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

[ExploderWizard]

I have always stated that players and DMs need to communicate that not doing so leads to bad gaming and tension at the table.

EDIT: Post coffee I see that you are speaking of communication rather than fudging. I agree. My apologies.

But I have read here that changing the dice even if your players agree is cheating and I believe that not only did spinozajack call it cheating but went to add that it is a form of lazy DMing.

If the DM is honest about the game being run then there is no cheating. Some may call certain methods lazy but anything done with the players blessing that betters the game is fine.

From day 1 rule zero has been part of this game so it is not against the rules for the DM to change the rules. There is nothing in the rules that say I have to give my monsters HP I can just run it and when I think it has taken enough damage call it as dead. Just like there is nothing in the rules that state that a DM must try and accommodate a player so they have fun. But if you run a game that players don't like you will soon have no player so I think it is a self correcting problem.

There is also nothing compelling players to play in a game in which the monsters die whenever the DM feels it is dramatically appropriate. I agree that players must enjoy the game or they will go elsewhere. I advertise an honestly run game and have to turn players away due to an already overcrowded table. PCs can and DO die playing in my campaigns and the players accept this as part of playing a game. If loss isn't possible then victories are hollow. There are many players that value meaningful play decisions and if those aren't a part of the game then they WILL go elsewhere. Like you, I am just keeping my players happy.

DMG page 4, Introduction, The Dungeon Master (last sentence, 2nd paragraph)
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

What I don't get is why this doesn't end this whole part of the discussion right there. There is a rule, first touched on in the introduction no less, that says the rules are what the DM says they are.

Correct. The DM has final say on the rules used at the table, whether to use any optional or house rules, etc. Of course the DM is free to just change rules back and forth on the fly but doing so makes player decisions meaningless and I will venture to say that there isn't even a GAME taking place any more. Merely a storyteller directing outcomes to his/her whim with the players along for the ride. So long as the players are aware of and enjoying this, there is nothing wrong with it. More players than not that I know would politely decline to participate in such an activity.

But if that wasn't enough (and I'm almost reluctant to do this for fear of ruining the game for some, and believe it or not I do want everyone to enjoy the game)...

(Seriously, if the idea of fudging is anathema to you stop reading here.)

DMG page 235, Chapter 8: Running the Game, Table Rules, Dice Rolling (3rd bullet point, near top of second column)
"Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks - or worse, that you're playing favorites."

That is the worst bit of tripe ever to appear in a D&D rulebook, even surpassing the 4E DMG's attempt to objectively define fun. WOTC should really be ashamed of themselves for that. Official rulebooks shouldn't be advocating dishonesty. Wasting a players valuable time is terrible. We all have limited shelf lives and I have lost two good friends way before their time. Concealing the fact that your game is a farce from players wastes their valuable time, and they have every right to be upset about it.

Not trying to be too self righteous here but playing how you like is a luxury unavailable to players who are deceived. By concealing the true nature of a fudged game, you are taking away the right of another to choose to play the way they wish. Think about that.

 

[Umbran]

So NOT fudging is bad gaming now? If that is true then badwrongfun never felt so good.

No. She's not using the best grammar, but she is saying that not communicating leads to bad gaming and tension at the table.

Now think about how obvious that interpretation should have been, especially with the rest of the content around it. How much thought it should have taken for you to *not* go down this accusative route?

Ask yourself why you went with the interpretation you did. Ask yourself if you are still being fair to others. Moreover, ask yourself if you are being kind to others with this sort of reading.

Maybe everyone in here should do that before posting further on this topic.

 

[Umbran]

If I call you a cheater, then you can get offended. But you don't have the right to get offended at my refusal to cheat, because then we're not talking about your playstyle, we're talking about mine.

Whether or not it is cheating is context-dependent, yes. But then, we need to be super-careful about making the context clear.

You would be well-served, then, to not just use the word "cheating", because that word does not itself carry the context. You can, for example, talk about violating table-rules (which are, by definition, dependent on the table), or violating player expectations (which are clearly dependent on the player) without setting off alarm bells and sounding like you are calling others cheaters at their own tables.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You would be well-served, then, to not just use the word "cheating", because that word does not itself carry the context. You can, for example, talk about violating table-rules (which are, by definition, dependent on the table), or violating player expectations (which are clearly dependent on the player) without setting off alarm bells and sounding like you are calling others cheaters at their own tables.

In this thread, I have generally avoided the term except to say that it "feels like cheating," as a way of describing my intense emotional aversion to DMs doing it to me or my doing it to others. It really wouldn't be useful to describe it as "feels like violating table rules." The point is, you will lose certain types of players if you go down this road. If you're fine with that, cool. But it's not a minor decision.

