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

[Elf Witch]

When possible, it's good to have an idea in advance which bad guys will kill their enemies vs. selling them as slaves or leaving them for dead. It also depends upon how much the bad guy in question respects/hates you. If he sees you as a threat he'll kill you, but if you're insignificant he doesn't bother to finish you off unless he thinks it would be funny and/or delicious.

Figuring out realistic reasons for cliched behavior by bad guys is one of my great joys as a DM. Plot? Meh, who cares. Let's build a world instead and give the PCs interesting things to do in it. Slaying a dragon with the purple worm poison you looted from the haunted ooze mansion is interesting. "Dying horribly" to poor die rolls is also an interesting thing. Chance is part of the game.

I always have motivations of NPCs planned ahead but I have been known to change them when the game actually starts due to many things. This time was due to the situation the PCs were in and since they had never met him I could do this and now I am going to use him again. He didn't even have a name now he does. The PCs know that he held back and let them go this shows them that not all the NPCs they meet in the cult are evil.

I have an over plot but what is important is how the PCs interact with the world. I never have an idea or clue how the game will end I am a DM not an author. I am not writing a story. The story comes from what happens in each session it is not planned out.

I have no issue killing a PC death is a part of the game but a TPK is not something I want to deal with because I have never seen a campaign survive one. But there are times I will not kill a PC. If I know that letting a PC die in this session will really disrupt the game then I won't do it. And there has been a few rare times when I didn't do it because I knew the player was going through some very real crap in the real world and they really didn't need their PC dying this session.

I don't run a high death campaign I hate those because I have found it leads to players becoming paranoid to the point that they become afraid to to take risks and play like grannies. Or they stop caring about their PCs and stop role playing and just consider them no more than a game piece like the dog in monopoly. I have found with my group that failing at a mission losing, an innocent , getting captured and then let go by the BBEG is far more a punishment than death.

Again this our play style and works for us.

 

[Relax]

The DMG using the word "fudge" which according to the dictionary is a synonym to "to cheat", to endorse DMs doing that doesn't make it ok.

Actually it does, from a rules standpoint. Besides, as discussed above "fudge" is not always a synonym for "cheat". Given that DMs are allowed to fudge it can in no way be regarded as cheating.

They even admit that it's unfair and ruins the danger of the game. In that very passage.

Oh for goodness sake. They don't say it's unfair or that it ruins the danger of the game. It says, "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." No mention of fairness, though they do mention that overdoing it may change the way your players think, and they imply that overdoing it may lessen your players' enjoyment. May.

Of course DMs can cheat, especially with the DMG telling them they can. Doesn't mean they should. Which is my point. The DMG doesn't determine what people find as fair.

The DMG doesn't tell them they can cheat. It does recommend that you deceive them, sparingly, but cheat? No.

Let me put it this way. The DM is a player, right? Sure, he / she has a special role, but they're just another person playing the game. A player who's not the DM can also fudge on their dice rolls and HP total, just as easily. And why shouldn't they? If the DM's fudging to protect them from death, why shouldn't everyone get in on the action?

No, that would be cheating, unless of course it is a house rule. You do realise you've just said that if the DM is doing something, why can't the players? Think about that for a second. The DM also gives out treasure. Should the players just take whatever treasure they want? No, that would be cheating. If the players do almost anything the DM is allowed to do they are overstepping their bounds, but I suspect you know this.

All people here are doing is cheating themselves out of a consistent game where PC death happens as a result of running combat by the rules.

You mean by the rules you've decided you like and have decided to play with. Clearly not the rules in the DMG. Clearly not the rules that quite a few others seem to enjoy. You run combat by the rules you like. Stop telling others that are doing the same thing that they're cheating.

Calling something "fudging" instead of "cheating" doesn't change the fact that it's cheating, it just makes it more palatable.

Here we go again.

I know, lets try this. The DM fudging dice rolls isn't cheating. The DM isn't cheating if they fudge a die roll. Fudging is allowed if done by the DM. The DM can fudge a die roll if they so choose. If the DM wants they can fudge dice, the rules say so. And to top it all off, the DM is encouraged to keep this information from their players.

