying experience. Some people want to feel like they're in a movie.
Removed a post. Stay on topic.
PF (and DND) is not battleship. Stay on topic. Death and the injury of individual combatants occurs all the time in this game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF (and DND) is not battleship. Stay on topic. Death and the injury of individual combatants occurs all the time in this game.
If you can't discuss this without sarcasm, this will be my last post on the topic.
In any war game, people are presumably dying. I prefer roleplaying myself, but I know plenty of people (and have played with a few) who play RPGs very tactically, and are bored and annoyed with too much character interaction, description, etc. They like some story for context, but they'd rather have their GM spend his or her time describing the terrain and any conditions that might alter how they plan to deal with the encounter. And for them, I'd say it's far more akin to a war game (that is, about strategy) than it is the immersive 300-like experience you sound like you're trying to create.
It is good you understand the immersive experiences I am arguing for. 300? Hmm, closer to GOT and the red wedding.
If you hack your way through a thieves guild, there will be blood on the floor, walls, bodies scattered in the halls.
To gloss over this, ladee-daa, is to miss details, or pretend they aren't there, and that killing and ending lives, isn't a grisly mess (or shouldn't be conveyed).
We seem to be going in circles.
You keep saying that not describing gore is failing, somehow, to play the game correctly.
Various people here, myself included, keep saying that we disagree.
It's pretty clear that you're not going to convince the people who've repeatedly expressed disagreement of your position, and I, at least, have no desire to convince you not to describe graphic details, and at this point, neither side is providing new details or arguments. So, other than an agreement to disagree, I'm not sure where there is to go from here.
In all sincerity, what are you hoping to accomplish by reiterating your position?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We seem to be going in circles.
This seems to be a bit of a pattern with 3.5 loyalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand being frustrated with an individual's posting habits, but let's not bring the history of other discussions into this one. I have yet to see that go anywhere good. :-)
Ah yes, in light of new posts and further discussion, the restatement of a position while addressing the new points, is to be "going in circles".
What total malarcky.
Again, please tone down the sarcasm.
What are the new points? I keep seeing "by not describing gore you're glossing over details that should be there."
Are there others?
It is not sarcasm, it is disputing your point.
Points
By avoiding, blood, gore and mess, there is
Avoidance what is happening, or what has happened.
Battle/raid outcomes and its effect on surroundings. As in, there are bodies, and bits of people everywhere, or is it clean and sanitised?
Takes description opportunities away from players, does not draw them into the combat and the story being told. Detachment and censorship is not immersion.
Low amount of feedback. Unclear how damaged a foe is.
Less pay off for killing great monsters, the victor can not get a grisly final blow described.
Realities of medieval combat, and being killed with weapons, is avoided.
The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real.
The power and viciousness behind taking a foe to negatives, is weakly conveyed. A K.O or a slump down is nothing compared to a decapitation or the barbarian tearing someone limb from limb.
In sum, I've been saying far more than you want to acknowledge. And I stand by the grisly and the terrible being in a game about killing monsters and the forces of evil.
Again, please tone down the sarcasm.
What are the new points? I keep seeing "by not describing gore you're glossing over details that should be there."
Are there others?
Can I, with respect, ask you to describe a crit for 50 damage, with a flail?
It is not sarcasm, it is disputing your point.
Ah yes, in light of new posts and further discussion, the restatement of a position while addressing the new points, is to be "going in circles".
What total malarcky.
The statement of the opposite of what you actually mean is sarcasm.
Points
By avoiding, blood, gore and mess, there isAvoidance what is happening, or what has happened.
As we've already gone over, I believe this to be inaccurate. I can say you've stabbed someone through the throat and they've died without describing how much blood comes out, how long they attempt to breathe before dying, etc. The details don't change what has happened.
Battle/raid outcomes and its effect on surroundings. As in, there are bodies, and bits of people everywhere, or is it clean and sanitised?
Tipped-over minis indicate the locations of bodies. If the players wish to interact with them, they're free to do so. My describing the condition of the bodies doesn't affect anything mechanically.
Takes description opportunities away from players, does not draw them into the combat and the story being told. Detachment and censorship is not immersion.