That is all.

 

[spinozajack]

I have to wonder if those of you insisting on using the word cheating realize how offensive it is in this context. Obviously you feel that not only are we bad DMs but we are also dishonest. How can there possibly be any rational discussion when you are choosing to come at it from this point of view?

cheat
CHēt/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: cheating
1.
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.
"she always cheats at cards"

Please tell me how shaving off a few HP to speed up the end of combat is cheating how is the DM gaining an advantage? Also please tell me if I have a monster go down at 3 HP instead of waiting until 0 how I have undone everything the players have done before?

The definition of a word does not depend on whether or not it offends you.

Fudging is synonymous with cheating. Take every instance of the use of that word in this thread, and replace it with cheating, because according to the dictionary, they have the exact same meaning.

If you are allowed to quote from the dictionary, you should be prepared for others to do the same:

fudge3
[fuhj]
Spell Syllables
verb (used without object), fudged, fudging.
1.
to cheat or welsh (often followed by on):
to fudge on an exam; to fudge on one's campaign promises

Source:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fudge

 

[spinozajack]

In this thread, I have generally avoided the term except to say that it "feels like cheating," as a way of describing my intense emotional aversion to DMs doing it to me or my doing it to others. It really wouldn't be useful to describe it as "feels like violating table rules." The point is, you will lose certain types of players if you go down this road. If you're fine with that, cool. But it's not a minor decision.

That is all.

We're all adults here, right? If people don't like having their behavior called cheating, they shouldn't openly admit to fudging, which actually has the same dictionary definition.

You do not have to add "feels like cheating" when fudging actually is cheating.

Even the example given from the DMG uses the word "fudge". Dressing up a word in a synonym term doesn't alter its actual meaning, it obfuscates it to make it more PC. It's dishonest to not admit what's so obvious and right in front of us. If people take offense to being called out on it, why is that our fault? If anyone admits to fudging, they are admitting to cheating. Because fudging is cheating, according to the dictionary. And words' meanings do not change if they happen to make people feel uncomfortable. That's too bad.

 

[ExploderWizard]

We're all adults here, right? If people don't like having their behavior called cheating, they shouldn't openly admit to fudging, which actually has the same dictionary definition.

You do not have to add "feels like cheating" when fudging actually is cheating.

Even the example given from the DMG uses the word "fudge". Dressing up a word in a synonym term doesn't alter its actual meaning, it obfuscates it to make it more PC. It's dishonest to not admit what's so obvious and right in front of us. If people take offense to being called out on it, why is that our fault? If anyone admits to fudging, they are admitting to cheating. Because fudging is cheating, according to the dictionary. And words' meanings do not change if they happen to make people feel uncomfortable. That's too bad.

Adults also have the right to game however they wish depending on their definition of fun. If a particular group enjoys playing and fudging die rolls because it gives everyone in the group the experience they want and everyone is happy with the arrangement then I don't see cheating taking place in the context of that particular group. Everyone is informed and a willing participant so no foul. There are no illegal moves in a no holds barred match up.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm really glad I have players who accept fudging as part of the game and aren't going to start acting out when something doesn't fall 100% within expected parameters.

 

[billd91]

We're all adults here, right? If people don't like having their behavior called cheating, they shouldn't openly admit to fudging, which actually has the same dictionary definition.

You do not have to add "feels like cheating" when fudging actually is cheating.

Even the example given from the DMG uses the word "fudge". Dressing up a word in a synonym term doesn't alter its actual meaning, it obfuscates it to make it more PC. It's dishonest to not admit what's so obvious and right in front of us. If people take offense to being called out on it, why is that our fault? If anyone admits to fudging, they are admitting to cheating. Because fudging is cheating, according to the dictionary. And words' meanings do not change if they happen to make people feel uncomfortable. That's too bad.

As others have pointed out, fudging is in the rules - ergo, it's not cheating as far as the game is concerned any more than any of the other rules in the DMG are cheating. Individual tables are free to impose table rules, but those would be the variations and not the default rules. Calling fudging cheating has no standing under the assumption of D&D's default rules. Sticking to the term, particularly in light of people's objections to the tone of it, just makes you look like you're calling out fudge-friendly DMs for badwrongfun, lack of integrity, and otherwise being a dick - and that's something not generally approved of around here.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm really glad I have players who accept fudging as part of the game and aren't going to start acting out when something doesn't fall 100% within expected parameters.

What do you mean by "expected parameters" ?

Regular organic play can often lead to some unexpected and outrageous results.