I play that way because I actually like the way the rules work, not because I am empowered by the DMG to ignore HP loss.

That's not true. (Are you lying?) You like some of the rules, and you ignore some. Just like everyone else I`d imagine.

DMG sanctioned cheating or not, cheating is cheating. And fudging is cheating. As per the dictionary.

Again, no. As per the dictionary, fudging is a bending of the rules. You know what else fudge is? A delicious chocolaty treat, but I doubt anyone thinks the DMG is advocating turning dice into dessert...

 

[Sunseeker]

What do you mean by "expected parameters" ?

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

Could be their own personal expectations they bring to the table. Could be what they read in the books, could be what they think will happen based on last game. Means a lot of things.

What actual benefit does changing hits into misses or arbitrarily increasing or lowering monster HP totals bring to the game?

First: nothing I do is arbitrary. Starting off your argument this way is basically setting up a straw man. You're assuming I make changes for no reason at all when you have absolutely no reason to believe this is the case except for your own bias on the issue.

If it's to end a combat faster, why not just use less monsters next time, or easier monsters?

Because next time is next time. 2 more monsters is not just another 20HP. It's two more inititives to track. It's two more attacks per round. It's more targets for the party to deal with. I want to affect what is happening this time. I will make adjustments next time, but that's next time and next time will be different and it may turn out that I used too many or still too few. Adjusting HP now gives me control now which is when I need it.

If it's to make combats last longer, why not add more?

I'll state for clarity that I don't usually adjust up. It is almost always down. Sometimes I do toss in more monsters when I want combats to last longer.

See those things I think are fair parameters to change.

I don't care what you think is fair. What I care about is my table. The enjoyment of my players and the overall mood of my game. Adjusting HP is a tool I use to moderate that mood.

But if I change the current HP total, I've easily negated the benefit of that great weapon fighting style you took, or made that poorly rolled dagger attack be worth more than the fighter's crit the round before.

That's nice that you feel that way about it. I only speak for myself when I tell others what I do at my table. If you play differently that is by all means, you choice and I have no problem with it. What I don't appreciate and what others apparently don't appreciate is being told that how I play at my table is badwrongfun because some guy on the internet doesn't approve.

That's why I think it's unfair, because people invest in their characters, and the combat system shouldn't be arbitrarily modified mid-combat. Otherwise you might as well not even roll dice. That's why I think playing D&D with arbitrarily changing HP totals is a waste of time. If you want PCs to automatically win, why have them roll dice in the first place? To give them the illusion that they might lose?

See, you started this argument out on a straw man and now this straw man is about to give Burning Man a run for his money. You don't know why I adjust HP, when I do it, you didn't even ask you just started in on the assumption that I must do it for all these reasons you don't like therefore it's wrong. I really would appreciate it if you just said "Why don't you tell us why you adjust HP during the fight?" instead of assuming I do so because *reasons* in your head.

The dice are a core feature of the game, if you ignore their input in the game on a whim, you basically are saying that you want a story-only game, and one that doesn't have a randomness component. If the randomness of the dice are negated when it counts (especially when it might kill a PC or not have killed a monster, for example), then what's the point of all the rest of the randomness? Why play a dice-based game at all?

At this point I feel like I'm watching Clint Eastwood debate "Obama" in the invisible chair. I'm not sure who you're talking to about ignoring the dice, since I'm not doing that. I'm adjusting the HP. Fudging dice rolls has an entirely different sort of reasoning behind it.

There are dice-free games out there, but they're not D&D. DMG might sanction "fudging", but lots of people don't. Even the DMG says if you're going to do it, to do it rarely and sparingly. I only go one step further and say "why do it at all".

Well, again you are more than welcome to play however you like at your table. I would, again, appreciate not being told that I am having badwrongfun for playing the way I do at my table. Please and thank you.

