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

[was]

...Yes, I would.
...If the encounter was clearly tougher than it should have been, I have no problem shaving off a few hp from a monster to avoid a TPK.
...If the encounter was clearly way too easy, and the player's are knocking it out without any serious effort, I have no problem adding a few hp to give it an extra round or two in the fight. It gives all the players a chance to hammer on it before going down.

 

[SirAntoine]

If you are playing long-term with folks for whom the uncertainty is a problem, you probably shouldn't be using the technique.

The situation I envisioned was actually a new player joining a group where it has never been discussed, and where the DM may have fudged and felt he needed to keep it secret.

 

[SirAntoine]

I know how I feel as a DM when I feel a player is cheating on rolls. I would hate to make a player feel the same way about me.

What if a player were making up his rolls as he felt appropriate to the adventure? Should the DM and other players tolerate that? The player is rolling behind his hand and happens to get 20s whenever he needs one.

I played with a few players like that. No one trusted them and gave them a hard time. It made quite a few players not want to play with those players. One was a guy that would roll behind his hand and say, "Got It', meaning he hit, in nearly every critical situation. It grew tiresome.

If the players don't get to make up rolls to suit their view of how things should go, why should I as a DM? That's cheese to me. I'm sure a player would love to give himself more hit points when he needs to keep standing to save his friends or fudge a roll to win a battle that looks like it is going bad. I don't allow it as a DM. I feel what's the point of playing a game with dice if you're not going to use the result good or bad. I have the same philosophy when it comes to modifying hit points or other factors on the fly.

It's really great fun for the DM to have powers no one else has. The DM's powers should also be mysterious, and unpredictable.

 

[Relax]

DMs can't cheat, because they aren't actually playing a game.

I completely agree, but I think this exemplifies why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.

Some people play D&D as though the DM is playing a game, so in their mind fudging is cheating.

Others, like me, see the role of the DM as author/storyteller/director and there's nothing he can do that could be called cheating because there's nothing he can't do. All that matters is facilitating a good story and trying to make sure everyone has a good time. If the group of people the DM is playing with would not have a good time if they knew he fudged then he either needs to not fudge or simply not tell them when he does for the sake of the story.

 

[Tallifer]

As the title asks: it's the middle of an encounter, would you change a monster's hit points?

This might be during a boss fight where the PCs roll well and it looks like the big bad is going to die before taking a turn. Or maybe during a long fight that looks like it might drag. Or perhaps a tense fight where the party is toeing on a TPK.

Would you?

Yes. Without hesitation. I also occasionally change the number of attacks, the number of attackers and the effectiveness of attacks midstream. Anything for a more satisfying encounter.

 

[The Human Target]

I completely agree, but I think this exemplifies why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.

Some people play D&D as though the DM is playing a game, so in their mind fudging is cheating.

Others, like me, see the role of the DM as author/storyteller/director and there's nothing he can do that could be called cheating because there's nothing he can't do. All that matters is facilitating a good story and trying to make sure everyone has a good time. If the group of people the DM is playing with would not have a good time if they knew he fudged then he either needs to not fudge or simply not tell them when he does for the sake of the story.

Yes there are very different ways to play the game, and I don't begrudge anyone's playstyle.

Up until the point I get called a cheater and liar.

Recently in my game one player was convinced there was a trap in the hallway of a dungeon. He came up with an idea for testing the hallway for traps.

In my pregame notes, there was no trap in the hall.

I decided on the fly that there was a trap and the player's plan successfully revealed and bypassed it.

Why? It seemed more fun and that player hadn't had a win in a while.

My notes and plans are not set in stone.

Neither are my numbers.

If that makes me a liar and a cheat, I guess I'd rather be that than a bore.

 

[MechaPilot]

As the title asks: it's the middle of an encounter, would you change a monster's hit points?

This might be during a boss fight where the PCs roll well and it looks like the big bad is going to die before taking a turn. Or maybe during a long fight that looks like it might drag. Or perhaps a tense fight where the party is toeing on a TPK.

Would you?

I have changed a monster's hit points mid-fight, but that usually happened during 2e and 3e, where I could be less certain about the appropriateness of an encounter and ended up setting the PCs against something that was not appropriate for them. It's definitely not my go-to move (I usually prefer to throw in something that adds to the story), but I have done it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I completely agree, but I think this exemplifies why this discussion has gone on as long as it has.

Some people play D&D as though the DM is playing a game, so in their mind fudging is cheating.

Others, like me, see the role of the DM as author/storyteller/director and there's nothing he can do that could be called cheating because there's nothing he can't do. All that matters is facilitating a good story and trying to make sure everyone has a good time. If the group of people the DM is playing with would not have a good time if they knew he fudged then he either needs to not fudge or simply not tell them when he does for the sake of the story.

