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

[Jeff Albertson]

There seems to be a nasty thing going on, with the whole not letting player's in on the whole deal. As, usual, it seems to have boiled own to nasty bullcrap; we just know "balance", but, not the superbly named "balance", as has, has "emerged".

 

[Eric V]

I've fudged before...but only to avoid a (clearly non-epic) tpk.

Otherwise, I am substituting my own sense of drama for that of my players, who worked hard to achieve a certain goal (bring down the BBEG as quickly and efficiently as possible, using great tactics, etc.), and that's just cheap.

I play with a DM who fudges this way, and it's not fun.

 

[SirAntoine]

I think it is cheating. The rules are there for the DM and the players. Why does the DM get to discard them when he feels like it? Why should a player tolerate that?

Those aren't the rules, but you based your opinion on them so I'll explain. It's just your play-style and preference to not fudge anything. The rules actually say first that the DM should change any rule he wants to, or discard any. I've heard it called Rule 0. The rules do not instruct the DM not to modify hit points or otherwise "fudge" anything. That wouldn't even rise to the level of changing a rule. The DM who fudges is doing that short of implementing a rule change, because the rules were imperfect in the situations. That is for the DM to decide, just as it is up to him to decide which rules to use at all, and what goes into the adventure.

What you're shooting for is being able to face the monsters your PC encounters, according to the rules you know. But you weren't there for the DM's evaluation of all the rules. The monsters he presents can be modified however he wants. That is just part of the rules. What you want is an extra agreement with the DM, where he or she will limit their parameters. If, and I repeat, if, the DM wants to do this, you have a winner. But the DM is not cheating or being dishonest by choosing to deviate from these expectations, which themselves are just as arbitrary as the most broad rule changes would be. You, however, are feeling "cheated out of" your chance to face the monsters "with all they get by the book's rules without changes".

The DM you would walk out on, could deliberately fudge things in preference to rolls or averages for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which could be to refine his own work. You may prefer the DM to just run an encounter as he built it, as you say, but others prefer to make sure the game is always great.

The DM sets all of the parameters during any encounter or adventure. If he is trying to strictly run a pre-published module, that will narrow his flexibility down a lot, but even then, unless tournament rules are agreed upon, rule changes are within his prerogative. I have run tournaments, and then there is a special case where players at different tables want the same chances of success. The DM is usually instructed to go by the dice, and by the book according to accepted specifications. Any house rules or modifications would need to be agreed upon by all of the other DM's.

 

[Umbran]

Why? If your players joined your game believing that their decisions actually matter to the outcome of play isn't it disrespectful to ignore them and just do whatever?

Interestingly, in my current, years-long running campaign, I *asked* my players at the start if they objected to occasional fudging. None minded.

And the "believing their decisions actually matter to the outcome of play" is a strawman. That picture only holds if the GM is funding frequently. I think the picture most of us are painting is where fudging is infrequent, so that the vast majority of the time, the game plays out in the way you would expect, and player decisions matter*.

It would be a huge help if you stopped over-inflating the issue.



*It also bears noting that, with random elements in the game, player decisions don't always matter even when the GM does not fudge. There are many scenarios in which player decisions do not alter the outcome of events. This is an oft-overlooked point. This reduces the argument to one over exactly when and how player decisions don't matter.

 

[SirAntoine]

Why? If your players joined your game believing that their decisions actually matter to the outcome of play isn't it disrespectful to ignore them and just do whatever?



The DMs authority only exists as long as there are players at the table. No players, no DM and thus no authority.



Why would players want to play in such a game? As a player, what is the appeal of such a game for you?



If you treat people with respect and do not lie to them constantly, there will be fewer walk outs.



IMHO it is only cheating if the players are unaware of it. If a DM advertises a story focused game and claims that things will be nudged here and there to maintain continuity, and players join the campaign under this premise, then no it isn't cheating. If the DM offers a fair game then constantly fudges then it IS cheating. It is cheating because of the breach of trust in this case.