Gore isn't the only way to feel immersed in a story. When I have gone into too much detail, it has lessened my players' immersion, because they were uncomfortable and stopped enjoying playing.
Your players are not representative of all players. Why do you keep insisting that they are?
Low amount of feedback. Unclear how damaged a foe is.
Also inaccurate. I indicate to my players that a foe is significantly damaged by saying things like, "He's staggering."
Again, you seem to be implying that gore is required for mechanical reasons. But describing an opponent's physical condition doesn't tell them any more information about his remaining hit points than describing his behavior or apparent emotional state.
Less pay off for killing great monsters, the victor can not get a grisly final blow described.
Again, my players don't find having the grisly final blow described to be a payoff. It detracts from their experience.
Realities of medieval combat, and being killed with weapons, is avoided.
Roleplaying combat, generally, is not terribly realistic. Everyone's a badass. There's magic. Etc. So my response to this is: so what?
The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real.
Again, many people aren't playing this game to feel realistic. They're playing it to feel like heroes. Most game combat (video games especially) minimizes the actual risk. So again: so what?
The power and viciousness behind taking a foe to negatives, is weakly conveyed. A K.O or a slump down is nothing compared to a decapitation or the barbarian tearing someone limb from limb.
My players seem to find it just as satisfying.
In sum, I've been saying far more than you want to acknowledge. And I stand by the grisly and the terrible being in a game about killing monsters and the forces of evil.
Not really, I just don't find your arguments objective. They all basically boil down to: "This is the way I believe it should be to be Proper."
And most people have been telling you: "We disagree. We find the ways we play to be fun, and your way is not right for everyone."
So here's my question:
Why are you invested in insisting that everyone play the way you play? What does it matter to you whether I or anyone else that is never going to play with you describes things in a particular way in a game you'll never participate in?
It seems strange to me, like trying to insist on in what order I place the Pathfinder books on my shelf.
What are the new points? I keep seeing "by not describing gore you're glossing over details that should be there."
Are there others?
Points
By avoiding, blood, gore and mess, there isAvoidance what is happening, or what has happened.
Battle/raid outcomes and its effect on surroundings. As in, there are bodies, and bits of people everywhere, or is it clean and sanitised?
Takes description opportunities away from players, does not draw them into the combat and the story being told. Detachment and censorship is not immersion.
Low amount of feedback. Unclear how damaged a foe is.
Less pay off for killing great monsters, the victor can not get a grisly final blow described.
Realities of medieval combat, and being killed with weapons, is avoided.
The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real.
The power and viciousness behind taking a foe to negatives, is weakly conveyed. A K.O or a slump down is nothing compared to a decapitation or the barbarian tearing someone limb from limb.
In sum, I've been saying far more than you want to acknowledge. And I stand by the grisly and the terrible being in a game about killing monsters and the forces of evil.
All of those points are captured by: "by not describing gore you're glossing over details that should be there."
The point I haven't seen you address is different people's preferences. Some people don't like gore so, as an example, this: "Less pay off for killing great monsters, the victor can not get a grisly final blow described." is just question begging. As a "point" in favour of explicit gore, it relies on the participants desiring explicit gore. Being spared a description of a grisly final blow is a plus for some, so this is just as much an argument against vivid descriptions of battle.
Presumably, you agree the primary goal of an RPG is for the participants to enjoy themselves? Your declarative statements as to how things should be and your dismissal of alternate playstyles as ridiculous or silly is what is being challenged. Nobody cares that you seem to like describing death in vivid detail - it's the implicit assumption that such a style is correct/superior/obviously desirable that is irritating.
It is good you understand the immersive experiences I am arguing for. 300? Hmm, closer to GOT and the red wedding.
The red wedding was only done once though... That's why it was so memorable.
If you hack your way through a thieves guild, there will be blood on the floor, walls, bodies scattered in the halls.To gloss over this, ladee-daa, is to miss details, or pretend they aren't there, and that killing and ending lives, isn't a grisly mess (or shouldn't be conveyed).
This is an interesting way to DM... I'm curious about something.
