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

[ExploderWizard]

Fudging without telling the players about it every time - or even while denying it - is no more lying or dishonest than not showing other players your hand when playing cards, or bluffing when playing poker. D&D - at least, most editions of it, including 5e - does not assume that the DM tells the player everything that's going on behind the screen.

There is no need to mention every instance of fudging or even when it might happen as long as the players know at the beginning that these are possibilities. This is quite a different thing than telling the players everything that is happening behind the screen. There are many things the players won't know or have to discover through play, and IMHO one of those things shouldn't be whether or not the DM may be fudging die rolls and disregarding the results of fair game play in favor of pushing results toward a pre-defined outcome.

It is enough to mention some things may be changed ad-hoc to increase the fun of the game at the start of the campaign and if the players are all cool with that, never having to mention when or if you fudged anything specifically.

There can be plenty of deception going on behind the screen without impacting fair outcomes. Sometimes I will roll a die for no reason whatsoever even though I know there won't be a chance of a random encounter. The players don't know that a particular area is safe from random encounters so the occasional roll keeps them guessing.

As far as the cards analogy it doesn't work because the DM isn't an opponent of the players. An NPC might certainly lie or try and bluff, and PCs interacting with what they don't know is an illusion isn't really lying either. There may lots going on behind the screen but a game the players wouldn't willingly want to participate in need not be one of them.

 

[Umbran]

Oh yeah! Those tense moments when everything is on the line and the shadow of death narrowly misses a character are so much more memorable and exciting if the players know that luck was truly with them rather than it just being the DM trying to manufacture some drama. As a player, one can only wonder about how many of those tense moments are actually the results of play when they cannot trust the DM.

Let us keep it in perspective, for just a moment. We are talking about a bunch of (probably fully-grown adult) people sitting around a table pretending to be elves, in a situation that was totally engineered the GM, a "fight" that is just rolling dice and thinking.... and we are worried about how authentic the experience is? Really?

It would help if you didn't word this in a way that didn't read as being so incredibly self-righteous. While I have already gone on record as being largely for the GM being generally honest - your *CONSTANT* reflection on how untrustworthy GMs are does lead one to consider - it takes two to tango. OMG, the GM is untrustworthy! Sure. Fine. That's an issue we need to consider. But, let us not take it as if the player who is so incredibly untrusting and picky as to have zero tolerance is entirely issue-free themselves.

Gaming is a cooperative venture. As a practical matter, that means that nobody is ever going to get exactly what they want, and there should always be some flexibility, tolerance, and negotiating room. Lying GMs are an issue, but so are players with no room for compromise.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is enough to mention some things may be changed ad-hoc to increase the fun of the game at the start of the campaign and if the players are all cool with that, never having to mention when or if you fudged anything specifically.

I think that, just as the moment you sit down to play poker, you know someone might bluff, the moment the puts up a screen, you have to expect that he might fudge some rolls. Otherwise, why roll behind the screen? ('Secret modifiers?')

As far as the cards analogy it doesn't work because the DM isn't an opponent of the players.

The way I see it, that just means it's more reasonable for the DM to tweak things and thus 'deceive' the players. He's not doing it to 'win.'

 

[Relax]

I just remembered one of the original instances from over 30 years ago that made me start to question how much power I, as the DM, should exert over the game mechanics and dice.

We had a system for determining the severity of a fumble (natural 1) whereby the player would roll another d20. We also had a system for critical hits (natural 20) whereby again the player would roll another d20. If on such a check a natural 20 was rolled it was considered a decapitation. (I'm sure some of you can see where this is going.

A player burst into a room full of goblins, yelled, "Prepare to die!" and rolled a 1. On the next roll he rolled a 20. Critical failure, not good. Checking how bad the critical was he rolled yet another d20 and, naturally, rolled another 20. Now I thought the idea of him chopping his own head off, while funny, would not make anyone happy, so I said it was okay, he just chopped his own leg off at the knee. (We were very young.)

