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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Because for me at least, the DM retconning an entire encounter seems far more disruptive then behind the scenes adjusting of an encounter. Maybe it is just that your experiences of bad fudging have led you to believe it can't be done well?

It's more short-term disruptive, yes. But the long-term repercussions are less. Either is to be avoided if possible, but fudging can destroy enjoyment of a whole campaign (even the scenes where you didn't actually fudge) and not just a scene. Depends on the player of course, but right now I'm strongly considering quitting a campaign because the evil archlich who casts 10th level spells and destroys armies of high-level characters went up against a lone PC, played stupidly, and then died in a fistfight, showing only a fraction of the power he had against the party united. I'll give the DM a chance to show cohesion (maybe the treasure we walked off with is his phylactery and it was all a setup), but if the lich really "died" that easily, I suspect fudging (a.k.a. Heisenfoes), and that ruins enjoyment. We'll see though.

 

[CM]

True group nirvana occurs when the players know you sometimes fudge things and they trust that you do it to make the game even more interesting/exciting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Random aside...am I the only one who runs character death the following way:

1. Let the dice fall where they may.
2. I will never permanently take your character away from you (unless you're okay with it). Resurrection is always an option.

?

Ummm. It depends what you mean by "always an option." I don't have a policy of resurrection--that's why I have my players make character trees--but when my group had our first PC death, the players started asking about resurrection and I was like, "sure, you've got the body, so potentially. You split the party so the cleric isn't here for immediate Revivify, so you could spend the next few days hunting beholders to power-level the cleric up to 9th before the time window on Raise Dead ends, or make reviving Nox a long-term goal and Resurrect him as soon as the cleric hits 14." So I was all set to apply consequences of their decisions and take the PC out of the campaign (semi-?) permanently.

But the player was pretty down about it, and he's pretty new. He was saying things like, "if I'd known that Fear didn't make you run away, I wouldn't have cast Phantasmal Killer on the Slaad," and "I thought there was no way off the roof because you didn't say I could climb down." So I ended up giving the players a Mulligan in exchange for a karma point (bad guys get a Mulligan too, in some future scene).

So apparently I'm a big softie and will let you keep your character if you really want to, for a price. Who knew?

 

[travathian]

It's more short-term disruptive, yes. But the long-term repercussions are less. Either is to be avoided if possible, but fudging can destroy enjoyment of a whole campaign (even the scenes where you didn't actually fudge) and not just a scene. Depends on the player of course, but right now I'm strongly considering quitting a campaign because the evil archlich who casts 10th level spells and destroys armies of high-level characters went up against a lone PC, played stupidly, and then died in a fistfight, showing only a fraction of the power he had against the party united. I'll give the DM a chance to show cohesion (maybe the treasure we walked off with is his phylactery and it was all a setup), but if the lich really "died" that easily, I suspect fudging (a.k.a. Heisenfoes), and that ruins enjoyment. We'll see though.

You basically just proved my point. Based on your post, either your DM isn't very good, or just isn't very good at fudging, so your opinion is based solely on bad experiences. Maybe the reason you claim you have never experienced a good DM fudging is because they were so good at it . . . you never knew they did it . . . *queue X-files music*

 

[The Human Target]

It's more short-term disruptive, yes. But the long-term repercussions are less. Either is to be avoided if possible, but fudging can destroy enjoyment of a whole campaign (even the scenes where you didn't actually fudge) and not just a scene. Depends on the player of course, but right now I'm strongly considering quitting a campaign because the evil archlich who casts 10th level spells and destroys armies of high-level characters went up against a lone PC, played stupidly, and then died in a fistfight, showing only a fraction of the power he had against the party united. I'll give the DM a chance to show cohesion (maybe the treasure we walked off with is his phylactery and it was all a setup), but if the lich really "died" that easily, I suspect fudging (a.k.a. Heisenfoes), and that ruins enjoyment. We'll see though.