PCs dying when two crits in a row are rolled legitimately is the pinnacle of fairness. The dice aren't on anyone's side. They are the ultimate in fairness. If the DM doesn't want the dice to have a say in the outcome of a combat, the DM can just say "ok you won the combat". That's actually more above board than this. I don't like being given illusions that my actions matter, if as a player I find out that the DM is fudging rolls aka cheating in my favor (or in the monster's favor).

At some point there was a discussion about fudging HP in here. Now we're talking about the impartiality of the dice. While I wasn't specific on what sort of fudging I do at my table, it would be really nice if to have some sort of clue when I can catch the next train to wherever your argument went.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

First: nothing I do is arbitrary. Starting off your argument this way is basically setting up a straw man. You're assuming I make changes for no reason at all when you have absolutely no reason to believe this is the case except for your own bias on the issue.

So you never change HP values nor modify difficulties because of personal taste, or your current emotional state or those of your players?

What non-arbitrary standard do you use, then? Because everyone else here has been talking about very arbitrary things, like "making a good story" or "making a good plan work even in a bad situation." Both of which are value judgments, and thus entirely dependent on the things the DM thinks are "good stories" and "good plans." There is nothing more subjective than taste. Since you're not using the subjective--and thus arbitrary--standard of personal taste, what standard ARE you using?

 

[pemerton]

Changing a monster's HP on the fly is not a "ruling", it's cheating. The current HP of a creature is not something that requires a "ruling"

The use of "cheating" is obviously contentious, and needless. I agree, though, that's it's not a ruling. The rules around when hit point totals change are pretty clear. It's a decision to suspend the rules for hit point accretion/depletion rather than to apply them.

Part of the reason it's not cheating is that plenty of D&D (and other RPG) groups knowingly and willingly give their GMs the power to suspend the action resolution rules at any point during the game. My feeling is that, on ENworld, this is the nearest thing to a default approach.

 

[pemerton]

GMs are not like time-travelers, desperately trying to not impact the future. Fudging may impact the trajectory of play, yes. But so does every other ruling or rules-decision made by the GM. Not to mention how the adventure-design and encounter-design decisions by the GM impact play. The whole idea that somehow the GM needs to avoid changing trajectory of play is kind of illogical.

For some approaches to RPGing, there are categories of GM decision-making which serve different functions, and are subject to different constraints.

Some systems state these differences expressly (typically, more modern systems using a developed vocabulary). Others make them implicit (eg Gygax's DMG, now more than 35 years old).

For my purposes, I can divide GM decision-making into at least three different categories: (1) rules adjudication; (2) action resolution; (3) fictional content introduction (eg drawing maps, writing up keys, framing encounters etc).

In relation to (1) I prefer to be overt and consensual, but I do expect my players to defer to me if consensus is hard to reach, especially when they have an interest (in terms of PC power) in the outcome.

In relation to (2) I am overt. My players can see my dice. I explain what the outcomes of action resolution are. If the players are confused or uncertain, I clarify. If I forget something that is relevant, my players hold me to account.

Sometimes (1) and (2) can run together, in the context of a complex action declaration at the margin of the rules. In a good rules system, that doesn't happen too often. (Or perhaps I should say - one of my markers for a good rules system is that this doesn't happen too often.)

On (3), I assert full authority as a GM, including the authority to depart from pre-prepared notes if I think it will serve the purposes of the game. (If I was running Gygaxian dungeoncrawls then I would not depart, because that would undermine the purpose of the game, which is prudent exploration. But I don't run a Gygaxian game.)

Which leads to:

You're saying changing a monsters hit points is cheating, but having more monsters simply show up is perfectly valid?

I already discussed this upthread, I think in reply to you.

Changing hit points is a covert manipulation of the action resolution mechanics. Having more monsters show up is an overt introduction of new fictional content.

The difference between the two mightn't matter to everyone, or even to many, but it matters to some, including me. Here are three reasons: first, introducing new content is overt. The players can see what I (as GM) am doing. They can respond to it (with groans, with wry smiles, with complaints, as seems appropriate). That contributes to the social aspect of play, and also helps me (as GM) understand the effects that my decisions are having on play.