He kept saying, "A decap is dead!" and I kept saying it was okay, he only (!) lost a leg. "But a decap is dead!" After a minute or so this I said, "Okay! You're dead!" His rapid reply was, "No... wait..."

My point is play the game. Relax and have fun, and if your character dies, whatever, and if he should but he doesn't, whatever. Just remember to play...

 

[KarinsDad]

I think there's been a major miscommunication in this thread. While I certainly can't speak for all on the "pro fudge" side, it has always been my experience that fudging is not synonymous with lying. I don't want to assossiate with people that willfully and maliciously lie, and I doubt many others do either.

I've asked my players about fudging, or changing things on the fly, and they all looked at me incredulously and said, "You're the DM, of course you should do that."

It also isn't something I do often. I'll even let characters die if that's what the dice decide. I only intervene if I feel the situation warrants it.

I agree that tense moments can be created by rolling publicly, but far, far too often I've seen greater "tragedies" occur due to the vaguery of dice. When I first started playing 35 years ago I used to let the dice roll as the would, but over the years I've learned far more fun is to be had for all if I don't allow good play to lead to random death or errors in my planning lead to boring, boring, boring encounters.

What tragedies are those? A PC dying? A TPK?

What exactly is so terrible that it requires the DM to modify die rolls (or hit points) on the fly?

How exactly is an easy encounter boring?

Why is "bad things happen during good play" considered not fun?


Personally, I find the challenge of the vagaries of the dice turning a well played situation into one harmful or antithetical for the PCs to be even greater fun. I just did not come up with a good roleplaying idea, but I had to overcome lousy dice rolls as well to make it work (or maybe it didn't work). Those are awesome situations and not ones where the DM thought that I did great, so he rewarded me for it regardless of the dice. The campaign world feels real when great ideas do not automatically work out.


And I find it a bit arrogant when the DM's view of what is fun is the direction that the game goes. Sure the DM creates the scenario, but if it doesn't go in what he considers a "fun direction", he messes with it?


Fudging to me has always been a situation of discomfort. As a player, I just don't feel like the DM is being impartial when he fudges. One of the trust elements for me with a DM is that he be impartial. He doesn't reward Fred his best friend more than anyone else, he doesn't give the best magic items out to Barney. He should adjudicate the game, not choreograph it.

And trust me, DMs are rarely expert poker players. They have tells and often cannot bluff as well as they think they can. Players often know when a DM is fudging. And a fudging DM seems to be shouting "this is my game" as opposed to "this is our game". The DM has a lot of force effect that he can enter into a game (he creates it after all), but that force should not be used directly. It should be used impartially and indirectly. He shouldn't intervene. Let what happens, happen. He might be surprised at what new fun things happen because of the long term cause and effect.

Again, there are times when a DM is forced to modify things on the fly. He didn't expect that the game would go in a certain direction and has to compensate. But dice rolls (or hit points) really isn't one of the things he should mess with on the fly.


Granted, you have a social contract with your players that this is allowed and even expected and that's cool for your game. I just wouldn't play in that game because it's outside the bounds of my trust/fairness expectations.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that, just as the moment you sit down to play poker, you know someone might bluff, the moment the puts up a screen, you have to expect that he might fudge some rolls. Otherwise, why roll behind the screen? ('Secret modifiers?')

I rarely roll behind the screen.

I use the screen to hide maps and other game elements (like a stack of miniatures for the next encounter) from the players, and to have some necessarily tables in front of me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Let us keep it in perspective, for just a moment. We are talking about a bunch of (probably fully-grown adult) people sitting around a table pretending to be elves, in a situation that was totally engineered the GM, a "fight" that is just rolling dice and thinking.... and we are worried about how authentic the experience is? Really?

A situation totally engineered by the DM implies that the players have no say in the situations they are thrust into and must simply jump when the DM presents a hoop. Some may even find that fun and good for them.

The authenticity of the experience takes a back seat to treating people with respect. There is no wrong way to play the game if enjoyment abounds but there IS a wrong way to treat people.

