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

Jacob Marley said:

I have been running since 1991 and, like Manbearcat, have done so using multiple editions. Of my five players three have been playing for 25+ years, one for 15+ years, and one started only a couple of years ago. I am not sure why what I do is not D&D to you, [MENTION=22574]The Human Target[/MENTION]?

Click to expand...

The mystery of the capabilities of traps and creatures and all the things behind the DM screen is a big part of D&D, I would assume to most people.

Having the monsters stats out for all to see is a very different play experience to me.

Didn't mean to offend.

As I've said before in this thread, the highly varied ways people play D&D is very interesting to me.

Heck, I wouldn't have enjoyed playing in a Gygax game.

The Human Target said:

The mystery of the capabilities of traps and creatures and all the things behind the DM screen is a big part of D&D, I would assume to most people.

Having the monsters stats out for all to see is a very different play experience to me.

Didn't mean to offend.

As I've said before in this thread, the highly varied ways people play D&D is very interesting to me.

Heck, I wouldn't have enjoyed playing in a Gygax game.

Click to expand...

I wasn't offended; I was just curious as to which part of my comments triggered your statement.

In my experience, the mystery of monsters and traps dissipates quickly. Once a player has encountered a kobold, a dragon, or a unicorn it is hard to keep them mysterious in future encounters. The players already know their capabilities! Where I may be lucky is that my players are really good at not exploiting player knowledge. They are really good at deciding what information their character would likely know, and then act accordingly.

billd91 said:

They can't do a bit of both?

Click to expand...

Sure, if that's what they want to do and what the table enjoys. ( [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] made much the same point upthread.)

My point is that not all tables play with the GM as magician (to continue my metaphor).

Relax said:

I only take issue when perfectly valid forms of play are referred to as cheating or wrong

Click to expand...

I think that's fair, and that's why I disagreed with the label "cheating" (post 553 upthread), for much the same reasons as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] did.

Bacon Bits said:

Way to miss the point of the questions.

Click to expand...

An objective answer to these questions implies that there is only a single way to play. If you believe that then the Emperor has already won.....

billd91 said:

They can't do a bit of both?

Click to expand...

It can be a bit of both so long as the players are aware of this.

BlueBlackRed said:

Wow...just wow.

I come here and give a simple post about how I prefer to adjust hp in big encounters because I want there to be tension for the players.
If I've made an encounter too hard, I "just barely miss" here and there, to allow the PCs a chance to recover.
If I've made an encounter too easy, I have the BBEG last a round longer, to give a good smack or two.

I'd prefer to make certain fights something to remember.
And I made the dang encounter, I can alter it as I choose.

For the big fights I want the party to earn the win, but my misjudging of their skills should not detract from it, nor should a freak effect of the dice kill a campaign.
So a hit point readjustment is a good way to tweak a combat.

But I get lambasted for not playing D&D right?
Get a grip.
I play this game to have fun and spend some time with friends.
You run your game as you please as well.
But don't tell me I'm doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

You aren't doing anything wrong as long as your players are aware of game style and are happy with it. If you are concealing this from your players then yes you are cheating.

The Human Target said:

The mystery of the capabilities of traps and creatures and all the things behind the DM screen is a big part of D&D, I would assume to most people.

Having the monsters stats out for all to see is a very different play experience to me.

Click to expand...

Running things straight up and not fudging doesn't mean the players have to have access to the stat block and know the running totals of enemy hit points. You can preserve the mystery of the unknown AND run a fair game at the same time. Being impartial and honest is tough sometimes when actual results bring disaster or death to beloved PCs but it is a game after all. If adventuring wasn't dangerous then it wouldn't be thrilling.

I brought this question up to my players and the only consensus that could be reached between them was that "it doesn't seem fair" since they can't just add hp to their PCs mid-fight if it's excessively difficult for them.

From this perspective I can understand their position a bit more clearly. However, I suppose that each DM has the right/discretion to modify the game as they see fit for their players.

ExploderWizard said:

Running things straight up and not fudging doesn't mean the players have to have access to the stat block and know the running totals of enemy hit points. You can preserve the mystery of the unknown AND run a fair game at the same time. Being impartial and honest is tough sometimes when actual results bring disaster or death to beloved PCs but it is a game after all. If adventuring wasn't dangerous then it wouldn't be thrilling.

Click to expand...