Okay, you're asking me several questions. Let me see if I can respond to them all.

First of all, I have never seen a DM do so much fudging that a player's choices didn't mean anything. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. The DM's who fudge the most, tend to be focused in their style on tailoring the game and its challenges to the players' decisions. They will adjust the encounters, hit points, dice rolls, and even the rules they are accustomed to using, to give the players the kind of experience they want. I suggest you read what I wrote to Celtavian above, in post #357, because what's actually involved in a relatively small amount of fudging is nowhere near disruptive enough to stop you from making an impact with your decisions in play. Maybe you would feel cheated out of the chance to face the monsters as you expect, but those expectations are not the standard based on the rules, in fact. No DM wants you to feel like your character's decisions don't matter, and however they fudge something, I am sure they have your best interests in mind.

Now, the next question you ask is actually a statement. Again, as I just told Celtavian, the rules actually say the DM should change any rules he wants. You may feel cheated out of the experience you expect, but that is a non-standard experience which the rules do not make any effort to guarantee. The DM is authorized to do anything by the rules. I have heard it called Rule 0.

Now, a question. Why would anyone want to play such a game. Well, it didn't stop Mr. Gygax from making the game this way so maybe you should think about that. Mr. Gygax told the DM first to change or ignore any rule. From where I am standing, it looks like the game was pretty popular.

Now, you say if I treat people with respect and not lie to them "constantly" there will be fewer walkouts. The DM does not disrespect anyone by playing D&D. No, sir. The DM does not lie "constantly", either, whether he or she is using the rules in one way or another. The players are not entitled to any explanations or updates about any modifications the DM makes, let alone consultations and veto authority over the DM. As a player, you are supposed to treat the DM with respect and permit him to make any modifications he wants without informing or consulting you. You deserve to know as much about the rules as the DM permits you to, and it is according to his preferences what that will be.

Let's look a little deeper into this claim about dishonesty. I was told a player would leave if he learned I fudged the hit points, not that he just wanted to know if I did. I am sure the player could enjoy the game for years without ever knowing fudging was ever done, and I doubt very much he would say he wished he opted out because since fudging was done, the game wasn't run as he expected it to be. If the player is having a lot of fun, why spoil it for him and tell him to leave because you want to do it different? You could tell them, perhaps if he requested the information nicely, but this is beyond the scope of what the players need to know. The other players' enjoyment could suffer from telling them, even if they are okay with it. Just take my word for it.

Your last comment talks about a story focused game. I know many story focused games which didn't do much fudging, first let me say. You mention a breach of trust. If your DM agreed to run the game as you expect, and then didn't, sure, that would be a breach of trust and dishonest. But the standard way to play the game, and to run "a fair game", is to invite all the fudging the DM wants. That is according to the rules.

 

[Umbran]

If you treat people with respect and do not lie to them constantly, there will be fewer walk outs.

I've never had a walk-out. At least, not related to my GMing. I've had folks leave because work schedules change, because they got ill, and because of interpersonal issues between players, but rules-ajudication has never caused a single person to leave one of my games, in the decades I've been running.

In my most recent campaign, I did ask players ahead of time about fudging. But it is the first time I did so. In the decades of gaming prior to that, still no walk-outs.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Interestingly, in my current, years-long running campaign, I *asked* my players at the start if they objected to occasional fudging. None minded.

That's great. Your players were on board with the game and you were honest with them. I never claimed to have an issue with an honest DM

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let the DM run the game in their favorite way.

And yet somehow it's wrong for a player to walk away?

I disagree. I'm not the DM's slave. We're both human beings, and socially we're co-equals.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Okay, you're asking me several questions. Let me see if I can respond to them all.