It would help if you didn't word this in a way that didn't read as being so incredibly self-righteous. While I have already gone on record as being largely for the GM being generally honest - your *CONSTANT* reflection on how untrustworthy GMs are does lead one to consider - it takes two to tango. OMG, the GM is untrustworthy! Sure. Fine. That's an issue we need to consider. But, let us not take it as if the player who is so incredibly untrusting and picky as to have zero tolerance is entirely issue-free themselves.

Gaming is a cooperative venture. As a practical matter, that means that nobody is ever going to get exactly what they want, and there should always be some flexibility, tolerance, and negotiating room. Lying GMs are an issue, but so are players with no room for compromise.

Quite right a cooperative venture. If the DM and the players all agree on how they play no one's time is wasted and there is harmony.

A player's tolerance wouldn't be an issue if he/she was playing in a game that ran as advertised. If the DM pitched a game to prospective players, one of daring swashbuckling adventure, with fencing, fighting, chases, escapes,..true love... and then proceeded to run several consecutive sessions without action, and only political intrigue and dialogue, would you say that the players would have a right to ask "where are the sports?"

I think that, just as the moment you sit down to play poker, you know someone might bluff, the moment the puts up a screen, you have to expect that he might fudge some rolls. Otherwise, why roll behind the screen? ('Secret modifiers?')

I have already explained why I roll random encounters behind the screen, the same is true of reaction and morale, and other misc. rolls which would give the players meta knowledge.

Combat rolls, including all attacks & damage, saving throws, etc. are rolled in the open. Meta knowledge gained from THESE rolls is communicated on purpose. "Um, dude he hit you on a 6, we better think about retreating."

 

[The Human Target]

Something happened in my game Monday night that made me think of this thread.

I roll in the open when I run games, have for a few years now after the longest time of rolling behind a screen. The PCs encountered a roper while traversing the Underdark. The fight did not go well for the party rogue. Down to 2 hp, he was attacked again, and if he took 17 hp or more damage, he was dead. The bite connected and did 16 points of damage.

Now I've DMed for this group for 15 years, and one of the players has gamed with me since the beginning in the 80's, so there's trust there. But if I rolled that behind the screen, I know that if I was a player, I'd wouldn't be able to help but wonder if maybe there was a fudge involved. But the dice were there for the players to see, variance was on his side. Instead of players wondering if the DM manufactured a fake "phew" moment, it turned out to be quite dramatic.

Just an observation.

Sometimes pure randomness ends up clicking together into a perfect moment of excitement, I don't think anyone would deny that.

I'm curious, do you allow the players to look at the monster stats while you're playing? Do you tell them how many HP the monsters are currently at? Do you tell them the DCs of all checks before they roll? Do you let them read your notes for the game?

That's the only way for them to be sure you aren't fudging stuff.

 

[Talmek]

I would not adjust the hp of any DM - controlled entity, simply because there are so many other options available. Reinforcements, additional traps (even after death of the BBEG you can make it painful/costly/challenging) or false flags (sorry Mario...) that are all able to be implemented on the fly to create a "difficult" atmosphere for the group.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that, just as the moment you sit down to play poker, you know someone might bluff, the moment the puts up a screen, you have to expect that he might fudge some rolls. Otherwise, why roll behind the screen? ('Secret modifiers?')

Because when everyone wracks their brains to remember what a Rakshasa's weakness is, and I give them all conflicting information based on their various Arcana checks, I want the players to decide what is right based on reason and consensus among those with lots of knowledge (i.e. high modifiers) and not just based on who rolled the highest. Even if they come to the right conclusion, that preserves the appropriate level of uncertainty in the face of a new threat: maybe the dumb guy's grandma really is right about Rakshasas having 300 HP and being immune to everything but weapons coated with salt. Maybe he got a natural 20 and the brainiacs all rolled 1s. I've experimented with systems to let the players roll their own dice our in the open without spoiling the uncertainty, but the simplest/easiest way us to just roll behind my hand.