D&D 5E Keepiing Current HP from players...

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I have run with the players not even having their character sheets in front of them, just a list of what equipment their character is carrying and whatever special powers the character had. This was AD&D 2nd, so the information not present wasn't actually all that much. All dice rolls and all mechanical tracking was handled by me behind the DM screen.

I noticed two things while running the game this way:

First, that the characters doing anything tended to take a lot longer because the players always had to get information from me that they'd normally just see on their sheet (i.e. "He's hurt, but does he look cure light wounds hurt, or like cure serious wounds hurt?" and "Remind me again, how badly beat up am I currently?"), and because I was doing six times the amount of bookkeeping as normal.

Second, that the players played extremely reserved and cautious, when that normally wasn't their style, because not having solid information how they were doing made them all default to assuming their characters to be nearly dead. They'd give up on the adventure and retreat to rest up to full after just a couple damage-dealing events because they couldn't be sure about my description of their character's current condition they way that they could look down, see 30 hp left, and say "Yeah, that's pretty good, we can press on."

So it hindered the game-play more than it enhanced it, meaning it wasn't really worth it in my opinion.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Boxer: yes. D&D characters: definitely not boxers. A boxer knows...well I'm not a boxer. But having taken a few punches, I know that when the world gets wobbly, or your vision starts to fade, it's a bad sign. However, even at 1 hp, a D&D character takes no penalty on his perception checks, nor athletics as far as I know. So, are you still sure about this?

Someone wearing plate armor, who is being struck by ogre clubs and greatswords, is taking the same sort of trauma that a boxer is. Just because we don't reflect that injury with penalties to perception or athletics, that doesn't mean no injury exists; it just means that it's not worth modeling, for any one of many valid reasons. (In 5E, the typical reasoning is that the penalty isn't significant enough to trigger disadvantage, and any penalty less severe than that is minor enough that we can ignore it.)

Ultimately, we know that loss-of-HP is something that characters can observe and make decisions about, because the game expects them to do so, and it wouldn't be able to make that suggestion if HP was just plot armor or luck. If hit points were just something intangible, of which the characters were unaware, then the rules would tell the DM to keep that information away from the players.

 

[Lanefan]

Every "hit" is not a literal hit and anything to the counter gets silly very fast.

Quick - somebody put those worms back in the can before the fightin' starts...

Lan-"a hit is not a hit and a miss is not a hit - problem is, I can't find any other way to hurt you"-efan

 

[pukunui]

Though in most situations a wizard doesn't exactly have loads of time to size up the opponents

Hey, this is a game in which a peasant has an even chance of stopping someone from dying - regardless of cause and with no specialized equipment or training - in less than six seconds! When you're as smart as the average wizard, you don't *need* loads of time to size up your opponents. Heck, you've probably done it a thousand times in your head already.

Because D&D characters don't get hurt. They just lose HP, and then they fall down.

Why then does the game bother to specify what kind of damage a character has taken? What is happening to the character being bludgeoned and pierced by an otyugh's tentacle? How can a character become poisoned if the otyugh has not actually bitten them? How does a bearded devil deal you an infernal wound with its glaive if it hasn't actually cut your flesh with it?

I'm OK with saying that not all HP represent physical (or mental) trauma, but some definitely do, as evidenced by the preponderance of monster abilities that really can't be described in any other way than to say a physical (or mental) wound has been inflicted upon your character.

 

[Li Shenron]

Rule 1: Monster Damage is hidden from players. Hits will be narrated by the DM but damage numbers not given.
Rule 2: Players will only be told when their hp is at hp maximum so they don't waste resource for nothing at that point. Players will know their hp maximum since their is no way to hide that from them.

So I think it would be fun to run a game this way sometime. Has anyone ever tried? What was your experience? If you haven't would you like playing in a game with these rules or not?

I personally think it would do a lot to give uncertainty and fear to the players for their characters which D&D currently lacks. My hope is it would lead to more immersion by diminishing the unnatural safety net that hp represents for players playing their characters.

I haven't used the idea, but I am quite sure that it works fine... as also does the opposite i.e. telling the players every stats of the monster

It's really about the feel of the game, and to shift player's attention to different parts of the game. If you reveal everything, the players will start reasoning more in terms of numbers and make decisions based on their math skills. If you hide everything, the players will let the game flow with some guessing but without thinking too much. Which solution is more interesting/exciting depends on preference.

 

[Waterbizkit]

I've got no interest in this as a DM or as a player.

