Not allowed to talk about current HP and dying

[Jhaelen]

Well, I never liked players giving exact numbers. But I always used and encouraged my players to use descriptive terms that give you a good idea how injured they are. Generally I'm using 20 - 25% steps, similar to the old cure spells: Light wounds, medium wounds, serious wounds, critical wounds.

 

[Nail]

Generally I'm using 20 - 25% steps, similar to the old cure spells: Light wounds, medium wounds, serious wounds, critical wounds.

The issue I've always had is deciphering what "Seriously Wounded" means, as opposed to "Critically", etc.

My group generally stays away from saying hit point totals. But if it's confusing, we say "half down" or the like.

 

[Wolfwood2]

This discussion makes me think of the "Player Advantage Codes" from Knights of the Dinner Table. A yawn followed by tapping the table four times means I'm down to less than a quarter of maximum hitpoints. Asking the DM about graplling rules when no one is grabbed means I'm possessed.

You don't want to know what taking a drink and pausing to audibly gurgle it means!

 

[Nareau]

The issue I've always had is deciphering what "Seriously Wounded" means, as opposed to "Critically", etc.

We would use these terms in our 3.5 game. It worked great, because everyone knew (generally) how much each of those spells could cure. So if I said, "I'm lightly wounded," the party cleric knew a Cure Light Wounds spell would probably heal me up.

In 4e, I think I've only once been actively healed by another party member. All other healing has come from healing surges, action points (with a Warlord), or temp hit points.

Nareau

 

[elwynbdas]

I let them talk about everything

It's really important for the players, especially beginners, to discuss EVERYTHING. Otherwise they'll have a tough time coming up with the right team player strategies. You WANT them to know about each others powers, thoughts, ideas, and status. I even let players of dead characters solve riddles etc.
I'll not stop the flow and tell them what they can't do unless the rules prohibit it.
Exceptions are stuff like players being in different rooms during encounters.
Keep in mind, it's about the fun. Let them have fun.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, given that it's generally an easy Heal skill check to see someone's condition regarding hps, and that most healers have the skill trained, it's an autosuccess for a healing character to go and judge someone's position. Seeing as the only character able to affect other characters is the healer, this is important information to have.

Bloodied is a condition, however, and if you hid hps or not, it should be public knowledge, especially if your party contains tieflings or dragonborn.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You have to tell players about bloodied, and conversely players have to tell you.

Everything else is up to you.

I think you should consider the reasoning behind why you want to conceal hitpoint knowledge from players though. Is it to help with verisimilitude? Is it to make the game tactically more difficult? Is it to preserve a feeling of uncertainty?

Is that purpose actually helping the game? Are people having more fun because of it?

Then make sure that the system you use is actually serving it's purpose.

While it's true that avoiding mention of mechanics can help verisimilitude, sometimes the act of that avoidance can disrupt verisimilitude: NOT saying mechanical things becomes the focus instead of the story and action. Worst, any instance where a description was misinterpreted can totally destroy verisimilitude when a character acts in an crazy way because he thought the world was totally different to how it actually is (You said that the blow knocked him to the ground - I didn't realise it had practically eviscerated him! I would never have left him bleeding then!)

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, given that it's generally an easy Heal skill check to see someone's condition regarding hps, and that most healers have the skill trained, it's an autosuccess for a healing character to go and judge someone's position.

This is not rules.

The Heal skill states nothing about the character knowing about hit points.

Seeing as the only character able to affect other characters is the healer, this is important information to have.

What's a healer in 4E?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you should consider the reasoning behind why you want to conceal hitpoint knowledge from players though. Is it to help with verisimilitude? Is it to make the game tactically more difficult? Is it to preserve a feeling of uncertainty?

Is that purpose actually helping the game? Are people having more fun because of it?

Then make sure that the system you use is actually serving it's purpose.

I think you should consider the reasoning behind why you want to give hitpoint knowledge to players though. Is it to prevent verisimilitude? Is it to make the game tactically easier? Is it to preserve a feeling of certainty?

Is that purpose actually helping the game? Are people having more fun because of it?

Then make sure that the system you use is actually serving it's purpose.


I think this sword cuts both ways.

Both can be fun depending on the group.

I prefer a challenge, hence, I prefer only having metagaming knowledge that I think my PC and player should have. Most metagaming knowledge does not fall into that category.

 

[kaomera]

Since I've started running 4th ed games and read through the DMG I've loosened up about revealing information to players. Hints for minions, giving distances for Auras, generally allowing players to know more.One rule that has been in all DnD games since I started playing and across the board. Players can't discuss actual HP, and when unconcious can't tell players if they are on the brink of death or not. I've even had a few games or times when I've banned unconcious players from giving tactical advice.Now I'm starting to wonder how the players feel about these rules. Are they fun? what are they adding to the game? I'll be asking my players next time I see them, but I'd like to know the general concensus What do you do in your games?

I've always leaned much more towards giving the players as much information as possible. When you're dealing with abstractions like hit points that tends to include a lot of game-side info that would not strictly speaking be something that the characters would know. This can end up taking away from the immersion and/or flavor of the game, and I hate that, but it's generally seemed preferable to the arguments that can come from unclear descriptions of IC events that have a rules impact.

4E actually helps this along by including the "bloodied" condition; there's not going to be any confusion over what you mean when you announce that your character is bloodied, and it's something that's easy to fit into an IC-friendly description.

As far as banning tactical advice from the players of unconscious PCs, I don't personally like it. I also (really) dislike players walking away from the table if their character is unconscious or worse. I want my players involved in the game and (if at all possible) invested in the group as much as in their characters, especially from a story standpoint. It seems that a lot of players (and not just more recent / younger players, although I was a bit lucky in my early D&D experiences a few years *cough*decades*cough* back...) are really only interested in what their character is doing, to the point of ignoring the other players' contributions to the game. And I think that's a shame; every D&D player should have at least a few old war stories that start with "So this guy I knew had a character...", at least IMHO.