Second, new monsters are new fiction. They mean a change not just in mechanical difficulty, but in the fictional positioning of the PCs. The players can respond to this (via their PCs). It helps determine the shape the game takes. Here is an example of what I mean.

Third, new monsters (at least in some systems, such as 4e) which change the balance of the encounter do so in a way that feeds transparently into other aspects of the game (eg in 4e, the XP and milestone systems).

That's not to say that introducing new monsters is acceptable all the time or at all tables. In Gygaxian play, which is based around skillful planning and the deployment of limited resources, introducing new monsters can be as bad as fudging, because it undermines the players' earlier choices (about resource use, for instance). 4e is very different in this respect - while it does involve resource play, it doesn't have anything really analogous to a classic nova round or gank round. The players can't burn all their resources at once, and so bringing in new opponents might require them to dig deeper, but generally isn't in danger of invalidating/undermining earlier choices.

As I already, said, these differences obviously aren't salient to everyone. But I've tried to set out the context in which they are salient to me.

the difference between you and someone who modifies hit points on the fly is really just a matter of the scale at which modification happens.

I don't see anything to do with scale. It's about transparency vs secrecy, and the difference between action resolution and introducing new content into the shared fiction.

unless you show your players all "DM only stuff "at all times, they can't be sure you're not fudging.

I'm not sure this follows.

For instance, a GM might say to his/her group "I don't fudge." If the group know that the GM is in general a truth-telling person, then they can be sure s/he's not fudging without scrutinising him/her at every moment.

I'm curious, do you allow the players to look at the monster stats while you're playing? Do you tell them how many HP the monsters are currently at? Do you tell them the DCs of all checks before they roll? Do you let them read your notes for the game?

I find that very interesting, and to me not D&D at all.

In my 4e game, monster stats are knowable via skill checks (but these don't reveal hit points, although the players have got a pretty robust sense of rough hit point totals for the creatures their PCs face).

Whether or not I reveal hit point totals in the course of play I decide on a case-by-case basis. I do reveal when a monster becomes bloodied - that's a rule in 4e - but whether I reveal anything more detailed depends on whether I think it will improve the mood and "vibe" of the game. Sometimes if a monster is left on 1 hp it is fun to taunt the players! When Lolth had 307 hp left and the PCs had to reduce her to zero at interrupt speed before she discorporated, I let the players have a running total of her hit points because it added to the tension/suspense - would they hurt her enough?

On the DCs of checks, generally I tell them because they need to know whether or not they want to deploy resources to buff themselves.

No, I don't let the players read my notes. That would spoil the big reveals.

As to whether or not what I've described is D&D to you, it is D&D to me. People approach the game in different ways. That is why blanket claims can misfire, like the blanket claim that fudging dice, or hit points, is just another tool in the GM's toolbox.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because everyone else here has been talking about very arbitrary things, like "making a good story" or "making a good plan work even in a bad situation."

I'm sorry, but I feel like we're not going to have a good discussion about TTRPGs while you're calling attempting to create a good story "arbitrary". Since one of the underlying principles at many tables is to create a good story calling a "good story" arbitrary calls into question why tables like these even play at all because isn't everyone at the table using subjective methods of determining what they think is a good story?

So I'm really not interested in a discussion on the subject while you're calling one of the fundamental pillars of TTRPGing at many tables "arbitrary".

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm sorry, but I feel like we're not going to have a good discussion about TTRPGs while you're calling attempting to create a good story "arbitrary". Since one of the underlying principles at many tables is to create a good story calling a "good story" arbitrary calls into question why tables like these even play at all because isn't everyone at the table using subjective methods of determining what they think is a good story?

So I'm really not interesting in a discussion on the subject while you're calling one of the fundamental pillars of TTRPGing at many tables "arbitrary".

An rpg game is played and through the play that results we see an emerging story. When the story is forced onto a particular path divorced from the actual play that is supposed to generate it, then it IS either arbitrary (I didn't like where actual play was taking the game so I changed it) or engineered toward pre-defined ends ( I want the PCs to face the big bad over here at that time so it SHALL be so somehow)

Both of these techniques subvert actual play for the sake of a desired story. Some groups want story first and the game a distant second. Others just want to play the game to see what story will emerge from it.