It may be getting repetitive, but first and foremost I don't need all the extra HP tracking as a DM. That said, I consider that the least of my worries. Under this system my players are now heavily relying on me to accurately describe just how beat up they are so they can make an informed decision about pushing forward, stopping to heal up or outright tucking tail and running. I don't need that added stress. I like to think I'm a solid DM, but it seems as though this is something that's just going to get tedious as it elicits questions of "Yeah, but how hurt am I really?"

As a player I simply wouldn't appreciate having what I consider an important piece of information about my character being taken away from me under the pretence that it'll somehow be more immersive. It won't. It'll cause me to play differently and constantly question the DM about my characters status while at the same time trying to decipher what DMs descriptions actually mean. I'd play far more cautiously and be far more prone to running for the hills or leaving downed party-members to their fate since I'll have no true idea where my character is at. That's just not something I'd be interested in.

So in short, I don't see this as a way to create a more immersive experience at all. I see it as a way to slow down the game as players become overly cautious, the DM ends up with yet more numbers to track, and the flow of the game is regularly interrupted as the players ask for clarification on just how hurt they really are since no description a DM can give is going to be as definitive as... you know... a number.

Still, have fun with it if you think it'll work for your group and the more power to you if it works out well. It wouldn't for me or my group.

 

[Mecheon]

They don't and why should they. How does a wizard know what level slot to expend on fireball to kill the enemies you are currently facing?

Wasting the party's resources for low to minimum gain doesn't seem like the best of ideas

I'll be honest, I get where you're coming from, but I don't see it adding much. Side, 5E is swingy enough in places that even knowing how much HP you have isn't going to help the fact you don't know what the enemy's going to pull out

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is a not-uncommon idea. I think anyone who played significantly during the eighties or nineties will have tried this at least once. It's not as much fun as it sounds. I've never seen it hold for more than a session before the DM relents.

Yep. My first notice of this concept was in the 1st Edition PHB. Unfortunately Gary didn't give much more advice than your character feeling "strong", "fatigued", or "very weak."

It sounded like a fun concept to most groups I knew or played with. But in practice it became old fast. It takes either a lot of creativity on the part of the DM to provide a variety of descriptions, which is worse than the bookkeeping aspect IMO because you have to be "always on", and players that are perceptive of those descriptions. Any gap in your descriptive skill vs. the player's perception that leads to loss is going to cause out-of-game tension, not the in-game tension you're seeking. Or, the descriptions become so standardized, like the suggested "strong", "fatigued", or "very weak," that players basically know how many hit points they have anyway, so you might as well give them the actual number.

In light of modern game design, this approach robs the players of the agency they've gained over time. This idea could be suggested to a group of players in the late 70's/early 80's with less chance of questioning it. The DM was referee and you followed his rules. All players have been placed on a more level playing field now with the DM as facilitator. I wouldn't be surprised to encounter resistance from anyone who hasn't been playing for 30+ years and, even with that level of play experience, anyone who has embraced the modern take on RPGs.

But you're going to do what you want. You can take advice from the multitudes here telling you it's a bad idea, or you can find out the hard way. Who knows? You may be in the "1%" (disclaimer: not a real statistic) of groups that enjoy this method of play.

 

[LordEntrails]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION]
Look, it sounds like you are hooked on this idea no matter what people say. Anyone who disagrees with you and states a reason you try to invalidate it. Were you just trying to get reasons to justify this to your players?

Some people say it might work. Others have actual experience and have told you what happened when they tried this. Other are telling you why they don't like it and how it would make them feel as players.

It's your call. Good luck and hope your players enjoy it as much as you think they should.

 

[CydKnight]

I would have to pass as a player and a DM.

As a player I have to rely on the DM's description in order for me to estimate my HP level. His interpretation of the extent of injury may differ from mine which means I may not be able to make as informed a decision on my turn as I would like. Seeing a numerical value for my HP going down each time I am hit has a different meaning to me than it does to the DM especially since I may (gasp) have an emotional tie to my character that the DM does not. It also allows fellow party members to gauge how the extent of your injuries so they can make an informed decision on whether to spend an action on their turn to heal your or not and whether to use certain reactions or not.

When a DM controls this mechanic to the extent described by the OP, he/she is effectively controlling the player's characters in this aspect. As a DM I do not want that responsibility and I don't want the additional work to keep track of it. The players should have every reasonable piece of information available to make an informed decision about how to game their player. I feel it is more than reasonable that a player should know precisely how many hit points of damage it receives.