Do you give this much description to the rooms WITHOUT body parts and gore? Do you go full on immersive... describing the coffee stains on the chairs, their color? their Condition? the wood work on the mantle... the cobwebs in each corner... The temperature of the dungeon?
Which would be very immersive... but frankly would take FOREVER. I remember hearing about undermountain games where to 'search' a room, you had to find the third brick up on the fourth row of the south wall in order to open the door... but haven't played in any of them...
But really some of these dungeons I HAVE been in, have had scores of rooms... do you focus this intently on EVERY description? OR just the 'violent' part?
When they kill 30 goblins... does EVERYONE get a horrific description? With every strike? Or just the critical hits? How many players do you run for? How long does combat usually take?
I'll be honest... if it's TOOOOOOOO focused, I'd have a hard time focusing my ADD in a game like that. Theres' a lot of flavor text that I find my mind wandering ANYWAY... But every round took 20 minutes, and every room had 30 minutes of introduction... I'd get bored pretty fast.
Heading out, so I'll have to get into this later, but to answer this:
"Do you go full on immersive... describing the coffee stains on the chairs, their color? their Condition? the wood work on the mantle... the cobwebs in each corner... The temperature of the dungeon?"
One of the best dms I know actually focuses on describing smell. To excellent effect.
Part of being a dm is description, if you are skipping rooms and detail, you are failing in your duty. Much honour is lost. Hooo.
Heading out, so I'll have to get into this later, but to answer this:
"Do you go full on immersive... describing the coffee stains on the chairs, their color? their Condition? the wood work on the mantle... the cobwebs in each corner... The temperature of the dungeon?"
One of the best dms I know actually focuses on describing smell. To excellent effect.
Part of being a dm is description, if you are skipping rooms and detail, you are failing in your duty. Much honour is lost. Hooo.
Which goes right back into the "know your audience" part of being a good DM. Your group likes bloody, gorey descriptions. Many here don't. Ce est' la vie.
This thread has amounted to:
A: "I like Strawberries!"
B: "I like steak! To hell with yer strawberries! Like steak OR ELSE!!!"
A: "...?"
By all means, enjoy your steak. Nobody is telling you not to enjoy it.
But, let those who like something else, enjoy their something else without you being such a brow-beating, condescending person about it.
EDIT: Actually, to simplify it even more, this thread has turned into nothing but "urdoinitwrong." Period.
I've read the responses. Jessica Price, could you get back to me on that question I posed to you? 50 damage crit with a flail. We can assume it takes them to -10 to -20 if you like.
Quote:
" The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real."
"Again, many people aren't playing this game to feel realistic. They're playing it to feel like heroes. Most game combat (video games especially) minimizes the actual risk. So again: so what?"
That is a real problem for those video games, that there is so little risk, and that many games have become so easy. Description emphasising the danger of adventuring/duelling/fighting is not at all a negative, ever. So that is the what.
I am using gore, blood and visceral descriptions of combat to emphasise its importance and the effects. It also gives players a lot of pay-off from being heroes (or villains), getting stuck in and killing foes (this leads to catharsis, I have seen it over and over). As they set out to raid tombs and scale towers, they could at any time be killed by the grisly world and all manner of its monsters or armed foes. If your description fu is weak, the game suffers, most of dnd is about talking after all. If you are censoring the violence you are bracketing off enjoyment, confining it in PG boundaries. Now you may think I love 300 (nope), and that I game with frat boys (nope), but when I have played with all women parties, they too have loooooved to get involved in the slaughter. To triumph over their bloody foes, to emerge from the grinder and prove that they have mastered the grinding of enemies into paste (kaya or sambal). Although I started with all male parties years ago, that is very different now. Women are drawn to action, heroism and grim viscerality as well.
So I say let them be free, and don't try to constrain any adult in a PG world. The world outside of gaming has enough constraints already. Fantasy is freedom personified.
Sure, why not. Swords are foam. The chronicles of the pool noodle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read the responses. Jessica Price, could you get back to me on that question I posed to you? 50 damage crit with a flail. We can assume it takes them to -10 to -20 if you like.
