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

[FormerlyHemlock]

The players do not get a say in it. I know it sounds harsh, but it has to remain secret to maintain the illusion that the monster is trying to hit.

Uh, yeah. No. I get a say in it, and my say to a DM with that attitude is, "I don't think I'm a good match for your table. Good gaming to you, and goodbye."

 

[SirAntoine]

Uh, yeah. No. I get a say in it, and my say to a DM with that attitude is, "I don't think I'm a good match for your table. Good gaming to you, and goodbye."

That technically isn't a say in it, emdw45. You would be walking out, but as a player when you're there you don't get to tell the DM what to do.

My goal is to keep the table playing together, for the game to bring together and entertain the most people. I don't think you should walk out on people.

 

[SirAntoine]

I guess I'll share the following for everyone, too.

The Last King of Scotland is showing where I am now, and in the very beginning it shows one of the main characters spinning a globe to randomly choose where in the world he will go. He puts his finger to the globe, and says he will go wherever it stops. First, it lands in Canada, and he spins the globe again. This is like fudging. The DM might say he will let the dice determine an outcome, but he doesn't really give up his right to choose. The character in the movie ends up going to Uganda. The DM can roll until he is satisfied, likewise. He is also under no obligation to discuss any of this with the players. Indeed, I would advise against it.

The most important thing the DM needs is confidence. I don't want any DM to be running the game with trepidation over whether the players would be okay with his decisions. So with that in mind, I would suggest you consider talking to your players about the decision to fudge something after all. If they want to leave the game over it, they will be jerks, but you can live with that.

The players shouldn't really ask, though. It isn't unfair for you to change anything.

 

[Celtavian]

Anything that threatens the DM's authority can get out as far as I am concerned.

It is a misunderstanding you have about it that it is cheating or dishonest. You a) have no right to call him a cheater, and b) may make him feel bad for suggesting such a thing. Only the DM knows what he is doing in any case.

If I learned you were cheating all the time, I would leave. I can't stand DMs that cheat all the time. Make the encounter and stick to what you made good or bad. We can talk afterwards about what we want to do if it goes bad. If you feel the party defeats your encounters too easily, you need more practice at creating them. Good DMing is a skill just like any other. You're not going to get to it perfect. It's pretty lame if you're arbitrarily changing the goal posts because you missed the goal.

 

[SirAntoine]

If I learned you were cheating all the time, I would leave. I can't stand DMs that cheat all the time. Make the encounter and stick to what you made good or bad. We can talk afterwards about what we want to do if it goes bad. If you feel the party defeats your encounters too easily, you need more practice at creating them. Good DMing is a skill just like any other. You're not going to get to it perfect. It's pretty lame if you're arbitrarily changing the goal posts because you missed the goal.

You seem dead-set on calling it cheating. Why?

Please reconsider, because the stigma against fudging is dead wrong.

 

[SirAntoine]

If the enemy has largely used up their resources, and has no more tricks to pull out of their hat, but still has many hit points, so that the remaining fight is going to be an uninteresting slog, the party may find the bad guy drops on the next hit, yes.

Some will say that I am negating the possibility that maybe the party will have some really horrible luck, or the monster grand luck, and that is interesting - my answer to that is "risk assessment". What is the risk/value of that potential upset, compared to the negative value of the slog. I make a judgement call on behalf of my players. So sue me.

You wouldn't be doing anything wrong. This is a good example of fudging when you have extensive expertise, and not to get an encounter to be more challenging but for another reason. There is no justification for anyone to call this cheating.

 

[SirAntoine]

Let the DM run the game in their favorite way.

 

[Celtavian]

You seem dead-set on calling it cheating. Why?

Please reconsider, because the stigma against fudging is dead wrong.

I think it is cheating. The rules are there for the DM and the players. Why does the DM get to discard them when he feels like it? Why should a player tolerate that?

 

[billd91]

I think it is cheating. The rules are there for the DM and the players. Why does the DM get to discard them when he feels like it? Why should a player tolerate that?

Aside from the issue of GMs being unable to cheat since they're the arbiters of the rules at the table, you're just making explicit the undercurrent that pretty much always runs through threads that debate this topic. The badwronfunism displayed by GMs that fudge, from the point of view of the anti-fudgers, and the fairly insulting posts about cheating that inevitably come up.

Can someone stick a fork in this thread? It's pretty much done.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The players do not get a say in it. I know it sounds harsh, but it has to remain secret to maintain the illusion that the monster is trying to hit.

Why? If your players joined your game believing that their decisions actually matter to the outcome of play isn't it disrespectful to ignore them and just do whatever?

Anything that threatens the DM's authority can get out as far as I am concerned.

It is a misunderstanding you have about it that it is cheating or dishonest. You a) have no right to call him a cheater, and b) may make him feel bad for suggesting such a thing. Only the DM knows what he is doing in any case.

The DMs authority only exists as long as there are players at the table. No players, no DM and thus no authority.

To all the DM's out there: do anything and everything you want. You have every right to fudge or change anything, at any time, with no notice to the players.

Why would players want to play in such a game? As a player, what is the appeal of such a game for you?

That technically isn't a say in it, emdw45. You would be walking out, but as a player when you're there you don't get to tell the DM what to do.

My goal is to keep the table playing together, for the game to bring together and entertain the most people. I don't think you should walk out on people.

If you treat people with respect and do not lie to them constantly, there will be fewer walk outs.

You seem dead-set on calling it cheating. Why?

Please reconsider, because the stigma against fudging is dead wrong.

IMHO it is only cheating if the players are unaware of it. If a DM advertises a story focused game and claims that things will be nudged here and there to maintain continuity, and players join the campaign under this premise, then no it isn't cheating. If the DM offers a fair game then constantly fudges then it IS cheating. It is cheating because of the breach of trust in this case.