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

[KarinsDad]

I've never tried to tell a particular story in a game, and when I've tried to do so with AP style stuff it always chafes me. I figure I'll set the stage and some kind of story may develop from the mayhem that results due to game play. I'm a game trumps DM's story type, even when I'm the DM.

I sort of do this, but I also throw in a bunch of stuff that's going to happen in the background unless the PCs do something about it (i.e. I have a few current campaign exceptions to what you posted here). If the PCs want to ignore the Cult of the Dragon, ok. That doesn't mean that the Cult of the Dragon then fails to raise Tiamat, it just means that the PCs have to face the consequences of Tiamat entering the prime material plane at some point in the future. Typically, I have about 5 or so major things going on in the background, some from the campaign, some introduced from the PC backgrounds. So the game tends to lean in the direction of my storylines, but easily veers off into other directions quite a bit.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's the thing - it isn't arbitrary, at least for me. It isn't random. It isn't whim. Not "just because". It is considered, based on what's going on in the game. There is a reason I can elucidate - so not arbitrary.

Nor is it entirely throwing out the "game" part, in that it isn't constant, or even frequent. Every once in a while this comes up. Most of the time, the game plays by the rules.

Merriam Webster: Whim - a sudden wish, desire, decision, etc. (other sources have similar definitions, e.g. an impulsive idea).

The key aspect of this is "sudden". Sure, you make an informed decision. But it is not a decision that you plan before the game even starts, it's a sudden decision based on the events at the table. Hence, a whim. This does indeed make it seem arbitrary. It's not fixed by the rules of the game, but depends on the discretion of the DM and is solely based on his preference combined with the situation at hand. Even if you have a system for this (I only do this in x situations), it's still arbitrary if you do not do it every time that particular scenario comes up.

This is different than a DM who changes the hit points ahead of time to create an encounter difficulty. That is not arbitrary. That's planned.


Whims can be irrational, but they do not have to be. Many NPC decisions are whims of the DM. Attack this PC or that PC. The DM can elucidate a rational reason for it (the monster is attacking the lightly armored PC), but most monsters should typically attack the closest PC (which is also a rational decision often made by real world troops, but a different decision). Both are whims, but not necessarily irrational whims.

Most people make informed decisions, but if they do it on the fly without a set procedure or process ahead of time defining when they do it, it's a whim.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The idea that someone thinks they can perfectly do that fascinates me.

We've been thinking we can do it for a long time y'know. Usually, though, in that context, it's in terms of playing dumber monsters 'fairly' - that is, dumb, - rather than using inappropriate or meta-game tactics or knowledge of the PCs' abilities the monsters wouldn't have.

Sure, you make an informed decision. But it is not a decision that you plan before the game even starts, it's a sudden decision based on the events at the table. Hence, a whim. This does indeed make it seem arbitrary. It's not fixed by the rules of the game, but depends on the discretion of the DM and is solely based on his preference combined with the situation at hand.

Most people make informed decisions, but if they do it on the fly without a set procedure or process ahead of time defining when they do it, it's a whim.

I have no problem with that definition. Such whims have led to some great gaming moments (and let me avoid potentially dreadful ones) many times when running older systems, and have already done so more than a few with 5e.

If my whims help me run an enjoyable session, I say, go whimsy.




(And, yes, as you may have noticed, I'm defending both extremes, here. Both the dice-fall-where-they-may 'adversarial' style with everything fairly laid out ahead, and the seat-of-your-pants style with rules & prep subordinated to DM whim. They're both legitimate styles. IMHO, the latter works better in 5e than the former, but that's JMHO.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The op was asking about combat fudging, which I took to read as helping the party survive what would otherwise be a tpk, etc.
In terms of this, as I outlined before, yep, I'll nudge them away from the brink or at least, and this is the thing, give them the opportunity to turn the tide. But I don't adjust the hp.
Where the conversation seems to be going in terms of railroading - nope. I'm running LMOP and, honestly, if they decided to become desert nomad punch and judy men, I'd love it. Lost mine can run in the background and bite them on the bum later maybe. But I'd like them to swing off road and kind of make me wing it. I certainly wouldn't force them. The scenario will play out with or without them, and somebody will gain control of the mine. There may be news and consequences but who am I to stop their riddley walker careers if that's where it ends up going?
I would still give them the _chance_ to get out of sticky combat situations though, wherever they take the plot. And if I _need_ villain A to capture them, or to escape, whilst in a fight, I'll play that villain to the best if his abilities, but if they zap him round one...ok. There's always the wife, or brother, or Stockholm syndromed captive to move that plot along later.