First of all, I have never seen a DM do so much fudging that a player's choices didn't mean anything. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact. The DM's who fudge the most, tend to be focused in their style on tailoring the game and its challenges to the players' decisions. They will adjust the encounters, hit points, dice rolls, and even the rules they are accustomed to using, to give the players the kind of experience they want. I suggest you read what I wrote to Celtavian above, in post #357, because what's actually involved in a relatively small amount of fudging is nowhere near disruptive enough to stop you from making an impact with your decisions in play. Maybe you would feel cheated out of the chance to face the monsters as you expect, but those expectations are not the standard based on the rules, in fact. No DM wants you to feel like your character's decisions don't matter, and however they fudge something, I am sure they have your best interests in mind.

Unless of course those interests include playing a game.

Now, the next question you ask is actually a statement. Again, as I just told Celtavian, the rules actually say the DM should change any rules he wants. You may feel cheated out of the experience you expect, but that is a non-standard experience which the rules do not make any effort to guarantee. The DM is authorized to do anything by the rules. I have heard it called Rule 0.

Jeebus. What you DON'T know about rule zero could barely fit in the Astrodome. Yes, it is true that the DM is in charge of the game and not the rulebook. There will be situations that require judgment calls and the DM is expected to make fair decisions. There may be factors involved in situations that the players are unaware of, that the DM needs to account for. Rule 0 does not mean that the DM decides everything on a whim.

Now, a question. Why would anyone want to play such a game. Well, it didn't stop Mr. Gygax from making the game this way so maybe you should think about that. Mr. Gygax told the DM first to change or ignore any rule. From where I am standing, it looks like the game was pretty popular.

Again, there is wide excluded middle between playing strictly by the written rule and just going with whatever you feel like at the moment. Serious question-If you can ignore anything you like whenever, for whatever reason, why bother with dice? Don't they just get in the way if they can produce unwanted results?

Now, you say if I treat people with respect and not lie to them "constantly" there will be fewer walkouts. The DM does not disrespect anyone by playing D&D. No, sir. The DM does not lie "constantly", either, whether he or she is using the rules in one way or another. The players are not entitled to any explanations or updates about any modifications the DM makes, let alone consultations and veto authority over the DM. As a player, you are supposed to treat the DM with respect and permit him to make any modifications he wants without informing or consulting you. You deserve to know as much about the rules as the DM permits you to, and it is according to his preferences what that will be.

Likewise, the DM should respect the players (without which there is no game) and not advertise one style of game then secretly run another. A person's time is valuable. Wasting it because you think that you know what they want better than they do is arrogant enough to warrant a walkout.

Let's look a little deeper into this claim about dishonesty. I was told a player would leave if he learned I fudged the hit points, not that he just wanted to know if I did. I am sure the player could enjoy the game for years without ever knowing fudging was ever done, and I doubt very much he would say he wished he opted out because since fudging was done, the game wasn't run as he expected it to be. If the player is having a lot of fun, why spoil it for him and tell him to leave because you want to do it different? You could tell them, perhaps if he requested the information nicely, but this is beyond the scope of what the players need to know. The other players' enjoyment could suffer from telling them, even if they are okay with it. Just take my word for it.

There is no easy way to say this so I won't sugar coat it. If you have to lie to a player to convince him/her to play in your game than you suck as a DM. Full stop.

Your last comment talks about a story focused game. I know many story focused games which didn't do much fudging, first let me say. You mention a breach of trust. If your DM agreed to run the game as you expect, and then didn't, sure, that would be a breach of trust and dishonest. But the standard way to play the game, and to run "a fair game", is to invite all the fudging the DM wants. That is according to the rules.

So above you say that lying in order to retain a player is fine and here you say that running a game opposite of the one proposed is a breach of trust, then in the same breath say that a complete fudge-fest ISN'T a breach of said trust. Oh Wow.

 

[Umbran]

Jeebus. What you DON'T know about rule zero could barely fit in the Astrodome.

Don't make it personal. Address the content of the post, not the person of the poster.

Rule 0 does not mean that the DM decides everything on a whim.

I put this request to you more personally just a post or two ago, but your continuation is now becoming officially rude.

This is a strawman. Please stop mis-stating the positions of others - or quote where anyone claimed to be deciding "everything" (or even many things) on a whim.