Quote:
" The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real.""Again, many people aren't playing this game to feel realistic. They're playing it to feel like heroes. Most game combat (video games especially) minimizes the actual risk. So again: so what?"
That is a real problem for those video games, that there is so little risk, and that many games have become so easy. Description emphasising the danger of adventuring/duelling/fighting is not at all a negative, ever. So that is the what.
I am using gore, blood and visceral descriptions of combat to emphasise its importance and the effects. It also gives players a lot of pay-off from being heroes (or villains), getting stuck in and killing foes (this leads to catharsis, I have seen it over and over). As they set out to raid tombs and scale towers, they could at any time be killed by the grisly world and all manner of its monsters or armed foes. If your description fu is weak, the game suffers, most of dnd is about talking after all. If you are censoring the violence you are bracketing off enjoyment, confining it in PG boundaries. Now you may think I love 300 (nope), and that I game with frat boys (nope), but when I have played with all women parties, they too have loooooved to get involved in the slaughter. To triumph over their bloody foes, to emerge from the grinder and prove that they have mastered the grinding of enemies into paste (kaya or sambal). Although I started with all male parties years ago, that is very different now. Women are drawn to action, heroism and grim viscerality as well.
So I say let them be free, and don't try to constrain any adult in a PG world. The world outside of gaming has enough constraints already. Fantasy is freedom personified.
And that's awesome! For your group. Nobody is trying to take that away from you.
The disconnect here, is that you feel your preferences should be universal, forcing your preferences on other groups, regardless of whether they share your style or not.
There is NO problem at all with you wanting your games to be gritty and bloody. That is totally fine. The problem is your putting yourself up on a soapbox, shouting down how other players and DM's games should be run, saying that everyone needs to play just like you or they're doing it wrong.
The rest of are simply saying: Back off, you run your games however you want, and we'll run ours however we want.
I would suggest putting aside the rating systems and media pronouncements on good/bad/think of the children, and play your games in the actual fantasy worlds.
You know, where monsters eat people, ranged weapons can drop you dead from perforation, and people get hacked apart in war, raids and adventure. Those Ulfen barbarian/rogues or gnolls are not causing minor injuries, and out to treat people softly.
Think of the monsters... that eat people every day, if the heroes don't stop them. Stopping means killing them with extreme prejudice and force, great power and skill, violence turned upon these dangerous monsters. Turning them into hunks of meat, before they do the same to the party and others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... play your games in the actual fantasy worlds....
:D
Yes. Golarion is very grim and horrible in parts. Dangerous and terrible. Rapist ogres, bugbear murderers, gnoll raiders, kuo toa pirate cultists.
Dark times and vicious monsters.
:D
... play your games in the actual fantasy worlds....
Dude, it's fantasy. Not reality. Beyond that, you're intruding on other people's fantasy, telling them they're using their imaginations wrong. That's so absurd, I have to believe at this point you are just trolling.
Your fantasy involve blood and guts, others don't. Both are fine. That's really all there is to it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When i GM, i usually describe everything in graphic detail. And i don't shy away from having children die to make an impact. As for body horror, i use it if it serves a purpose, and then i use it GOOD. As for horror moments, i prefer suspense horror then scary stuff that jumps out. Easier to do, a hundred times more scary.
My villains are truly awful people (unless i need them to be a little sympathetic), evil means EVIL with blood of innocents dripping off the letters.
If disasters happen, they have repercussions. People die, homes are destroyed. I play for keeps with PCs loved ones, families pets.Of course, i tell all this beforehand to new players, so that they know what to expect.
And i don't do it all at once, after all, the purpose is to have fun.How about you?
I like Feel Good Fascist villains. They are more -- well -- insidious.
The Red Wedding was one of the most brutal events I have read in a fantasy novel, yet I don't recall it being specifically gory. Trying to capture brutality doesn't necessitate verbose descriptions of blood and guts.
Throat cuts, bolts puncturing and people bleeding out, swords shoved into folk, it was pretty bloody.
Cat even self-mutilated her face in the book (but not the show).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest putting aside the rating systems and media pronouncements on good/bad/think of the children, and play your games in the actual fantasy worlds.
