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

[spinozajack]

DMG page 4, Introduction, The Dungeon Master (last sentence, 2nd paragraph)
"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

What I don't get is why this doesn't end this whole part of the discussion right there. There is a rule, first touched on in the introduction no less, that says the rules are what the DM says they are.

Because the DMG can't tell people that DMs overriding the basic rules for combat on a whim, isn't fair? I like DM empowerment, but the game plays and runs just fine even when HP aren't fudged. Actually better, because PC death occurring through HP loss is a feature of this game, not a flaw.

If a DM is changing rules on the fly, arbitrarily, sometimes but not others, that can result in players feeling cheated. Let's follow on to the next line in the DMG...

But if that wasn't enough (and I'm almost reluctant to do this for fear of ruining the game for some, and believe it or not I do want everyone to enjoy the game)...

(Seriously, if the idea of fudging is anathema to you stop reading here.)

DMG page 235, Chapter 8: Running the Game, Table Rules, Dice Rolling (3rd bullet point, near top of second column)
"Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don't distort die rolls too often, though, and don't let on that you're doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don't face any real risks - or worse, that you're playing favorites."

Now is this whole discussion over? If you feel the need to keep arguing please reread the above excerpt. Still want to argue? Read it again. Okay, one more time.

The DMG using the word "fudge" which according to the dictionary is a synonym to "to cheat", to endorse DMs doing that doesn't make it ok. Specifically, it's up to players and the DM's conscience to decide that. They even admit that it's unfair and ruins the danger of the game. In that very passage. Why would you want to play favorites with PCs? Or even give them an adventure where they face no actual threat of PC death because you're "fudging" crits into misses?

Of course DMs can cheat, especially with the DMG telling them they can. Doesn't mean they should. Which is my point. The DMG doesn't determine what people find as fair.

Let me put it this way. The DM is a player, right? Sure, he / she has a special role, but they're just another person playing the game. A player who's not the DM can also fudge on their dice rolls and HP total, just as easily. And why shouldn't they? If the DM's fudging to protect them from death, why shouldn't everyone get in on the action? All people here are doing is cheating themselves out of a consistent game where PC death happens as a result of running combat by the rules.

Calling something "fudging" instead of "cheating" doesn't change the fact that it's cheating, it just makes it more palatable. The meaning is the same. And it doesn't make it ok. Not for me, and not for many other players I've played with. It cheapens the game to fudge dice rolls. As as DM I don't tolerate it when players do it, and to not be a hypocrite I don't do it myself. So I roll everything in front of everyone and let people ghasp when that dragon rolls that double crit and rips the fighter in half. That's part of the game, actually what makes the game great.

The thing is, even though right in the rules it says it's okay to lie, (to use an inflammatory term for effect) you don't have to. You can play this game any way you want. For proof see the first rule I sighted.

The word "lie" is not inflammatory, it is the simple truth. Is it serious? For some players, it is. I prefer rolling in front of players because it makes the dice the final arbiter of PCs living or dying, and takes the pressure off me as a DM. If you try to fight that dragon and it scores three crits on your beloved PC, that's game over, man. I play that way because I actually like the way the rules work, not because I am empowered by the DMG to ignore HP loss.

The DMG saying it's okay to lie whenever you want, does not make it so. They even acknowledge as much in the very passage you quoted me. Because it's an issue if it comes out. As lies often end up doing. Which means it's better off just not doing it in the first place.

Sorry, clearly I didn't communicate that point very well. I wasn't trying to tell you what you would enjoy. I was simply stating that others might enjoy no dice, and that's okay.

So, I was going to continue responding to things you said, but there really is no point. The DMG says it's okay to fudge and that it's not only okay keep that information hidden but you should keep that information hidden. If you don't like this "rule" and I can certainly appreciate that some will really, really not like this rule, then remember the most important rule of all. You decide how you want to play this game. So play, and try not to get too self-righteous, because inevitably it will come back and bite you on the bum...

Fair enough, but I just don't consider it being self-righteous to call a spade a spade. If you like fudging rolls in your campaign, so be it, I won't play in such a game and I won't abide by players who cheat in my own games. I have lots of players come and go over the years, it's really no big deal to replace them. I just can't in good conscience call out cheaters when I'm cheating. DMG sanctioned cheating or not, cheating is cheating. And fudging is cheating. As per the dictionary.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm really glad I have players who accept fudging as part of the game and aren't going to start acting out when something doesn't fall 100% within expected parameters.

My sentiments exactly.