 

[billd91]

I think we're seeing some misuse of the term arbitrary here. There are systemic elements of play that may generate the events of a story, but each event itself (as encapsulated in a die roll) is the very definition of arbitrary, while choosing an outcome based on a preferred outcome is not.

 

[KarinsDad]

Changing hit points is a covert manipulation of the action resolution mechanics. Having more monsters show up is an overt introduction of new fictional content.

The difference between the two mightn't matter to everyone, or even to many, but it matters to some, including me. Here are three reasons: first, introducing new content is overt. The players can see what I (as GM) am doing. They can respond to it (with groans, with wry smiles, with complaints, as seems appropriate). That contributes to the social aspect of play, and also helps me (as GM) understand the effects that my decisions are having on play.

Second, new monsters are new fiction. They mean a change not just in mechanical difficulty, but in the fictional positioning of the PCs. The players can respond to this (via their PCs). It helps determine the shape the game takes. Here is an example of what I mean.

Third, new monsters (at least in some systems, such as 4e) which change the balance of the encounter do so in a way that feeds transparently into other aspects of the game (eg in 4e, the XP and milestone systems).

That's not to say that introducing new monsters is acceptable all the time or at all tables. In Gygaxian play, which is based around skillful planning and the deployment of limited resources, introducing new monsters can be as bad as fudging, because it undermines the players' earlier choices (about resource use, for instance). 4e is very different in this respect - while it does involve resource play, it doesn't have anything really analogous to a classic nova round or gank round. The players can't burn all their resources at once, and so bringing in new opponents might require them to dig deeper, but generally isn't in danger of invalidating/undermining earlier choices.

As I already, said, these differences obviously aren't salient to everyone. But I've tried to set out the context in which they are salient to me.

I don't see anything to do with scale. It's about transparency vs secrecy, and the difference between action resolution and introducing new content into the shared fiction.

Precisely.

You have to remember, pemerton, that not everyone analyzes all aspects of the game (and gaming in general) as carefully and brilliantly as you do. While you see something as covert, someone else sees it as fudging (or even the more derogatory term cheating).

As a DM, I feel uncomfortable with changing hit points or fudging a die roll. In the case of the latter, dice rolls are the action resolution determinants of the game system. So changing the roll feels unfair to me personally as a DM, hence, I do not do it. If we did not need a die roll for the DM to make a given determination of action resolution, why is he rolling a die behind the screen? He's doing it to continue the illusion to the players that the normal action resolution mechanic is being used when in reality, it is not. Some people consider that misdirecting the players. But it is not always misdirecting them as to the scenario, rather to game mechanics. The game mechanics are the game mechanics and the DM changing them or ignoring them completely to purposely alter the course of events seems biased. That just feels wrong to me and I think you probably expressed it better than I could.

Note: there are times when the DM should pretend to be using the game mechanics when he is not to misdirect the players to the scenario, but those should be limited to unusual circumstances like when a PC is mind altered and the PC/player thinks he is doing one thing while the PC is doing another or some such. In other words, the scenario is not what the players think it is and following the normal game mechanic would give information to the players that they did not gain from the senses/skills of the PCs and should not have.


But adding hit points behind the scenes, in reality, is no different than saying that the earlier hits on this foes by the PC, didn't actually hit. Your earlier actions meant nothing. Your earlier damage meant nothing. Your earlier decisions meant nothing other than using up resources. Why? Because I as the all powerful DM has just erased that damage from the history of the game. Adding 20 more hit points to the monster is no different than subtracting 20 hits points from the damage that the PCs did to the monster earlier in the encounter. This is what it seems like, to me, when DMs modify the game mechanics (like adding hit points or fudging).

As a DM, if I am going to alternate the scenario on the fly, my preference is to do it like you mentioned, overtly, not covertly. That way, the players can see the change and react (and gain XP for the increased number of monsters or whatever).