That's just terrible DMing.

Don't blame Da Fudge!

Fudging is "Oh that PC just missed his disable trap check by 2 points of the DC I set. But the poor guy hasn't disabled a trap successfully in a while, so I'll give it to him."

What you describe is crazy pants.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You basically just proved my point. Based on your post, either your DM isn't very good, or just isn't very good at fudging, so your opinion is based solely on bad experiences. Maybe the reason you claim you have never experienced a good DM fudging is because they were so good at it . . . you never knew they did it . . . *queue X-files music*

Well, maybe. Or maybe I'm the only player who noticed[1]. Or maybe he wasn't fudging at all, and the lich really had some extreme ego problems that prevented him from disengaging even when it would make sense (target has Globe of Invulnerability IX up), and he had used up all his good spells on earlier battles of the day. Which illustrates the point I was making: introducing fudging into your game can ruin a whole campaign (for certain players), including scenes where you may not really be fudging at all!

You're postulating "good" fudging which is so good that it doesn't ruin anything--but in what way would that be superior to just not fudging at all?

[1] Remember, you're getting the story from me, the guy who is a simulationist. I watch a cutscene of an archlich destroying an army, I think, "Wow, that lich is scary, scary strong!" and then I expect the lich to be able to do that same thing in play. Other players who are more about narrativism might not have the same expectations for show/tell correspondence, and might not be so blase about the battle I described as "a fistfight." To such players, the important takeaway is that "the archlich almost killed K----- in a dramatic fight!" and not "how in the world did the archlich not kill K----- under those circumstances given the capabilities I deduce he must have?!?" These are also the kinds of players who would love fudging-for-drama, so they probably wouldn't care even if they noticed fudging.

Fudging is "Oh that PC just missed his disable trap check by 2 points of the DC I set. But the poor guy hasn't disabled a trap successfully in a while, so I'll give it to him."

You think I wouldn't notice that? You'd probably be wrong. Anomalously-easy traps would twig my radar. "Hey, all those other tripwires were DC 15. Why did that one succeed on a 13? That smells like cheating."

 

[The Human Target]

Oh I wouldn't change a trap like that in a string of similar traps.

But then I highly doubt I'd put a string of the same trap with the exact same DC close together.

But then I'm also the opposite of a simulationist.

And I don't think a DM can really cheat in that way. I could just as easily say" the kobold who set this trap was feeling a little under the weather and couldn't focus." Not that I ever would say that.

Not trying to change your or anyones mind, just think its an interesting topic.

Always is when you see the drastically different ways people play the same game.

 

[The Human Target]

99% of the people who have ever sat behind the screen have at one point or another "fudged" or "pulled something left field and unplanned out of their butt."

99% of the people who have ever played at your table have done something you would consider cheating, at one time or another.

It doesn't invalidate the fun you had.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But then I'm also the opposite of a simulationist.

And I don't think a DM can really cheat in that way. I could just as easily say" the kobold who set this trap was feeling a little under the weather and couldn't focus." Not that I ever would say that.

Not trying to change your or anyones mind, just think its an interesting topic.

Yeah, it is an interesting topic. I'm not saying that you're playing the game wrong, and I'm not accusing fudgers of being morally dishonest or cheating in any legal/moral sense. I'm just speaking for the (unknown fraction of) players who feel very strongly that fudging cheapens the game; and that is why, as a DM, I will not secretly alter stats. (Nor die rolls either, but I couldn't do that anyway because I roll out in the open for almost everything.) It's a Golden Rule thing: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I expect that DMs who do fudge have the exact same motivation: they're trying to run the kind of game they would enjoy playing.

 

[The Human Target]

Actually whether you believe it or nor, I roll almost all attacks in the open. My players like the thrill of seeing the critical hit that knocks them into negative HP's.

I even roll a decent amount of other "hidden" rolls in public as well. Say for the town guards Insight vs the PC rogue's Bluff.