Three cloaked figures approach you in the dark...

Three cloaked figures approach you in the dark. A strange chittering can be heard coming from them and a rancid smell assaults your senses. Before you have time to react, they charge you! Small sabers drawn, their battle cry a piercing noise upon an otherwise quiet night.

With great courage you manage to pull out your sword and meet their assault. You fell the first one with a stab into its darkened face. Black ichor flows down your blade as you pull it free and shove the flailing corpse into its advancing compatriots. They trip over it, screeching as they fall to the ground.

Not about to let a good opportunity go to waste. You hack into them violently, knocking them back down as they try to rise, their horrible screams fill the night as you finish your bloody work. When you're done you get a better look at them, they're far from human, like nothing you've ever seen before...

When introducing enemies how do you do it? Direct? A war party of X has shown up. Mysterious? Like above. Or, some other method?

I generally describe the amount of muscle and any crotch bulges on the enemy. After that I usually specify if they maintain eye contact

>Not keeping the last one alive to rape it
That pic looks vaguely feminine and that's enough for me

Usually just "you are beset upon by [description of thing], it looks [description of thing's temperament], and it is wielding [thing's weapons]". Different lines if it's an ambush or a non-hostile entity turning hostile due to the player's actions, but that's the usual for enemies showing up.

Are your enemies Chads?

Never tell the player what they do. Thats just GMing 101

Repetitive and dull. You don't need to tell us it isn't human. Humans don't bleed black ichor (cringe). Compatriot is a strong word for faceless ghoul's we've just met. You need to study compound-complex sentences and absolute phrases. You use both but not well.

Hacking is already violent so it's not necessary to describe it as such. Bloody work is only an effective description in the literal sense, such as a butcher's work, or in a figurative sense in which the comparison is referencing something similar. If I'm waiting for my turn I'd be pissed if I had to sit through this kind of description. Revise and resubmit.

Why are mysterious clocked humanoids in the woods always evil screechy things, why can't one just sneak into the camp, see one of the characters is cold, and tuck him in a little more with a kiss on the forehead, then leave and never be seen in the entire game ever again leaving your players to constantly ponder what the fuck just happened.

>PnP campaign about surviving as a virgin in a world full of Chads

What you don't describe crotch bulges of your beastmen, chaos cultists, or generally humanoid enemies?

I bet you ignore describing horse cocks as well.

>turns out the screechy thing is just lonely, following the party around and working up the courage to introduce itself.

So real life for gamers.

>Before you have time to react,
No surer sign of a shit GM.

>Chad
>Real

>The most common companions on the roads are the spirits of fallen adventurers, particularly those who achieved little fame or fortune in their careers. Unsatisfied and yearning for the warmth of travel and derring-do, these friendly spirits attach themselves to bands of their living brethren, watching over them in their sleep, cleaning the camp, and swapping stories of their glory days.

This will now be a thing in my campaigns.

>Repetitive and dull.

Funny, I was going for simple and direct.

>Humans don't bleed black ichor (cringe).

Blood is black at night. Also, Ichor is a common word. I could have just said, "Black blood," but it sounded stranger to me than ichor did.

>Compatriot is a strong word for faceless ghoul's we've just met.

The faceless monster's compatriots are Its allies. Not yours.

>You use both but not well.

"I used both, but not well." You might want to learn basic grammar before you lecture anybody on the subject.

>Bloody work is only an effective description in the literal sense, such as a butcher's work, or in a figurative sense in which the comparison is referencing something similar.

Which, my usage fits both of those descriptors to a "T." It was both a literal description of hacking the creatures to death and worked as a figurative descriptor of the task so I could avoid going into specifics that aren't pleasant to highlight. So, I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here.

>If I'm waiting for my turn I'd be pissed if I had to sit through this kind of description.
>Never tell the player what they do. Thats just GMing 101

The actions of the character are assumed actions chosen by the hypothetical player. I would never narrate their reaction or choices for them, much like I wouldn't furiously masturbate in public.

>Revise and resubmit.

No. Instead tell me how you would do it! That's the point of this thread, not my shoddy writing.

...

That campaign wouldn't last long...

Just like the virgin.

That's good shit. Nice twist on the classic brownie myth.

>Funny, I was going for simple and direct.
And you failed. That's why I said something. A compatriot is a strong word to use in this context because we don't know if the ghouls are compatriots or not. We don't even know if they exist at all or not, given the nature of your description.
>Ichor is a common word
Got a chuckle out of me. Read more.

>I used both, but not well
Only in the case of a compound sentence, with a complete second clause, is the comma necessary before the coordinating conjunction. Again, read more.

