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

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't understand the vehement anger against it either.

And I don't understand how people can put up with being intentionally deceived. To each their own.

Edit:
To clarify, I have no problem with a group that KNOWS fudging occurs and approves of it. You Game Your Way.

What I have a problem with is the sly, nudge-nudge-wink-wink recommended in the early books, where it says you SHOULD do this, both for and against the players, *and hide it because it will upset them,* AND *lie about it afterward.* If doing something is expected to upset some or all members of many or most groups, why is it suddenly okay to hide it and lie about it afterward?

As I've explained several times, my distaste for the mechanic--e.g. why I wouldn't use it and why, if asked, I would recommend others avoid using it--is that it denies the ability to make informed choices and develop an understanding of the game, to both parties. The DM doesn't learn to improve the challenges she designs; she learns how to apply ad-hoc "bandaids." Ad-hoc solutions can be very useful, and (IMO very rarely, but still sometimes) necessary. But it's no substitute for really learning how to work the system. Meanwhile the players don't learn what constitutes good decision-making, risk assessment, etc. Favoring them will deny them the ability to identify mistaken choices/over-dependence on dice, and may lead to developing "bad habits" of play. The reverse--favoring their enemies--will deny them the ability to identify good choices, and may cause them to lose or avoid "good habits" of play.

Thus, *very personally,* I think fudging is unwise and, if it is used at all, it should be sparing and done with an eye to resolve a problem quickly, while taking careful note of WHY the problem occurred in the first place so steps can be taken to avoid it in the future.

 

[Relax]

And I don't understand how people can put up with being intentionally deceived. To each their own.

Guess you've never played poker then...

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Guess you've never played poker then...

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

When playing poker, it is entirely up to YOU whether or not you are deceived. If you do trust the other players then you will lose rather quickly.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

One thing I think is not being made clear is that for the majority of people who advocate modifying hit points, monster tactics or other encounter features in situ, we do so pretty rarely. Basically it's an admition that you screwed up, so it's not something I like to do, and my guess is that that is true for most GMs also.

It's not a routine "I will balance all fights to be close" thing. It's a "oh bugger, this fight is way out of line with what I intended".

One person raised the cliche that the GM is "God" and so whatever he says goes. Without getting needlessly messianic, other characeterisctis of God are justice and mercy. Is it just to ruin players fun because you screwed up? Is it merciful?

Taking the analogy a bit further, the Christian bible is full of examples of god breaking the rules to make people happier. In fact, you could look at each miracle as an example of GM fudging ("no, look, Lazarus had more hit points, he wasn't dead -- he was just knocked out and recovered ...". Maybe Jesus was a 4e healer rather than a 3.5 one -- he does tend to 'shout people' back to health ... as a certain game designer has put it)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Reading through AD&D scenarios, I think I found a scenario where I agree that cheating or ret-conning would actually be okay for me as a player. It's not a fight scene though.

Fudging or Constructive Cheating
Imagine that during the course of the game, the player characters have just barely survived the climactic encounter with the Baron Skorditch, Wizardlord of the Kroolons, escaped with the cumbersome princess Natasia and discovered the lost secret of double-entry bookkeeping. All that stands between them and glory is 100 feet of corridor. Unfortunately, the DM had decided long ago (more likely at 3 A.M. the night before) that this corridor would be filled with deadly Snargon gas. Since none of the players thinks to check for traps, the DM secretly makes the die rolls for them. All-too-suddenly, the hot dicerolling that allowed the PCs to so handily overcome their earlier obstacles goes sour. No one detects the gas. If the party continues, they will all die! And, of course, they continue . . . While the DM should not feel that he must protect his precious plot lines or make sure that the desired outcome of a story takes place, he does have a responsibility to his players. He owes them a good time. Having the entire party wiped out as the denouement of an adventure is rarely considered a good time. In situations like these, it's OK for the DM to cheat.

As a DM I have other ways to handle this (I'd kill them all but then let them use karma points to retconn that experience as a vivid futuristic dream/premonition if they wanted--in return, the bad guys get karma points of their own). However, as a player, if I found out my DM had just alerted at least one PC to the poison gas, in contravention of the die rolls, I wouldn't be outraged.

P.S. Note however that the sourcebook has a better solution than just ignoring the die rolls.

At the other extreme, the DM could just say to himself "there's no trap here" and let the PCs proceed on their way, not realizing that the DM just compromised his design to let them live. This too is a mistake, because by doing so, the DM has assumed that the players are unable to deal with challenges. A wiser solution would be to suggest to the players that something does not seem right in the corridor ahead or to let an NPC reveal the trap, even though it costs his life. The DM might even improvise an ambush attack that diverts the characters to another exit.

I agree with the sourcebook that this is still ("constructive") cheating, and yet I think it's a reasonable way to deal with the situation that wouldn't upset me.

 

[iserith]

Reading through AD&D scenarios, I think I found a scenario where I agree that cheating or ret-conning would actually be okay for me as a player. It's not a fight scene though.

I would say that the DM in that example failed to telegraph the potential threat of the Snargon gas trap e.g. "There is a faint hissing..." or "There is an odd smell in the air..." or "There is a desiccated corpse in the corridor, its hands clutching its own throat..." The players seemed to have simply forgotten their rote adventuring procedure of "If corridor, then search because gotchas" which was a hallmark of gaming at that time and still exists with some groups to this day. Had the DM telegraphed the threat, it would have provided a fair chance for the players to meaningfully interact with the environment, possibly finding and disarming the trap if they make good decisions and rolls. Then the DM wouldn't have had to worry about fudging to avoid a "gotcha" trap blindsiding the players after a hard-earned victory.

