D&D 5E Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?

[pemerton]

As is so often the case on the internet, this has been stated as a polar dichotomy

<snip>

As is so often the case in real life, the reality of a session or campaign may well lie between these polls

Sure. I still think it is helpful to distinguish the idealised types, or (if you prefer) stereotypes, of play. It helps reinforce the point that not everyone is playing in the same way, or with the same success criteria. So what for some might be "harmless fudging" can, for others, be a significant misplay by the GM.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. I still think it is helpful to distinguish the idealised types, or (if you prefer) stereotypes, of play. It helps reinforce the point that not everyone is playing in the same way, or with the same success criteria. So what for some might be "harmless fudging" can, for others, be a significant misplay by the GM.

It does do that, yes. But it is useful only in the way that GNS theory is useful. It is very much a theoretical point, and not a practical one.

It also tends to channel thought. If I say I fudge, the image becomes of me "telling the story" all the time, rather than of me occasionally exerting some editorial control at runtime, and the difference there matters a great deal. It matters enough in a qualitative sense that I question whether it fits within the stated idealized types at all.

Thus, my interjection of a different, more practically oriented thought, just to remind folks that idealized types do not an actual game make.

 

[Manbearcat]

It does do that, yes. But it is useful only in the way that GNS theory is useful. It is very much a theoretical point, and not a practical one.

<snip>

Thus, my interjection of a different, more practically oriented thought, just to remind folks that idealized types do not an actual game make.

If your position here is that games on either pole of the continuum are extremely anomalous, I'm not so sure that is true. My + 5 Vorpal Anecdote has revealed to me that (a) there are a lot of tables/systems that involve absolutely 0 fudging/GM Force in play, (b) the systems/tables that invoke GM Force/fudging as a virtue (or editorial control if you'd like to put it that way) have two dynamics at work:

1) The type (overt or covert force) and amount ranges all over the map (from utter subordination of player agency to somewhat minimal intrusiveness with respect to player agency)

and, more importantly,

2) due to the nature of long term, campaign play, the implications of a single use of GM Force is not in a vacuum. One moment of Force has the capacity (I would almost say tendency) to snowball and change, not just the present moment, but the trajectory of play for some time to come (if not longer).

For instance, in my current Dungeon World game, the PCs won the opportunity to parley with an Ancient White Dragon that calls a stretch of alpine mountains its domain. Dungeon World is as close to impervious to GM Force as a system gets. But let us say that I actually roll some dice (rather than the players rolling all the dice). This parley with the dragon was (obviously) tenuous and lurking on the edge of disaster. Despite it, they attained leverage and used it with a successful Parley move. Combat avoided. Temporary dragon ally attained.

This has had a dramatic impact on play in the immediate and will likely have major ripple effects throughout the rest of this campaign. If, for whatever reason (ie it is an AP and allying with the dragon is out of bounds), I would have suspended the action resolution mechanics or fudged them, rendered the Parley move (or any of the moves before it that may have escalated play to violent conflict), it would have led to violent combat. Several immediate outcomes may have arisen from that one dose of GM Force and the long-term impact would have been significant.

I can name dozens upon dozens of "lesser" moments that may have had a fairly sizable impact on play at the immediate moment and would have affected the course of play up to this point. Even innocuous scenes such as "does the elven ranger track down the dog and befriend it" have a snowball effect on what emerges thereafter. It changes the portfolio of PC assets, it changes the breadth of possible future action declarations by the players and can possibly mean life or death. I can think of 4 different occasions where the PC took advantage of the the dog's Intervene ability to turn a 6- result (triggering a hard GM move with major fallout for the PC and + 1 xp) into a 7-9 (a still trying, but much more manageable, success with complications). She may have died or the fiction may have changed dramatically on the strength of any of those resource deployments. This may have triggered more Force on my end (instigating something of a spiral).

I can go back to moments more innocuous than that that would have affected trajectory of play if I would have subordinated the resolution mechanics and player agency to my will.

I just don't think there are too many occasions where GM Force happens in a benign vacuum. Are there some cases? Sure. But I've seen more often than not that it snowballs and compounds, leading to a potentially major divergence of story (and player agency in the emergence of that story) then if it was never used at all.

 

[The Human Target]

As is so often the case on the internet, this has been stated as a polar dichotomy, with only two states. The way this is put, the implication is that the situation is either *entirely* the GM telling them a story, or *entirely* playing the game to see the story that results.

As is so often the case in real life, the reality of a session or campaign may well lie between these polls - an admixture of seeing what story results, and occasional editorial control by a GM.

I think that D&D is a soft game, like playing a pickup game of whiffle ball at a family BBQ.

As opposed to a hard or real game, like say chess.

 

[Umbran]

I think that D&D is a soft game, like playing a pickup game of whiffle ball at a family BBQ.

As opposed to a hard or real game, like say chess.

I think that pretty much any game can be played over a range of strictness of adherence to the written rules. Even in chess, there are ways to play a bit "soft" - in a "friendly game", a superior player may spot their opponent some pieces, or even note when certain moves are grievous errors, for example. Meanwhile, in the lofty heights of championship tournament competition, there are sometimes far more exacting rules of player behavior than is seen in the basic rules of the game.

 

[The Human Target]

I think that pretty much any game can be played over a range of strictness of adherence to the written rules. Even in chess, there are ways to play a bit "soft" - in a "friendly game", a superior player may spot their opponent some pieces, or even note when certain moves are grievous errors, for example. Meanwhile, in the lofty heights of championship tournament competition, there are sometimes far more exacting rules of player behavior than is seen in the basic rules of the game.

Very true.

But even then both players are on equal footing by the rules as written. Which is what makes chess a real game to me.

If one player chooses to take it easy, that's a personal choice independent of the game.

D&D no matter how you play it, whether its me DMing or Exploder Wizard, is a much murkier beast.

There is no actual cutthroat professional tournament D&D. There can't be, its too loose.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Very true.

But even then both players are on equal footing by the rules as written. Which is what makes chess a real game to me.

If one player chooses to take it easy, that's a personal choice independent of the game.

D&D no matter how you play it, whether its me DMing or Exploder Wizard, is a much murkier beast.

There is no actual cutthroat professional tournament D&D. There can't be, its too loose.

Well, there is tournament style D&D. Each group of players faces the same scenario or adventure, and the scenario stipulates what is worth the most points. Cutthroat or professional? Hardly.

 

[SirAntoine]

There is no way for the DM to cheat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is no way for the DM to cheat.

If that is true then there is no way for players to cheat either. If a player gets an unwanted die roll then they should just change it if it will help the story. The dice are just there to toss around and look pretty.

 

[The Human Target]

Well, there is tournament style D&D. Each group of players faces the same scenario or adventure, and the scenario stipulates what is worth the most points. Cutthroat or professional? Hardly.

Do people actually consider that a game though? I honestly don't know. I don't know if I ever even met someone who's played in a game like that.

So the DMs if those games have any judicial discretion?

I would argue playing verbatim through a D&D module isn't either DMing or D&D.