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

[Mercule]

I did this in a World of Darkness game, back in the 1990s. In fact, I kept all character stats from the players and rolled all the dice. It worked really, really well and everyone enjoyed it. Now, WoD is intended to be a much more immersive game than D&D. Also, we only did this once, as an experiment, and with the first WoD game most in the group had experienced. Once people started buying the books, joining second groups, etc., they had a hard time just letting the numbers out of their minds. So, while it worked extremely well for that one campaign/chronicle, we never repeated it.

As far as D&D goes, the game is so combat driven and the hit point mechanic is so abstract, especially as you level up, that I would not recommend it. If that sort of thing is important to you, play a different game system. Seriously.

Now, what I do, to avoid too much calculation on the part of the players is this:
* Players get to know their own HPs. They track them, etc. I do, too, but only because I've got a handy-dandy initiative app on my tablet and I'm already using it to track the monsters.
* All damage and healing numbers are thrown out into the open. By this, I mean that it's a game and we don't try to hide information that's being exchanged as part of the game ("I rolled 5 damage").
* Monster HPs are hidden from the players. Borrowing from 4E, "Bloodied" (half hit points) is announced to the table. This tells the players they're making pretty good progress.
* Monster HPs are randomized, not standard. Again, this is made easier because I use a tool. The tool also makes it trivial to do individual initiative instead of by monster type.
* PCs may spend an action using the Medical skill to get a more accurate assessment of where damage sits. I give the players an eyeballed percentage of where the monster is (i.e. 39 left of 60 max is going to get a "taken 1/3 of his damage" from me). No one has ever even asked for a bunch of mooks, just BBEGs, so I might be talked into getting a nearest quartile for all monsters.
* Players announce their own "Bloodied" status. Otherwise, the Cleric (or whomever might care) is generally free to ask where folks are sitting. In practice, the players generally give more narrative answers or, at least, percentile answers. I assume this is because of the tone set by how I handle monsters. I don't make any prohibitions about sharing numbers between players.
* Players figure out monster AC by trial and error. It usually doesn't take very long before they figure out "AC 13 misses, but AC 14 hits". At that point, we just deal with the numbers. Before then, I do describe what kind of armor a humanoid is wearing or whether a beast appears to have thick hide, etc.

The overall impact of the above is that the monsters always retain a certain level of mystery to the players. They're smart and can make some educated guesses about things. They could also track damage to monsters and, based on bloodied, know how much more needed to be done, but they don't care enough. There's very little cost -- increased complexity or slow down of play -- to these table rules.

Most of us have been playing for 20 or more years, some as much as 35. We all know we're never going to get back the wonder of the first time we fought a troll and had to figure out we had to use fire. We are still learning the intricacies of the 5E rules, and open to letting subtle changes and restatting be a surprise and add back some of the wonder. But, once things get sorted out in play, we move on with life and don't try to pretend we're ignorant of something we aren't. It's a balance.

 

[GMMichael]

(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

Well said, x2. Disadvantage on all rolls after 50% HP (maybe physical rolls only?) would be a great way to say "hey, you're wounded" . . .
but the game expects players to know how many hit points they have, and is very much written around that idea (which is why we've seen so many arguments against HP hiding in this thread).

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.

#1 reason that the game specifies types of damage: because other rules allow resistance to specific types of damage. Alignment exists for the same reason.

Poisoned is an exception to the hit points/wounds problem. There are actual rules for being poisoned. When a character gets poisoned in-game, it's modeled by the rules. This doesn't exist for more typical injuries. (Sorry, I don't know how infernal wounds work, but it sounds like a horrible condition to have!)

The problem though: I'm not saying that a character hasn't had a wound inflicted. I'm saying that the wound has no effect but to make a number go down (hit points). It's not a problem with the game, but it is a problem for the GM trying to keep hit points behind the curtain, because it means his description of the character's condition (in place of hit points) is completely arbitrary.

 

[pdzoch]

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.

In regards to rule #1. Players know how much damage they roll on a damage die, but they do not know what that damage means to the monster other than a narrative. I do inform them that based on their character's training, the damage felt by the monster was more or less than they expected their blow to have dealt (accounts for resistance and vulnerabilities) or seems to have no effect at all (immunity). We carried over the "bloodied" description to describe a monster below half HP. However, they do not know how many HP a monster has or has left. Though, I still have one player who keeps count of HP damage done to a monster (I do not know why he does it, but it may be a carry over from his wargaming days)

In regards to Rule #2. Players are intimately familiar with their capabilities -- they know their ability scores, their ability bonuses, skill bonuses, armor class, etc. This informs their decisions during the game. The character knows if he is a dummy on history and will not waste his time trying to use that skill when another approach is more likely to be successful. HP is the same way. The players know about how healthy they are in a fight and if they are willing to risk certain actions that threaten their health. I do keep track of player HP also, but it is a lot of work. I try not to let it influence my monster decisions, but honestly, it does (I found that the less I know about the player HP, the more honest my monster actions are).

I think that my players suffer enough fear and anxiety by just knowing that they are low on HP (and low on heal capacity) and still have some encounters to go before it is safe again. Hiding player data from the players does not seem to add more to that other than possible distrust of the DM. That would be an element that I am not interested in adding to my game.