You know, where monsters eat people, ranged weapons can drop you dead from perforation, and people get hacked apart in war, raids and adventure. Those Ulfen barbarian/rogues or gnolls are not causing minor injuries, and out to treat people softly.
Think of the monsters... that eat people every day, if the heroes don't stop them. Stopping means killing them with extreme prejudice and force, great power and skill, violence turned upon these dangerous monsters. Turning them into hunks of meat, before they do the same to the party and others.
Thing is...we actually do play in these worlds.
|
Edit: 3.5 Loyalist:
I think he meant (and I do agree with him) that Martin didn't add page afte page of descriptions of gore, blood spilling everywhere, entrails spilling over tableas and other general hilarity.
And that is exactly what most people in this threat seem to hold up: If you describe that your hit smashes in the head of your opponent,
Fact is: All of us chose what to describe in a scene and what not to, nobody can describe everything that is there. There is so much in sight, sound and smell that we percieve every second, that describing all of that would take far to long to even think about gaming.
That isn't a bad thing. Our brain substitutes incomplete information constantly, that, for example, is how we are able to see in three dimensions and not just see two interlayered pictures. Our imagination is able to add to any description given, so you only really need to describe enough to get everybodys imagination flowing (and possibly enough so not everybody comes out with a completely different scene in his mind). Encourage players to describe what they like and to ask questions for additional detail, that way a group, over time will synchronize pretty well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yup Feytharn, exactly. There was a massacre, but GRRM largely kept the descriptions at a level of describing what happened (hit by bolts, stabbed, etc), and did not explicitly detail all the gory founts of blood and such.
I mean...I think most of us are smart enough to know what happens when you slit a throat or stab someone. The brutality doesn't come less from the explicit description of the scene, and more because of how surprising it was and how...final...an end it was for those characters (in the case of the Red Wedding).
Again...If your group enjoys those descriptions, good on you. But it doesn't imply everyone else is having Badwrongfun if they choose not to lovingly describe entrails or smashed brains
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a more general question for the thread, that I feel pertains to the topic:
How large is everyone's average gaming group?
I've found, that in smaller groups(1 DM, 2 or 3 players), it's much easier to get much more descriptive with encounters, which in some small part includes getting more visceral and gritty with attack descriptions.
I've played in larger groups(1 DM, 7+ players) and it's a lot harder to sit and get overly descriptive, when you have a large group of people all awaiting their turn. OOC scenes are still deep and involved, but things centered around die rolls and action sequence, tend to be a lot more streamlined and faster paced, less descriptive. At least in my experience.
I saw you post this and I thought it was a pretty good question/observation that I didn't want to let it slide by. I think you have the right of it. I am DMing for a larger group and I noticed that I do let the details slide on a hit, by hit basis. My happy medium in these instances is to let a round of combat happen, then before the start of the next, put the descriptive narrative of what happen in. I noticed people payed more attention to that. When the group is around 4 or 5 players, I can do a more blow-by-blow detail. Even then though I might resort to the more cinematic round summary.
As to the rest of this thread it makes me think of the Hemmingway and the legendary bet he won, to craft a short story in less than ten words.
"Classified: For Sale, baby shoes, never worn."
|
|
Now I don't think i am going to say anything that hasn't been said up thread.
3.5 Loyalist, I think the majority of us are saying, is that, if you want to include vivid descriptions of someone being disembowel by the cut of a sword, or decapitated by the chop of an axe, or someone's chest being staved in by the blows of a Maul in your game...knock yourself out. Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. Go right ahead include the descriptions. Enjoy yourself
I also think the majority of us are saying is that vivid descriptions of gore and viscera isn't everyone's cup of tea. Not all of us like it. And for those of us who don't, we can have a fun and descriptive game without including vivid descriptions gore and viscera. We don't appreciate you telling us we are we are being bad GMs, and doing our players a disservice because of how we want to describe combat in a Pathfinder game with out much gore and viscera.