I think the start of that conversation was= players can't know you aren't fudging unless everything is exposed. So rolling in front of the screen isn't a guarantee of no fudging.

D&D isn't a pure game for reasons already stated ad nauseum.

Me fudging a monsters hit points down or up a few points is no different than me choosing to not have a 17th level red dragon in the cave my 3rd level PCs found.

If it was a straight game and I was a purely impartial DM running a truly random/impartial game world, there would be a chance of that.

There's a grey area.

The Human Target said:

I think the start of that conversation was= players can't know you aren't fudging unless everything is exposed. So rolling in front of the screen isn't a guarantee of no fudging.

D&D isn't a pure game for reasons already stated ad nauseum.

Me fudging a monsters hit points down or up a few points is no different than me choosing to not have a 17th level red dragon in the cave my 3rd level PCs found.

If it was a straight game and I was a purely impartial DM running a truly random/impartial game world, there would be a chance of that.

There's a grey area.

Click to expand...

An impartial DM does not have to be a slave to the dice and let them dictate the contents of the campaign. A truly and completely random world would be too chaotic to manage.

pemerton said:

A third alternative is to build towards interesting rather than boring along the lines [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] suggested, and to combine that with a system that doesn't permit boring finales.

In my case I have found 4e to be that system; others will have their own preferences.

Flipping it around: if I was using a system which regularly delivered boring outcomes unless I ignored or overrode it, I would change my system!

Click to expand...

I disagree with the systemic "fix" to prevent boring finales. What's boring to you is not boring to me. Chopping the head off the evil boss unceremoniously is a terrific possibility that rolling a natural 20 should possibly allow. Not force, not every time, but not prevent, either.

With enough analysis, you can smooth out any gameplay issue so that what appears to be randomly generated by the dice, is actually precisely controlled. The question is how precise is this control. If it forces your version of a non-boring finale on the rest of us, I'll pass. I'd rather fudge the monster HP than have that fudging obfuscated into the rules to try and prevent sudden and surprising things from happening from time to time.

Like Mike Mearls wrote "D&D is about the thrill of a natural 20, and the agony of a natural 1".

What he's saying is that the dice should have a say in when and how things turn out. And that means by definition, taking some of that control away from the DM. The DM doesn't dictate the outcomes of the battle or how many rounds it should take. If he does, I really believe playing D&D is just fancy window dressing and I'd rather not waste my time with playing a game I'm guaranteed to win. I can't imagine any system more boring than that.

ExploderWizard said:

An impartial DM does not have to be a slave to the dice and let them dictate the contents of the campaign. A truly and completely random world would be too chaotic to manage.

Click to expand...

DMs already dictate when rolling a die is called for, and when the outcome is automatic. We're just saying his / her ruling in such a case should be transparent to the players. Fudging HP or rolls behind the screen is the same thing as dictating the outcome, just being dishonest about it actually happening. In short, it's a sleight of hand. I don't like rolling dice for no reason when there is no reason to since the outcome is already determined by the DM. If you're Deus Ex Machina-ing a scenario, be upfront about it and don't make your players jump through hoops and pretend like they're playing a game rather than following a script.

Besides, the only truly random worlds are the ones where your toll a table for everything or possible even use a dungeon generator or plot generator with some dice rolls and looking up something in a table. That play style is actually supported by D&D, if you want it. And it's not too chaotic to manage, at all. I've done it.

Having dice have their say in D&D doesn't mean the entire fabric of the world be random, that much should be obvious to anyone who's ever watched let alone played the game. Random variable-guided optimization does not mean the world is randomly driven, any more than evolution means we started walking upright randomly. It's actually a minor albeit necessary component. Natural selection is like the DM in this evolution-as-random-process analogy, and it's not random at all. Because D&D incorporates dice in its resolution mechanics, that does not mean the game world is truly and completely random. And neither does playing HP gains and losses by the book mean that DMs have no control or authority over the worlds they create or how the story unfolds.

Talmek said:

I brought this question up to my players and the only consensus that could be reached between them was that "it doesn't seem fair" since they can't just add hp to their PCs mid-fight if it's excessively difficult for them.

From this perspective I can understand their position a bit more clearly. However, I suppose that each DM has the right/discretion to modify the game as they see fit for their players.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It isn't fair and it isn't necessary either. If DMs can alter monster's HP without justification, players should be able to as well. Even people who admit they do that in this thread say they feel awkward doing it. As they should, because cheating is generally considered wrong by most people.