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

[pemerton]

DMs can't cheat, because they aren't actually playing a game.

I think this depends on playstyle. When I GM I am playing a game, and there are things I could do that would count as cheating.

Recently in my game one player was convinced there was a trap in the hallway of a dungeon. He came up with an idea for testing the hallway for traps.

In my pregame notes, there was no trap in the hall.

I decided on the fly that there was a trap and the player's plan successfully revealed and bypassed it.

Why? It seemed more fun and that player hadn't had a win in a while.

My notes and plans are not set in stone.

This doesn't seem to me the same as changing a monster's hit points mid-fight.

First, it doesn't affect the validity or rationality of any prior player choices. Whereas adding changing a monster's hit points can retrospectively make prior choices about management of resources, action economy etc irrational or invalid.

This illustrates more generally a difference between combat and non-combat resolution in D&D (with 4e's skill challenges being an exception): in combat the action resolution is tightly constrained and unfolds over multiple action declarations and resolutions - so there is a lot of scope for the GM to intervene and invalidate prior choices - whereas non-combat resolution is typically much looser, with no strict action economy (outside of Moldvay Basic and some styles of AD&D) and little resource management on the GM side. (Whereas in combat the GM has to manage the monsters' hit points.)

Here is a trap-related example which I think would contrast with yours, though, and would be the sort of thing that I would be wary of in a game: the players do not check for traps, although they know you use traps in your dungeon hallways sometime, and you look at your notes, see there is a trap recorded, but elect to ignore it. That would invalidate the players' choice, in the sense that it makes their choice not to spend ingame time (thereby avoiding wandering monster rolls) and their choice not to use resources (like a Find Traps spell) irrelevant.

Anyway, the last time I did something a bit like you described in your post, it happened like this:

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

That is, I used the player's successful check as a quite overt and deliberate opportunity to introduce a new element into the encounter. At my table, the players understand that encounters can come in waves, and handling that is part and parcel of the resource management they are expected to engage in. Just as being honest about monster and NPC hit points is part and parcel of the resource management I am expected to engage in.

And this is more than just semantics: extra waves of monsters change the level of challenge of the encounter, which in turn affect milestones accrued (hence action points earned, magic item properties, etc) as well as XP totals. In other words, it makes the pacing and challenge of the game overt - whereas secretly changing hit point totals makes pacing and challenge covert, and decouples them from the other game elements (eg milestones) that relate to them.

 

[pemerton]

I think Luke Crane gave a very good explanation of why fudging is bad in classic, Gygaxian, dungeon-crawling D&D:

I've learned that it's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless.

I've a deeper understanding why fudging dice is the worst rule ever proposed. The rules indicate fudging with a wink and a nudge, "Don't let a bad die roll ruin a good game." Seems like good advice, but to them I say, "Don't put bad die rolls in your game."

To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.

So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.​

Of course, if you're not playing classic, dungeon-crawl style D&D then these reasons against fudging in that sort of game may not apply to your sort of game.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

E
Yeah, I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that require a lot of random generation of encounters/dungeons/whatever? I can see how if there is an agreement by all concerned to play through a given adventure module as written or all random encounters then the DM's role is definitely reduced to one of impartial referee and rolls should not be fudged. A specific contract has been entered into by all concerned.

To be honest though, other than a weird experiment, I can't imagine wanting to play that way as either a PC or DM.

To each their own I guess.

[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] did some of my explanation work already (thanks!), so I won't repeat those ideas, but I will add in a few more thoughts.

The main thought that I'm coming back to is that it isn't about a DM needing to be nothing more than an impartial referee keeping the sandbox in working order. There are areas where he is--such as when applying the "physics" of the setting--but that doesn't prevent him from also introducing story seeds. See, those are two different roles. There is only a conflict if the DM overrides the world (or the players' choices) in the interest of his story. He can throw in whatever story seeds he wants, just like the players can have their PCs do whatever they want. But just like he shouldn't override the players' choices ("Your character wouldn't do that. He does such and so instead.") in this style of play he can't override the world's status or "actions" either.

As was mentioned, randomness isn't required, but it increases the sense of discovery for the DM, so he gets to explore the world along with the players to some extent.

The reason I enjoy that style so much in D&D is that out of all of the RPGs I'm aware of, none of the others support it as well as D&D traditionally has done. In fact, I wouldn't even attempt that style in other RPGs. Most RPGs are designed with the concept of a story or challenge in mind and that's what you do with it. D&D has developed a vast body of lore on multiple worlds and dimensions (an entire multiverse in fact ) in sometimes excruciating levels of detail. In running LMoP the party visited Neverwinter, and I had four 2e pdfs and a 3e hardcover book to consult for details. There is already stuff written literally telling me how the kitchen smells at a particular inn in Neverwinter. There are hundreds of books out there telling me thousands of things, with maps, names, coinages, customs, etc. It would be such a horrible shame not to explore that world(s)! By allowing that world to exist, I can step into it right alongside my players and explore its sights and smells.

Plus D&D goes further than just painting a detailed multiverse that dwarfs every other game's setting, it also has traditionally included random tables to increase my immersion further. If my party is walking down the street of Waterdeep (as a random example) on their way to following the plot hook I intentionally dangled (my DM's role as story seeder) I could roll to randomly generate an encounter (because the book advises me to check for them such and so often and roll on such and so results) and all of us can be surprised by the result. Maybe it's a lost miller's daughter. Might end up as nothing but color, or might end up a new love interest. And I can roll on other tables to see what the weather is doing, and if there are any political events in the background etc. All of this is in addition to the story they are there to follow. Now Waterdeep isn't just a backdrop for a specific story; it isn't even just a hugely detailed static environment to add to a story, it is a dynamic environment that can surprise us all and introduce new elements that might complicate adventures, or just make the world seem more real.