>Comma splice after overly-defensive whining about grammar
Pottery

Your usage fits neither. Bloody work is really set apart for situations in which a literal comparison to butchery is apt. Fighting monsters is not that kind of situation. You describe the black "ichor" (again, cringe) and the hacking of limbs, but your balls shrivel at "specifics that aren't pleasant to highlight?"

>Blood is black at night
So is everything else ;)

I'm sorry you're having a bad Christmas, user. Hope tomorrow is a little better.

>A compatriot is a strong word to use in this context because we don't know if the ghouls are compatriots or not.

No, your right, groups of strangers often go out for a night on the town to murder people together while wearing synchronized outfits

>Only in the case of a compound sentence, with a complete second clause, is the comma necessary before the coordinating conjunction. Again, read more.

Actually, you can use it whenever you have a natural pause in a sentence, which you did. Also, you fucked up the tense. So your right it wasn't necessary the comma, but for an astute literary critic like yourself. I figured you would only want to write the best sentences that you can.

>Comma splice after overly-defensive whining about grammar

Overly insulting, critical, and defensive sum up your behavior perfectly. I didn't ask for a critique to something I jotted down in less than twenty seconds. I asked how YOU would do it.

>Your usage fits neither. Bloody work is really set apart for situations in which a literal comparison to butchery is apt.

Which, apparently hacking a poor mother fuckers into tiny pieces doesn't qualify as? Right...

>So is everything else ;)

Not really... Red in particular is dark black at night.

This. I'm not getting any more hostile towards you because something is clearly up. Have a great night and Merry Christmas.

>When introducing enemies how do you do it?
Depends on the enemies. If the PC's have prior knowledge of them or have seen something similar (goblin, hobgoblin, etc) I'll come right out and say so.
If the enemies are new or unique in some way, I'll go to similar lengths you went to in the OP.

In my experience, players tend to get hung up on small details and can really throw them off. I once described a dark hallway of a victorian manor. A thunderstorm raged outside casting shadows that "danced" across the walls and seemed to "beckon" the PC's forward toward the winding staircase... My players spent the next 30 minutes arguing over whether the shadows were literally dancing and if the staircase was a mimic (or some shit) intent on eating them, since inanimate objects can't "beckon".

>Not being a chad

Maybe check out Veeky Forums

>In my experience, players tend to get hung up on small details and can really throw them off. I once described a dark hallway of a victorian manor. A thunderstorm raged outside casting shadows that "danced" across the walls and seemed to "beckon" the PC's forward toward the winding staircase... My players spent the next 30 minutes arguing over whether the shadows were literally dancing and if the staircase was a mimic (or some shit) intent on eating them, since inanimate objects can't "beckon".

You did the right thing by not clarifying. If they were that stupid they deserved to suffer.

I laughed.

>Still whining about grammar
>Can't use the right your
At some point you just have to bow out. Good luck with that campaign, user. Maybe someone will like sitting through your godawful writing just to play a game.

Hey I made several more typos than that! But, you weren't able to spot them? Hm, maybe quick writing isn't indicative of skill, and maybe you are simply so full of shit you can't practice what you preach. I don't know.

Dude, no. He's bored. Leave him alone.

I thought you were done? Are you fishing for advice or are you just trying to glue your ego back together?

>Are you fishing for advice or are you just trying to glue your ego back together?

Fuck you, you god damn faggot. Your advice isn't worth shit.

Fuck him. Sad, pathetic piece of shit.

Jesus, you're acting like I was harsh with you. Now you're shitting up an otherwise decent thread because your blasted booty can't handle some freshman comp critique.

You are the biggest cunt I've seen on here in a while. Believe me, that's saying something. You fuck up my thread like a massive faggot and now you're whining about it? You don't know how to use a comma. You don't know what the terms literal and figurative mean. You don't know tense structure. You don't know shit. Your passive aggressive critique was half assed trolling at best, and your probably getting off on what I'm writing right now, right? Good god. Fuck you.

Being a narrativist snob, I tend to see enemies as part of the setting and deserving of the same amount of description, perhaps a little more since they're supposedly plot-relevant.

>You try to silently approach the source of the gurgling sound. Roll for Stealth.
*fails*
>You emerge from behind the stone pillards, and you're stunned in place by what you see: what you mistook for a human from afar is actually some sort of bug-eyed, slimy, humanoid abomination. It must have smelled you, because it suddenly lift its head, turns around, and makes eye contact.
A tense moment passes, during which you identify the source of the gurgling noises as some sort of external digestive process, then the creature charges you. ROLL FOR INITIATIVE!"

Or something like that.

>keep angrily replying to the troll, that will get him to stop
Literally all you ever had to do was not reply to him, he can't even troll properly. Are you 12? Is filtering namefags and tripfags too hard for you?
People like you are the reason virtualoptim got so big.