There are dozens of ways to curve an encounter. Modifying hp, adding and removing combatants via reinforcements, morale breaks, or a third party, joins combat. Making sound or weak tactical decisions. Adding or removing special abilities, defenses, or immunities. Fudging attack, damage, and saving throws on offense or defense. Allowing creative thinking by the players which by all logical reasoning should fail to actually work. Basically everything that's not on the player's character sheets is completely malleable.

Do I always fudge? Of course not. Most encounters I don't need to consider it. However, if I'm not liking what's going on or not happy with the encounter, I have no problems changing it up on the fly.

Honestly, if I wanted to play a tight rules game where I never fudged anything and played everything as straight as a computer and completely disregarded dramatic pacing and table enjoyment... actually, I just wouldn't play a role playing game.

 

[spinozajack]

I'm really glad I have players who accept fudging as part of the game and aren't going to start acting out when something doesn't fall 100% within expected parameters.

Let's ignore the moral aspect of it for a second.

What actual benefit does changing hits into misses or arbitrarily increasing or lowering monster HP totals bring to the game?

If it's to end a combat faster, why not just use less monsters next time, or easier monsters? If it's to make combats last longer, why not add more? See those things I think are fair parameters to change. But if I change the current HP total, I've easily negated the benefit of that great weapon fighting style you took, or made that poorly rolled dagger attack be worth more than the fighter's crit the round before. That's why I think it's unfair, because people invest in their characters, and the combat system shouldn't be arbitrarily modified mid-combat. Otherwise you might as well not even roll dice. That's why I think playing D&D with arbitrarily changing HP totals is a waste of time. If you want PCs to automatically win, why have them roll dice in the first place? To give them the illusion that they might lose?

The dice are a core feature of the game, if you ignore their input in the game on a whim, you basically are saying that you want a story-only game, and one that doesn't have a randomness component. If the randomness of the dice are negated when it counts (especially when it might kill a PC or not have killed a monster, for example), then what's the point of all the rest of the randomness? Why play a dice-based game at all?

There are dice-free games out there, but they're not D&D. DMG might sanction "fudging", but lots of people don't. Even the DMG says if you're going to do it, to do it rarely and sparingly. I only go one step further and say "why do it at all".

PCs dying when two crits in a row are rolled legitimately is the pinnacle of fairness. The dice aren't on anyone's side. They are the ultimate in fairness. If the DM doesn't want the dice to have a say in the outcome of a combat, the DM can just say "ok you won the combat". That's actually more above board than this. I don't like being given illusions that my actions matter, if as a player I find out that the DM is fudging rolls aka cheating in my favor (or in the monster's favor).

 

[Umbran]

The definition of a word does not depend on whether or not it offends you.

Whether the word applies depends on the rules of the table.

Fudging is synonymous with cheating.

Specifically, as quoted above, with pages references from the DMG, if you are playing by the rules as written, a GM doing what we've been calling "fudging" is within the rules, and therefore cannot be cheating.

So, we may need to turn that around - just because you *feel* cheated does not mean there's actual cheating going on.

We're all adults here, right?

Being adult is not the same as being mature. The ability to use some tact, to be polite, and take the feelings of others into account are hallmarks of mature people.

If people don't like having their behavior called cheating, they shouldn't openly admit to fudging, which actually has the same dictionary definition.

If you like the dictionary, I suggest you go look up the word "jargon". To wit - within a particular context, a word or phrase may have a different meaning than it does in the general dictionary definition.

 

[Elf Witch]

No. She's not using the best grammar, but she is saying that not communicating leads to bad gaming and tension at the table.

Now think about how obvious that interpretation should have been, especially with the rest of the content around it. How much thought it should have taken for you to *not* go down this accusative route?

Ask yourself why you went with the interpretation you did. Ask yourself if you are still being fair to others. Moreover, ask yourself if you are being kind to others with this sort of reading.

Maybe everyone in here should do that before posting further on this topic.

I have written this before and I will write it again. I suffered a traumatic brain injury and suffer from a form of aphasia when it comes to communicating especially in the written form. It is worse when I am tired or under stress and I often find it stressful when I can't because of my disability get out what I am trying to say. It is why I won't DM at cons because my players understand my issues and give me time when my brain fritz's.

 

[The Human Target]

The definition of a word does not depend on whether or not it offends you.

Fudging is synonymous with cheating. Take every instance of the use of that word in this thread, and replace it with cheating, because according to the dictionary, they have the exact same meaning.

If you are allowed to quote from the dictionary, you should be prepared for others to do the same:

fudge3
[fuhj]
Spell Syllables
verb (used without object), fudged, fudging.
1.
to cheat or welsh (often followed by on):
to fudge on an exam; to fudge on one's campaign promises

Source:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fudge

Who decided the word we use should be fudging in the first place?