Again, I do this exclusively in D&D, because D&D is the only game that I'm aware of that it can be done in (and because it's such an amazing multiverse to explore).

If I seem to be a bit excited to inspire others to try this out, I am. I'm saddened by the fact that this type of game-play seems to have all but disappeared in the last 15 years (at least if the internet is any indication). Exclusively story game play has gone from one style amongst many to the baseline assumption, and I think many people, by only experiencing the exclusively story style haven't been exposed to other equally desirable gaming experiences that they would quite likely enjoy.

 

[billd91]

Of course, if you're not playing classic, dungeon-crawl style D&D then these reasons against fudging in that sort of game may not apply to your sort of game.

Pfft. They don't really apply to "classic, dungeon-crawl style" D&D either. The whole idea that fudging a die "takes all that away" is simply hyperbolic. It's a preference statement rather than a real, observable effect. Just more badwrongfunism.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Pfft. They don't really apply to "classic, dungeon-crawl style" D&D either. The whole idea that fudging a die "takes all that away" is simply hyperbolic. It's a preference statement rather than a real, observable effect. Just more badwrongfunism.

So you're saying that the DM deciding "the players didn't plan well, but I will shield them from their failure" (or, conversely, "the players have outplayed this threat, but I will prevent that from happening") doesn't erode, to even the slightest degree, the players' responsibility for the outcomes of their choices?

Because the way it's been described (in both this thread and the other) is a highly parentalist, "do what's best for them," control-what-happens kind of thing. The DM overruling the actual results for something "better," regardless of what that means. And, again, I don't see how it can be a "good" thing if it upsets people and you're intentionally concealing it from them. Just out of curiosity, can anyone name another behavior that is not only "right" but is something people should regularly do even if it angers others? How about that whole PRISM thing and the US government spying on its own people? Isn't that exactly the same kind of thing--doing something that upsets people, "for their own good," then lying about doing it?

 

[SirAntoine]

There is no wrong way to run the D&D game.

 

[pemerton]

Pfft. They don't really apply to "classic, dungeon-crawl style" D&D either. The whole idea that fudging a die "takes all that away" is simply hyperbolic. It's a preference statement rather than a real, observable effect. Just more badwrongfunism.

What have observable effects got to do with anything? Luke Crane isn't denying that GMs can lie to their players - he's making a point about values, not observable effects (ie if the players "win" because the GM fudged then they don't own the victory in the way they believe that they do).

As to whether its hyperbolic - what's the point of skilled play if the GM takes steps to negate the importance of skill?

If you look at Gygax's advice on fudging in his DMG, it is very nuanced. He focuses on content introduction (wandering monster rolls, secret door discovery) and PC death (narrate a kill as a maiming instead - also that gives the Regeneration spell some work to do!).

The wandering monster example is especially interesting - he says that the GM should think carefully about introducing content that will discourage the PCs in circumstances where they've simply been unlucky (lots of 1s on the wanderer dice even though they're moving efficiently and expeditiously through the dungeon), but should not fudge the outcome of a fight if the wanderers are actually introduced into the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

There is no wrong way to run the D&D game.

That may be so.

But there can be wrong ways to go about achieving particular goals. If the goal of play is the sort of "skilled play" that Gygax lauds in his PHB and DMG, that Lewis Pulsipher use to champion in the pages of late-70s and early-80s White Dwarf, and the Luke Crane is talking about in the quote I posted upthread, then fuding is the wrong way to go about achieving it.

And this is precisely for the reason that Luke Crane gives and [MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION] has reiterated - GM fudging decouples player choices from outcomes, which is precisely the opposite of what that sort of "skilled play" aims at.

 

[Relax]

Couple of very quick points.

If I make something up now and it turns out in a couple of weeks to have been the wrong thing to do (too strong a monster or whatever) killing the entire party because that's the world I made up is just silly, to me, though in a weird way I respect your choices, wrong as they may be in my own approach.

Skilled play isn't negated by fudging, it is actually facilitated by it, especially if through excellent play the PCs do everything exactly right but all end up dead because the DM rolls too many naturals 20s in a row. (I've done this, where the unaltered results would have killed several players who actually made the best choices.)

It seems pretty clear that we're all going to have to agree to disagree, but I would urge the few that have expressed taking offence to remember we're discussing the playing of a game.

 

[billd91]

So you're saying that the DM deciding "the players didn't plan well, but I will shield them from their failure" (or, conversely, "the players have outplayed this threat, but I will prevent that from happening") doesn't erode, to even the slightest degree, the players' responsibility for the outcomes of their choices?

Because the way it's been described (in both this thread and the other) is a highly parentalist, "do what's best for them," control-what-happens kind of thing. The DM overruling the actual results for something "better," regardless of what that means. And, again, I don't see how it can be a "good" thing if it upsets people and you're intentionally concealing it from them. Just out of curiosity, can anyone name another behavior that is not only "right" but is something people should regularly do even if it angers others? How about that whole PRISM thing and the US government spying on its own people? Isn't that exactly the same kind of thing--doing something that upsets people, "for their own good," then lying about doing it?

Who said it's a case of fudging to save the players when they didn't plan well? Maybe they did plan well and the random results didn't turn out in their favor. Fudging doesn't erode the players' responsibility any more than taking the random result, which may do little to validate the good plans and tactics of the players.

There are numerous things a DM does in a game that are for the best of the game, from encounter design to the distribution of rewards for challenges that players aren't privy to, how is overruling a die roll any different? It isn't. And trying to compare this to domestic spying is pretty far-fetched and encroaching on topics frowned on here at ENWorld.