Also, I guess we also have passive Perception now. So as long as the adventurers weren't doing something that took away from their ability to detect hidden threats, then they'd at least have that as a backup if noticing the trap was a possibility with an uncertain outcome.

Edit to make note of your edit: It seems that telegraphing was something that source book advocated as well. Nice to see that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would say that the DM in that example failed to telegraph the potential threat of the Snargon gas trap e.g. "There is a faint hissing..." or "There is an odd smell in the air..." or "There is a desiccated corpse in the corridor, its hands clutching its own throat..."

Not necessarily. It sounds like he was initially intending to rely on die rolls to determine whether the PCs noticed the hissing, and only when every single PC failed did it occur to him that having no one pick up on it leads to an unintended outcome (auto-death for everyone) which he needs to somehow avert.

I'm a big believer in telegraphing, but sometimes that should be generic telegraphing like "we're in an evil wizard's lair" and not "uh-oh, you hear footsteps." Otherwise there's no reward for PCs who are observant/cautious. I agree though that deadly threats need to be telegraphed to be fun. In 5E I'd make the Snargon gas trap a knockout gas, so that "everyone fails" leads to "everyone falls unconscious until they take damage," which could lead to "you get robbed" or "scavengers try to eat you" but not to instant untelegraphed death. In the real world, "step on a landmine and die without warning" is perfectly realistic and fair, but in the game that would probably be unfair to the players and I'd default to avoiding it unless I could think of a way to telegraph it beforehand. Niven's Law states: "it is a sin to waste the [player's] time."

 

[iserith]

Not necessarily. It sounds like he was initially intending to rely on die rolls to determine whether the PCs noticed the hissing, and only when every single PC failed did it occur to him that having no one pick up on it leads to an unintended outcome (auto-death for everyone) which he needs to somehow avert.

I'm a big believer in telegraphing, but sometimes that should be generic telegraphing like "we're in an evil wizard's lair" and not "uh-oh, you hear footsteps." Otherwise there's no reward for PCs who are observant/cautious. I agree though that deadly threats need to be telegraphed to be fun. In 5E I'd make the Snargon gas trap a knockout gas, so that "everyone fails" leads to "everyone falls unconscious until they take damage," which could lead to "you get robbed" or "scavengers try to eat you" but not to instant untelegraphed death. In the real world, "step on a landmine and die without warning" is perfectly realistic and fair, but in the game that would probably be unfair to the players and I'd default to avoiding it unless I could think of a way to telegraph it beforehand. Niven's Law states: "it is a sin to waste the [player's] time."

I agree with your assessment, but the example is pretty clear:

"Since none of the players thinks to check for traps, the DM secretly makes the die rolls for them. All-too-suddenly, the hot dicerolling that allowed the PCs to so handily overcome their earlier obstacles goes sour. No one detects the gas. If the party continues, they will all die!"

In a D&D 5e context, the DM didn't telegraph and compared passive Perception to the DC to detect the trap. A gotcha would ensue... after all, the silly players didn't remember to muddle through their rote procedures and must pay, unless the DM fudges. Or, "constructively cheats." Which by modern standards just means giving the players a fair chance to make a decision - good or bad - in the face of the DM describing the environment fairly.

 

[pemerton]

One person raised the cliche that the GM is "God" and so whatever he says goes. Without getting needlessly messianic, other characeterisctis of God are justice and mercy. Is it just to ruin players fun because you screwed up? Is it merciful?

Taking the analogy a bit further, the Christian bible is full of examples of god breaking the rules to make people happier. In fact, you could look at each miracle as an example of GM fudging

I don't think this has been ignored. But there are other ways to handle this possibility, which appeal to other preferences.

For instance, the players can be given fate points to boost or deliver auto-saves; the players can have the retconning "karma points" that [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] describes; etc. GM fudging isn't the only way to allow the sort of "rulebreaking" you describe.

In 4e, these sorts of fate points are built right into the PC build system; for instance, in my game today the player of the fighter used his encounter power that lets him convert a stun result into a dazed result instead, thereby avoiding being completely taken out in the first round of a fight.

Note however that the sourcebook has a better solution than just ignoring the die rolls.

I have a much stronger preference for the approach of rewriting the corridor description.

In some ways it's similar to Gygax's discussion of wandering monster rolls in his DMG: if the players are playing well, and the wanderer rolls nevertheless deliver, through fickle chance, an overwhelming encounter, Gygax gives the OK to ignoring the roll. But he says it would be contrary to the tenets of the game to have the wanderers turn up and then fudge the rolls/hp to allow the PCs to beat them!

I see this as drawing the distinction I and others have drawn above between content introduction and action resolution.

Personally I wouldn't use the "telegraphing" approach, I don't think, but I can see how that would work for a certain sort of "skillled play" approach, where the players are expecting to use their skill, detection magic, 10' poles, etc, and are equally expected to tolerate losing PCs if they slip up in their standard operating procedures.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Of course, Gygax is also widely quoted as saying, "A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make," and, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."