 

[billd91]

Back when I ran AD&D in middle school, I usually kept track of the PC hit points. It didn't add a significant burden on top of the other stuff I was doing, but I also didn't hide how many hit points everyone had. I'd announce them. Trying to hide that information is something we've dabbled with, but the downside of miscommunication was a problem - and a very difficult one to deal with.

These days, there's a lot more complexity going on with PCs, pools of abilities, healing options, and so on that it's more of a burden for the DM to keep track of all that. I would only consider doing so if it was proving too much of a burden for my PCs to keep track of. I do it in online games I run, mainly by posting status updates on each PC, because the length of time it takes to resolve fights makes it hard to remain in touch with everyone's current status if it's not recorded in the game. But around the table, I usually don't have to sweat it.

 

[Guest 6801718]

I've never tried rules like this, in all my many years of gaming. It's just not something that would appeal to my group. Really though, if the players have all their character info but HP, it's just shifting the HP tracking from player to GM. It won't do anything to improve immersion in the adventure. What does improve immersion is all those descriptions you give. You can still be descriptive in your combats and really draw the players in. HP tracking is just numbers. So if you want the group to really be immersed in what's happening just give them a lot of detail and description. Nothing else is needed. Let players keep agency of their characters. The GM sets the stage and that determines how attached the group is to the adventure. These rules seems like added work for the GM, which slows down the game and takes people out of the game.

So just be descriptive. That's really all it takes for some good immersion. You can add in some music if you like. Trying to change the game aspects of D&D won't do anything to make the experience more immersive. The mechanics are just there to resolve combat and challenges. The immersion comes from a good story and good descriptions on everyone's part.

 

[robus]

If I was going to try and make a system that was more gritty I might tie it into the exhaustion system.

Treat hit points as a general "fight" level. The lower the hit points the less "fight" remaining in the character. When you get to 0 you start to become exhausted. Each hit you take once you're at 0 HP increases your exhaustion level by 1. (A crit at this point would naturally take you straight to level 6 exhaustion).

By using the exhaustion rules the character is now really having limitations imposed upon them by the relentless attacks - they actually become weaker, flailing wildly trying to stay alive.

Once you're at level 6 you don't immediately die, but you do start making death saving throws.

This sounds kind of cool now I write it out

 

[akr71]

Consider these 2 scenarios. The first uses the normal rules of hp.

You are low on hp and know it. Do you suddenly become cautious or do you "throw caution to the wind" as you put it. My bet is that you have your character stop throwing caution to the wind and start acting very cautiously.

The second uses these rules.

You are low on hp and don't know it. What you do know is that you have been hit a few times. You naturally play slightly more cautiously than otherwise. However, comparing this scenario to the above one you are far more likely to play your character more like he has been playing the whole time.

I suppose it depends mostly on what you are looking for. A lot also depends on how you envision hp. If hp is a healthy does of luck with a small bit stamina and a small bit bodily injury then it makes tons of sense to play the same way not matter your hp. If HP is bodily injury and stamina then you definitely should be intimately aware of how injured and out of breath you are. But i'm really trying to avoid the "what is hp" discussion here in this thread. But mentioning how someone sees it shouldn't be problematic.

I dunno, I don't think it fits my play style. I like knowing my HP. I give a description of my health to my party members when they ask, rather than a number.

 

[Illithidbix]

I have done something similar and played in (other) games that have done this, and I think it worked well.

... However I don't think D&D is a good system for this. It has quite a focus on precise resource management (esp. regarding hit points and healing), and the DM already has plenty to keep track off.
For that sorta game I'd use a simpler system.

 

[MNblockhead]

This is how many started playing the game in the early days. Rolling dice and tracking damage was the purview of the referee. Quickly, however, this was given up in most RPGs. Having your stats in front of you and making your own roles makes you more invested in your character. Despite this style of play being part of the game in the early days, it now wouldn't feel like D&D to me.

If I want the kind of game you are describing, I would use another system. If suspense is really what you want to build in your game, get rid of HP altogether and use a simple system like Dread or Grin. I prefer Grin because Dread makes success based on the real-life physical dexterity and steadiness of hand of the player. Grin is based on a card draw. I find that in all these suspense games, players are rewarded for being awfully careful. Most D&D adventures just wouldn't work well with this system. You would have to be very adept at adapting on the fly or would need to rewrite the adventures to fit that play style, or write your own. Better to just use another system than to try to shoehorn this into D&D.

To echo almost everyone above, I wouldn't want to play this way as a DM or player. I'm happy letting my players track all there stats and initiative. I'm looking for more things I can let my players take over, so that I can focus on the story and running the monsters and NPCs.

As a player, I would be either frustrated or bored with this approach and would not stay in a campaign run this way.

All that said, I am all for using a wacky mechanic for a specific encounter or even a session to create a very different feel. But it needs to be temporary and sparingly and works best in a long-term campaign of standard play. Even then it can be hard to pull off and I would make sure that I'm prepared to switch to standard play if the players do not seem into it.

 

[robus]

This does seem a good thread to link to the AngryGMs related article: http://theangrygm.com/fighting-spirit/