You know, that reminds me of something: non-combat fudging. In particular, direct DM-to-player communication. How many of us have occasionally called for Int checks purely for the sake of communicating clues to the player. "Dude! You've looking all over for the treasure. I've told you there's nothing interesting in the palace except the throne room with an altar. Just look at the altar already!" I'm sure there are better ways to do it, but my point is that combat is so well-defined that it probably needs less "help" to work out right than either of the other pillars.

I admit to having done that kind of fudging at least once. I'm not proud of it, and I aspire to hopefully never do it again.

 

[Celtavian]

While it's not my mentality either, I'll take a stab at outlining it: If you limit yourself, as a DM, to strict, somehow 'fair' challenges, and map out (literally and figuratively) every aspect of each challenge ahead of time, then run through it with the players 'impartially' (including no fudging anything, all rolls in the open, monsters behaving according to their stated int/objectives/knowledge/tactics, etc), then you can consider wiping them out a 'win' - fair and square, as it were. The DM presents a fair challenge - trapped labyrinth filled with monsters, typically - the players either overcome it (win) or not (DM wins). In that paradigm of D&D, 'bad' DMs were the Killer DM, who presented unfair challenges and few rewards even if you somehow won, and the opposite, the Monty Haul DM who presented too-easy challenges and too-rich rewards.

Make any more sense, now?

No, not really. That's more because I don't look at the game that way.

I'm there to give my players the thrill of being part of an epic fantasy story. The game parts my players are most concerned with is rising in level to gain more powerful capabilities and get more magic items. The part I'm concerned with is that they do this as part of a cool story. These two ideas inform all my decisions as a DM.

 

[Celtavian]

Why do you think that not railroading players automatically means an adversarial "DM vs. Player" relationship?

I do have a lot of respect for my players and that respect includes letting them shape the story of their characters and not forcing them onto a story I want to tell by various means, including changing the HP of monsters mid game to get the outcome I want or to make specific events ("they are killing it too fast. Lets double its HP so it can get off its cool moves...") happen.

If you only derive enjoyment from letting players run along a story you created you should really ask yourself if you even need a rules system or if rules just get in the way of controlling the story, so much that you have to bend or break them if they do not lead to the result you want.
And what do think your players would say if you would be honest and told them "It doesn't really matter how good your characters are in combat as I will modify every encounter until it gets the result I need to tell my story. Most of the time that means ensuring that you defeat the enemy, but sometimes I make sure you lose when I think it enhances it"?

First, I don't modify encounters once they are made.

My players have a lot of trust and respect for me as a DM. They know I'm going to make the adventure fun and give them a hell of a ride from beginning to end. They like me to design a story. Why? Same reason a person likes to read a story: to find out what happens next. In my experience, players like to be surprised. This railroading talk is utter garbage. What do you think a movie is? A railroad experience. A book? A railroad experience. A video game? A railroad experience. Yet millions and billions of people love to read books, watch movies, and play video games because they want to be surprised and entertained by someone that is taking them on some kind of adventure, so that is what I do.

When I pull off an encounter that works as I wanted it to work, that is an amazing feeling. Do you have any idea how hard it is to create an encounter where the players fight a hard fought battle, lose, but still survive without fudging anything? Do you?

I tend to follow the rules because it creates verisimilitude. That is what the rules provide from my perspective. They set the world parameters equal for both the DM and players creating the fiction that the world is real and static. I follow the rules carefully when engaging in encounter design. Once I set something up, I don't deviate from my designed encounter whether changing hit points or spell lists. So if the players win, they earned it. I don't mind if they beat something intended to cause them to lose or retreat. It happens sometimes just as something being too strong happens. When you hit that sweet spot, it's a thing of beauty.