Let's decide to call it DM tweaking.

There, its not cheating anymore problem solved.

 

[Relax]

Fudging is synonymous with cheating. Take every instance of the use of that word in this thread, and replace it with cheating, because according to the dictionary, they have the exact same meaning.

No, they don't, and I suspect you know that but are just trying to be difficult now.

The word fudge has many, many, many different meanings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fudge

I won't post all that here, just look at if you're even remotely interested in actually having a discussion.

The definition that most seems to apply given the context that the word is being used in the DMG is, "something that is fudged; especially: a bending of rules or a compromise."

But all of that aside, if fudging is allowed in the rules of a game, then doing so, by default, cannot be considered cheating. It just can't. All the wishing in the world will not make it so.

Obviously it is a rule you don't like, so don't use it. However, everyone really needs to stop accusing others of wrongdoing when they are in fact playing the game in one of the many, many ways the designers intended for it to be played.

 

[Elf Witch]

In 3E feats became a part of the game and their purpose was to allow legal breaking of the rules. In my game we use action points that allow a player to reroll a failed roll. One of the DMs is my group only allows NPCs who have names who are the BBEG to have crits so the majority of combat the PCs don't have to worry about it. All of these are not part of the official rules well except for feats but you don't hear the cry of cheating or lazy DMing.

Yet it has been pointed out the act of fudging is a written part of the rules the RAW if you will. So people who don't use it are not playing by the RAW and instead are playing using their own house rules. Every table has its own house rules and I don't understand how come it seems only this one rule is the one that seems to cause the most controversy.

I sometimes think some of this comes from a lack of trust in the DM and to me if you can't trust the DM to deliver a good game why play with him. The same with players. I have not required my players to roll their stats or hit points in front of me in years. I simply trust them. I don't need to witness every roll in game.

I have played with bad DMs who I knew were fudging dice rolls only for their SO who played in the game it becomes obvious when they never take much damage. If that was all I could live with it but that tends to go hand in hand with them getting all the special magic items and more XP because they do solo sessions at home.

I have played with DMs who make sure that the party never really succeeds and that no matter what you do it does not matter. That is far worse in my opinion than a DM who fudges so a character does not die.

DMs have all the power at the table we know all the PCs abilities we get to decide how many NPCs they will face and we can bring as many as we need to if our desire is to kill the party. We also have the ability to decide that the BBEG takes them prisoner instead of killing them all outright even if that is not how we originally planned it. We make things up on the fly we sometimes makes mistakes. I made one last session I mixed up the AC of ambush drakes with kobolds this was in favor of the PCs when I realized I had done it I just went with it. I also decided not to TPK my party last session when they royally screwed up. I made the leader lawful neutral who detested unnecessary slaughter and so he held back allowing the party to escape so he could follow his orders which was to search and destroy the temple the party and civilians were hold up in. This was not how I originally written him up but I am the creator and I have the power to change something I have written.

I also took away the advantaged of the NPCs so I as only rolling one D20 not 2 because I knew if I didn't I would have had a TPK on my hands. This is why I roll behind a screen. My group are not fond of TPKs we don't find them fun and we all agree that we would rather the DM pull punches or do other thongs to prevent them. So as the DM of this group I did the absolutely right thing for my table. Now for other groups this would ruin their fun and I can understand that but I don't DM for those groups I DM for mine and their fun and enjoyment is my priority.

My group knows that I reserve the right to fudge but they never know when I do it and they have said they don't really care they don't think about and they don't question their successes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The DMG saying it's okay to lie whenever you want, does not make it so.

The DMG doesn't say it's okay. It just says it's physically possible if you use a screen. And then it elucidates some of the possible consequences. The DMG doesn't care one way or another if you're an unreliable narrator.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

DMs have all the power at the table we know all the PCs abilities we get to decide how many NPCs they will face and we can bring as many as we need to if our desire is to kill the party. We also have the ability to decide that the BBEG takes them prisoner instead of killing them all outright even if that is not how we originally planned it.

When possible, it's good to have an idea in advance which bad guys will kill their enemies vs. selling them as slaves or leaving them for dead. It also depends upon how much the bad guy in question respects/hates you. If he sees you as a threat he'll kill you, but if you're insignificant he doesn't bother to finish you off unless he thinks it would be funny and/or delicious.

Figuring out realistic reasons for cliched behavior by bad guys is one of my great joys as a DM. Plot? Meh, who cares. Let's build a world instead and give the PCs interesting things to do in it. Slaying a dragon with the purple worm poison you looted from the haunted ooze mansion is interesting. "Dying horribly" to poor die rolls is also an interesting thing. Chance is part of the game.