D&D 5E Average damage or rolled damage?

[Lanefan]

Not sure if this thread is still talking about the topic but I've been using average damage to speed things up a bit, my player's are fine with it and there is still some uncertainty with random crits.

Yeah, we've wandered a bit but that's not unusual; and it's still interesting.

As for average damage, I never use it; the variability of rolling can and often does add to the drama. I don't bother rolling starting hit points for monsters any more, though; I just arbitrarily choose instead as from the players' side of the screen it probably doesn't make any difference.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

I think the real mistake here is to intervene because you believe someone else's character has no reason to do his particular action. A player should be able to have her character do what they want him/her to do, regardless of what the player knows.

Maybe I want to attack the troll with fire, because I (the player) know it is weak to fire. Maybe I want to attack it, simply because it is covered in fur, and there's a campfire right there. Maybe I want to use fire, because most animals are afraid of fire. What does it matter, and why would the DM get involved in the first place? Save yourself all these headaches, and don't play thought-police.

Does your encounter rely purely on the gotcha that the players don't know about the regeneration of trolls, or that you need a wooden stake against vampires, or silver against werewolves? I don't build my encounters like that, and thus do not worry about what I think my players' characters do or do not know.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't understand why being open about the hitpoints of a monster would damage immersion. In the end, does is not boil down to storytelling?

When I run a campaign, I don't tell my players literally how many HP a monster has left, but I do describe to them how wounded a monster looks. They can tell if a monster is at death's door, or still full of life. I assume that in any real battle scenario, you would be able to see the injuries of your opponents. I do try to keep it real though. An undead is hard to determine, since it is already a wandering corpse, and a ghost makes it impossible. A fully armored enemy may have wounds underneath his armor that make it difficult to tell how much health he has left (although his movements could give away whether he is about to topple). And sometimes I ask for a skill check, if the severity of the wounds is difficult to assess.

What you've described is exactly what I prefer. Tell me what I can see as a player. Tell me how shaky the monster looks. How bloody. That aids immersion.

Don't tell me "the monster has 17 hit points left." That damages immersion.

It's about how you convey the information, as much as what you convey.

 

[Lanefan]

What you've described is exactly what I prefer. Tell me what I can see as a player.

I'd rather be told what I can see as a character; as a player I can already see a bunch of people rolling dice at a table.

Tell me how shaky the monster looks. How bloody. That aids immersion.

Don't tell me "the monster has 17 hit points left." That damages immersion.

Agreed.

Lan-"one of my pet peeves around here is people saying 'player' when they really mean 'character'"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How? Discovering something through trial and error is a lot different than already having that knowledge going in; and what you're saying seems to want to completely remove the "error" factor.

I think you've grown confused. I'm not talking about discovering things through trial and error vs. already having the knowledge; I'm talking about two players both role-playing their character as trying the same action because they are guessing it will work for the result the character is trying to get - and one of them having the DM say "Nope, you don't get to do that." because of what the player, not their character, is thinking.

Inasmuch as I'm forcing experienced players to role-play their rookie characters like rookie characters, then yes; and I'll go on doing so thank you very much.

Rookies can guess, or try random ideas to see how they work out - and if you don't prevent me as an experienced player from role-playing a rookie that is guessing or trying something for the first time to see if it works, then you aren't doing the thing I am talking about in the quoted portion of my post you are responding to.

And most if not all half-decent players are perfectly fine with this.

This looks like you are trying to say I'm not a half-decent player, which I have to agree with: I'm full-decent as a player, and even better than that as a DM.

 

[Dausuul]

DMs who notice players metagaming to exploit monster weaknesses have a much better solution than trying to police player behavior: Just change the assumptions the player is operating on.

Who says fire and acid are the essential weapons against trolls? Maybe trolls in your world are vulnerable to thunder and lightning instead - they were cursed by the god of storms. What the PC does (absent magical compulsion) is firmly within the player's domain, and DMs should be very hesitant to interfere. However, the traits of monsters are just as firmly within the DM's domain.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you've grown confused. I'm not talking about discovering things through trial and error vs. already having the knowledge; I'm talking about two players both role-playing their character as trying the same action because they are guessing it will work for the result the character is trying to get - and one of them having the DM say "Nope, you don't get to do that." because of what the player, not their character, is thinking.

Rookies can guess, or try random ideas to see how they work out - and if you don't prevent me as an experienced player from role-playing a rookie that is guessing or trying something for the first time to see if it works, then you aren't doing the thing I am talking about in the quoted portion of my post you are responding to.

I think in both these points it comes down to intent that can only be read - but is sometimes pretty obvious - at the individual table at the time: whether an experienced player is doing action X (e.g. avoiding the gaze of a Basilisk on meeting one for the very first time) only because she-as-player already knows it's the right thing to do when the character has no in-game reason to know to do this?

Lan-"sometimes the best monsters to meet are those the DM has invented herself"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

I think in both these points it comes down to intent that can only be read - but is sometimes pretty obvious - at the individual table at the time: whether an experienced player is doing action X (e.g. avoiding the gaze of a Basilisk on meeting one for the very first time) only because she-as-player already knows it's the right thing to do when the character has no in-game reason to know to do this?

Why would this be a problem?

 

[Lanefan]

Why would this be a problem?

::facepalm::

If you want to have it this way, where player knowledge always equals character knowledge, then your low-level parties suddenly have a lot more going for them than they probably should; not least of which is that some who probably otherwise would die will survive due to player knowledge exceeding character knowledge. Also, any sense of being able to role-play the painful bits of the journey of discovery a low-level character undergoes during its career kinda goes out the window as much of the risk is removed.

Lan-"amused to be arguing with you in two threads at the same time"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

::facepalm::
If you want to have it this way, where player knowledge always equals character knowledge, then your low-level parties suddenly have a lot more going for them than they probably should;

Do challenges in your campaigns really have to rely on gotchas to pose a challenge?

I find plenty of ways to challenge my players, regardless of what they know, or think they know about the game.

not least of which is that some who probably otherwise would die will survive due to player knowledge exceeding character knowledge.

If a player dies because his character did not know that a Beholder has a deathray, then how is that in any way good for the campaign? I'd rather have my players know what a Beholder can do in advance, and plan around it. That does not negate the challenge of fighting a Beholder.

Also, any sense of being able to role-play the painful bits of the journey of discovery a low-level character undergoes during its career kinda goes out the window as much of the risk is removed.

None of this has to undermine the story telling or role playing one bit. What player is still excited to have their character learn that a troll is weak to fire? I'd rather engage my players with an intriguing plot, and well designed dungeons and encounters, rather than those classic D&D gotcha moments. I'm beyond that.