Let me put it another way. The weekend before last weekend I was running a Pathfinder Soicety organzied Play game at our local toy and gaming store. I was running #4-18The Vetran's Vault (1-2)(4-5) I had 5 players at the table. One player was 15-16 years old, a teenager trying to decide if he was interested in the game. Another player, His friend was bit older, perhaps 19-20 had brought the teenager to the game. There was also a Father in his early 40s, and his son 8 years old. And Finally there was another player in his early 40s, and myself, the GM.
How do you think i should handle this room's description?
The hall of Exquisite Agony
Boxed text
“The few furnishings in this large chamber are restricted to racks, iron maidens, and other implements of torture. Near the center of the room a massive table with manacles hanging from each corner bears testament to grisly interrogations, and nearby a pair of wooden tubs stand empty, their contents long since evaporated. Against the north wall stand several empty racks and hooks for holding weapons or tools; the implements that once hung there are now scattered in disarray across the floor. A short series of steps near the eastern wall leads to the only exit.” Boxed Text
When the cult of Zon-Kuthon occupied this vault, this room served as their workroom and place of worship, and in addition to incising flesh, the priests carved and painted signs of their devotion into the walls, floor, and furniture." Page 13.
I changed the description of the room. I described it as the temple of an evil god whom you know as Zun Kathon. I then handed the module over to the father, and pointed to the room description in the scneario,
Page 13 #4-18 the Veterans Vault.
I am curious what your thoughts are.
|
|
Edit: Reply to Guy Kilmore and TrOmZe:
Reminds me of a true story from the 60s - a german radio network gave away a price to the best 'Bundeswehr' (German military) story counting 100 words. The winner was:
'We had a hole-in-the-ground-latrine. The company stinker nodged it. These were 9 words. The sarge yelled the remaining 91 words when we pulled him out, but I cannot repeat them in public.'
Edit: Reply to Guy Kilmore and TrOmZe:
Reminds me of a true story from the 60s - a german radio network gave away a price to the best 'Bundeswehr' (German military) story counting 100 words. The winner was:'We had a hole-in-the-ground-latrine. The company stinker nodged it. These were 9 words. The sarge yelled the remaining 91 words when we pulled him out, but I cannot repeat them in public.'
I like it. ;p
I've read the responses. Jessica Price, could you get back to me on that question I posed to you? 50 damage crit with a flail. We can assume it takes them to -10 to -20 if you like.
We already did this with my description of a rapier death. How many different weapons do I have to describe death with? What purpose does it serve?
Quote:
" The high risk nature of fighting is not emphasised. Cartoon over real.""Again, many people aren't playing this game to feel realistic. They're playing it to feel like heroes. Most game combat (video games especially) minimizes the actual risk. So again: so what?"
That is a real problem for those video games, that there is so little risk, and that many games have become so easy. Description emphasising the danger of adventuring/duelling/fighting is not at all a negative, ever. So that is the what.
I disagree. I believe that sometimes it *is* a negative.
So we're back to "you think x, I think y." Both are matters of opinion, however, and thus can't be proven or disproven.
So I say let them be free, and don't try to constrain any adult in a PG world. The world outside of gaming has enough constraints already. Fantasy is freedom personified.
See, I'm arguing for freedom. I'm saying, "Everyone should be able to decide, with their groups, what level of gore they want in their games." You're saying, "Everyone must do it my way or they're wrong." That sounds like constraint to me, not freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed flagged, off-topic posts and responses.
Kmal2t, if you want to discuss my views on heteronormativity and inclusiveness, you're free to do so in one of the threads about inclusiveness. Stop trying to turn this discussion, which is about the level of graphic violence in RPGs, into one about a completely different subject.
If you want to discuss moderation styles and decisions, there are appropriate channels for that as well. This thread isn't one of them.
And since we're talking about freedom you say "with their group" which can also be unfairly restrictive and "unfree"
What if Player X uses a violent description like "I slash him in half and laugh as he gasps his last breath and slinks to the ground in a loud thud"
but as soon as Player Y uses a similar description involving blood or a bit of flesh being on his blade Player X throws a b@@!$ fit and says "that's too graphic"
is that fair?
I am unsure as to the point of this question. This seems to be a different issue than what is being discussed because it could be applied to any situation involving the rules of social interaction and ettiquette and not neccessarily germain to the discussion at hand.