Yes, this is accurate. However, for a lot of people it isn't really being played as either a game or a story. It is more of an exploration of a world or setting--treated as an entity itself. Since the world is a fictional entity incapable of making decisions and actually interacting with either the choices of the players (represented in their characters' actions) or the choices of the DM (represented in the actions of NPCs and flow of the story), randomized numbers are used to give the world/setting the facsimile of being an interacting entity/agent that both the PCs and the DMs story can then interact with as a third element.

 

[Relax]

E

Yes, this is accurate. However, for a lot of people it isn't really being played as either a game or a story. It is more of an exploration of a world or setting--treated as an entity itself. Since the world is a fictional entity incapable of making decisions and actually interacting with either the choices of the players (represented in their characters' actions) or the choices of the DM (represented in the actions of NPCs and flow of the story), randomized numbers are used to give the world/setting the facsimile of being an interacting entity/agent that both the PCs and the DMs story can then interact with as a third element.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that require a lot of random generation of encounters/dungeons/whatever? I can see how if there is an agreement by all concerned to play through a given adventure module as written or all random encounters then the DM's role is definitely reduced to one of impartial referee and rolls should not be fudged. A specific contract has been entered into by all concerned.

To be honest though, other than a weird experiment, I can't imagine wanting to play that way as either a PC or DM.

To each their own I guess.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that require a lot of random generation of encounters/dungeons/whatever?

No? Why would it? The world is established from some particular moment. It might be of the DM's creation, or it might be precisely an already-published one (e.g. Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Forgotten Realms, Planescape, etc.), or something blending the two. However, once the world is set in motion, it simply is what it is. This will occasionally require the DM to act "as the world," because the world cannot generate itself, but he does so adhering to what has already been established about the world. E.g. "goblins live in the north" is established; the players enter a cave system in goblin lands; the DM thus populates it with goblins (who claim this territory) and ecologically-appropriate monsters. This is not the DM unilaterally declaring things; this is the DM accepting the already-defined input from the world, processing it, and then contributing something which is consistent. The "processing" part could involve random generation, but it does not have to.

I can see how if there is an agreement by all concerned to play through a given adventure module as written or all random encounters then the DM's role is definitely reduced to one of impartial referee and rolls should not be fudged. A specific contract has been entered into by all concerned.

To be honest though, other than a weird experiment, I can't imagine wanting to play that way as either a PC or DM.

Well, firstly, it doesn't have to be a prewritten adventure module. The world COULD be entirely of the DM's original creation; the point is that once something is created, it ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY advances as if it were a "real" entity operating by clear, definite rules and laws. This is where the "rules as physics" idea comes from--the DM's part to play in the world is only to (a) advance the world-system forward in time, following the defined rules for such, and (b) extrapolate, in those places where the pre-definition is incomplete or indefinite, what parts would/should be there to make a whole and rationally proceeding system. (Edit: And just in case this isn't clear, the simulationist DM finds it extremely satisfying to find out "what will the PCs do?" when they encounter this "naturally progressing" world, which will of course respond back to what the players do, etc. ad infinitum. It's very roughly analogous to a scientist observing patterns as a dynamic system advances and changes.)

You could say that Eberron--a very popular setting, as I understand it--comes straight out of this idea. It took the 3e ruleset and said, "Y'know what? Let's ACTUALLY start from these as first principles, add some color and society and story, and see what happens."

It's the "see what happens" part that matters, here--and this is where "simulationism" gets its jollies. I'm not real big on simulationism per se; though I dispute GNS theory's validity, if I *had* to accept it I would consider myself a deep gamist/narrativist hybrid (I want to both enjoy playing a game AND enjoy experiencing a story, simultaneously).

Secondly, there are other kinds of contracts--which have nothing to do with simulationism--that would quite easily lead to the same conclusion. For example, "We want to earn our victories--and defeats--purely on our own merits." That's a largely agnostic premise (that is, it can be framed for any part of GNS), but it expressly forbids fudging. In gamist terms, it would probably be more specifically phrased as, "We want to play a game with consistent rules that do not change, even if that means we sometimes lose/are defeated." In narrativist terms, it would probably be, "We want to experience the ups and downs of the story only because of the choices we have made in it."

There's also, as I've said already, the simple problem of "if you are concealing the truth, even when directly questioned, because it would upset people...why are you so adamant that this is a perfectly okay thing to do?" If you're doing something that upsets someone, and then hiding it from them to avoid making them upset, it sounds to me like you don't actually care about what they think, you care about controlling what they think--and I find that pretty offensive.

To each their own I guess.

While that's a given, it's a given that is good to reiterate. So...yes, exactly.