Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6772788" data-attributes="member: 94389"><p>That begs the question: Transparency to what? If you mean the degree of transparency to the "rules", then we are talking about Hard Rules vs. Guidelines.</p><p></p><p>The trouble is, in my opinion, is expectations. Every player, including he DM, has different expectations. Even if everyone laid them bare, those expectations change, are not articulated well, and are interpreted poorly. </p><p></p><p>To circle this back to the OP, HP are a gaming device to determine when a combatant is no longer "in the fight". There is a base assumptions here that I don't think is valid: A DM doesn't arbitrarily assign HP but rather perfectly pre-determines HP to create encounter to create a perfect challenge. Obviously this isn't true (beyond the semantics of "perfect"). DMs typically us MM HP and just go, or if they do roll HP or pre-determine them, it's rarely with an eye towards adjusting encounter difficulty. Perhaps a BBEG gets max HP or a bunch of mooks get half, for speed of play or something. But here is the thing: By doing so, the DM is "adjusting" encounter to create a feel/challenge/narrative. Doing it on the fly or not doesn't change the fact that its up to the DM.</p><p></p><p>DMs do a LOT of things not seen by the players. They must. Transparency is good for a game of Lawyers and Litigation, but D&D doesn't need it. </p><p></p><p>What it needs is a DM you can trust. Games thus fall into these camps:</p><p></p><p>Lawyer and Litigation (Maximum transparency and RAW adherence)</p><p>Adversary and Advocating (Some Transparency leading to mistrust and/or auditing of Rules)</p><p>Loremaster and Listening (Minimum Transparency with trust and shared wonder)</p><p></p><p>(excuse the poor the alliteration) - we could sub-divide and categorize further, but the point being between the two extremes is the muddy waters (Adversary and Advocates) that at worst is mistrust and poor feelings and at best Rules auditing and questioning.</p><p></p><p>My sense is that most games fall in that middle category with either the good or bad outcome. Its hard to get 5 people on the same page, so as a rule, the muddied middle is where games are. </p><p></p><p>My advise to that muddy middle: DMs try to establish trust that your not fudging to thwart/help players but to propel the narrative if you must fudge. Players try not to get too hung up on every point of damage or bonus. DMs can always up the ante or dial it down (next encounter or on the fly) so play it straight. It is what is. For both, the muddied middle means compromise is required to keep the game going, you'll just have to accept some things that bother you or you'll have to find another game.</p><p></p><p>For those on the extremes, enjoy!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6772788, member: 94389"] That begs the question: Transparency to what? If you mean the degree of transparency to the "rules", then we are talking about Hard Rules vs. Guidelines. The trouble is, in my opinion, is expectations. Every player, including he DM, has different expectations. Even if everyone laid them bare, those expectations change, are not articulated well, and are interpreted poorly. To circle this back to the OP, HP are a gaming device to determine when a combatant is no longer "in the fight". There is a base assumptions here that I don't think is valid: A DM doesn't arbitrarily assign HP but rather perfectly pre-determines HP to create encounter to create a perfect challenge. Obviously this isn't true (beyond the semantics of "perfect"). DMs typically us MM HP and just go, or if they do roll HP or pre-determine them, it's rarely with an eye towards adjusting encounter difficulty. Perhaps a BBEG gets max HP or a bunch of mooks get half, for speed of play or something. But here is the thing: By doing so, the DM is "adjusting" encounter to create a feel/challenge/narrative. Doing it on the fly or not doesn't change the fact that its up to the DM. DMs do a LOT of things not seen by the players. They must. Transparency is good for a game of Lawyers and Litigation, but D&D doesn't need it. What it needs is a DM you can trust. Games thus fall into these camps: Lawyer and Litigation (Maximum transparency and RAW adherence) Adversary and Advocating (Some Transparency leading to mistrust and/or auditing of Rules) Loremaster and Listening (Minimum Transparency with trust and shared wonder) (excuse the poor the alliteration) - we could sub-divide and categorize further, but the point being between the two extremes is the muddy waters (Adversary and Advocates) that at worst is mistrust and poor feelings and at best Rules auditing and questioning. My sense is that most games fall in that middle category with either the good or bad outcome. Its hard to get 5 people on the same page, so as a rule, the muddied middle is where games are. My advise to that muddy middle: DMs try to establish trust that your not fudging to thwart/help players but to propel the narrative if you must fudge. Players try not to get too hung up on every point of damage or bonus. DMs can always up the ante or dial it down (next encounter or on the fly) so play it straight. It is what is. For both, the muddied middle means compromise is required to keep the game going, you'll just have to accept some things that bother you or you'll have to find another game. For those on the extremes, enjoy! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Would you change a monster's hit points mid-fight?
Top