I miss virt. He knew how to shit up a thread, in a good way.

user, I'm confused. You claim I don't know how a comma works. I do. I demonstrated so. You claim I don't know what literal and figurative mean. I do. I demonstrated so. You claim I don't know tense "structure" (not a thing, btw), but I do. Your reaction to my critique has been consistently and increasingly defensive.

And God is capitalized. Proper noun.

That's a good way to do it.

What? I can't tear into his ass a little bit. You know trolling isn't something that gives you immunity from psychological battery, right? Also, I don't ever look at the name field. If I had seen that I probably wouldn't have even responded.

You aren't "tearing into his ass," you're encouraging him.

He's drawing you into a game only he can win. The best move for you is not to play.

You think he gives two shits about the quality of your response? Nope. Just the fact that your respond is good enough.

This is called "bait"... Avoid it.

Really? Because everything you said so far contradicts that.

>not a thing, btw

You don't even know the difference between "use" and "used."

>Your reaction to my critique has been consistently and increasingly defensive.

No, that's my reaction to you acting like a faggot, which you are. You got that talent down in spades.

>I miss virt. He knew how to shit up a thread, in a good way.

This guy could learn a few things from him.

Good way to make is suspenseful.

wipe my blood on the myrdraals coat, their blood stains

I guess. If he's a masochist for punishment there's nothing that can be done.

>You think he gives two shits about the quality of your response?

No, I don't. Nor, do I believe he has the competency to give said advice to anyone. He doesn't understand simple past tense or present tense verb structures or comma usage.

Jesus, dude. What did I say? That you can't use a comma? That your sentences weren't that good? That your use of certain words didn't make sense in the context of your description?

Is this still about you trying to prove to me and two other anons that I'm wrong? Do you even care about the thread any more?

>suspenseful
How so? Those kind of things come very instinctively to me, so I can never tell how I'm doing what I'm doing or why.

Something nerve wracking followed by a suspenseful roll of the dice, then a payoff.

Simple and effective.

...

>Before you have time to react,
>dm's precious babies trump the fucking rulebook every time
>would walk right out the damn door soon as the words are out of his mouth, I'm not kidding.

This

You don't believe in surprise attacks?

It's not a surprise attack if they slowly walk into your field of vision while audibly chittering the whole time

>would walk right out the damn door soon as the words are out of his mouth, I'm not kidding.
No you wouldn't. You'd sit there like a good little mouth-breather and grumble about "muh agency" until your turn to roll dice came around. Then you'd finish the encounter, collect your exp, shut the fuck up and keep playing.

The encounter is somewhat of a surprise, but the PC still ends up countering the first attack and rapes them immediately. So there's nothing being protected or unfair going on. It's just an atmospheric introduction. If somebody flew off the handle at that they wouldn't be very fun to have at the table.

Then your enemies aren't even remotely threatening if they can be killed that easily by you jacking the players control over his character.

The player in this scenario is making the decisions, not me. They're walking out at night and strange cloaked figures appear. Before the player has time to react they rush them. Now, the player could run, beg for their life, defend themselves (which they did), or something else.

And what happens if they don't go along with your plans or run away, or just get bad rolls and get stomped?

Nothings more surprising than a surprise attack from the front

>DrunkEnglishTeacher
Ahh so this is how english majors cope with all of the wasted years.

Consider for a moment the time a surprise round gives the shockers, common movement speeds in ttrpgs, and the distance between a camp and the nearby woods that the camp is in.

Given the vague but atmospheric statements in the op there are several possible outcomes one can construct from a surprize round, especially given that the chittering and stench appear after the creatures. Depending on the above factors the creatures are either using their surprize round to enter into melee with the player character, or the charge doesn't actually reach the pc (in the event of a large enough clearing). Meaning that while the pc didn't have time to react to the initial appearance, the creatures really didn't make much use out of this time either. Except for the implied fear test. There is some extra focus on how brave the pc is for being able to draw his weapon at all.

Nothing implied that killing them was easy, how hurt the pc ended up, if they were even alone, nor was it mentioned what system, or power level the game was taking place in. Again with the implied fear mechanic the actual challenge of the encounter might have been pulling the sword in and of itself.

Running was outright told to you to be an option, and a likely outcome of no weapon being drawn.

You all sound like absolute nit picky shitty garbage players who wouldn't be able to gm your way out of a paper bag.
No no let me guess. "Hey guys I'm going to run a game [described in reference to the one you're currently in because you have some sort of nerd superiority complex and a burning desire to put your gm down]", which inevitably gets one or two sessions, maybe just charactergen, before you come up with some excuse to stop running it, because when finally forced to nut up or shut up, you'll fail to live up to your own impossible standards.

There's really is no reason to describe horse cocks when you're not describing horses or elf bards.

>ichor

One of my favorite words, but a symptom of college-level writing.

...