Bottom line is my enjoyment as a DM comes from setting up a story. I let the players react to the encounters and the outcome of the encounters affect future parts of the story. The players make the story dynamic, win or lose. I adjust after the encounter is complete, not during. So not sure why we're having this discussion. I'm one of those DMs that doesn't change hit points. That is different from designing encounters to force players to retreat or to suffer a loss. Even when I do so, nothing is guaranteed. If the players get lucky or come up with amazing tactics, I don't change things to make them lose. I adjust future encounters to account for their victory and give them a pat on the back.

Telling the story is a group effort with both the DM and players adding a dynamic element.

 

[KarinsDad]

I have no problem with that definition. Such whims have led to some great gaming moments (and let me avoid potentially dreadful ones) many times when running older systems, and have already done so more than a few with 5e.

If my whims help me run an enjoyable session, I say, go whimsy.

I do not necessarily disagree with this.

I do think, however, that there is a certain amount of confirmation bias for these types of things. The DM remembers when his on the fly changes made the game great and forgets when it flushed it down the toilet (as one example, the PCs hold up for the night early because the DM on the fly made easy encounters tougher and then the rest of the challenges were even easier because the PCs had more resources).

I opine that by following the rules, it can unexpectedly lead to some great gaming moments as well. The very act of increasing the hit points of a monster can lead to unexpected changes which can make the game great, ok, or meh, but the DM does not truly know which will happen, he just suspects.

(And, yes, as you may have noticed, I'm defending both extremes, here. Both the dice-fall-where-they-may 'adversarial' style with everything fairly laid out ahead, and the seat-of-your-pants style with rules & prep subordinated to DM whim. They're both legitimate styles. IMHO, the latter works better in 5e than the former, but that's JMHO.)

Yup. I'm a firm believer in moderation as well. Something in the middle tends to work best in most circumstances, unfortunately I have this streak of fairness where DM whim seems like cheating. C'est la guerre. I often throw in random rolls in front of the group (e.g. D20 high is good for the party, or D6 1-3 the monster attacks PC1, 4-6 the monster attacks PC2) in an effort to remain neutral and the arbitrator instead of the driver of the encounter/story.

 

[Celtavian]

The funny thing, is that a huge part of my fun as a DM is creating a consistent and expansive world and letting it mostly operate on its own. Sure I grab adventures and hooks and throw them in for the players to accept or ignore, but what I like is creating the virtual imagination environment where my wonderful world has its own identity and agency, so to speak. To overrule things on the fly is, for me, to invalidate the actions of my world in much the same way as stopping a PC from doing something they should be able to do is to invalidate their choice.

You're not saying anything that contradicts what I stated. You must be making an assumption based on the original post that I do something I don't. I don't modify the game on the fly. I do design encounters that I expect the PCs to lose the fight. I do not modify them if the PCs happen to win. They stay set once I make them. That is how I operate.

To state it in your own words, I don't "overrule things on the fly."

 

[Celtavian]

I've never tried to tell a particular story in a game, and when I've tried to do so with AP style stuff it always chafes me. I figure I'll set the stage and some kind of story may develop from the mayhem that results due to game play. I'm a game trumps DM's story type, even when I'm the DM.

Games tend to bore me. I can only play video games or any game for so long before I become bored. RPG games tend to be a bunch of numbers and fiddly bits that attempt to create some semblance of balance that some find fun. The only appeal RPGs ever had was developing a character and being part of a story with everything that entails.

I've been playing for years. I have found few DMs that do story games well. It's not surprising that isn't the standard. Most folks run things "by the numbers" as I call it. Very little engaging role-play. Not much added politics or non-combat elements that are interesting, especially a lack of romance or friendship development that ties a character to a world. I add all those elements. It's fun to see how a person will react when having to play a character that an entire town including children look to for protection. You get some odd reactions when you force that element to be played out and some character investment when they are successful.

The key to a good story game is getting the individual to feel like he is in a given situation.

 

[Chimpy]

Yes and I have done so. I also reduce a monster's hp. I do this to ensure the fight isn't too easy or too hard, and to give the player's the most fun.