While reading a post on the AoW forum regarding the Hall of Harsh Reflections, a poster commented that he kept track of the PCs' hit points for a certain encounter in order to maintain secrecy and a sense of uncertainty. That got me wondering, how many other DM's REGULARLY keep track of the characters' hit points rather than allowing the players to do so themselves?
It's been years since I took over this task as DM (so long I can't even recall the "old" way). My theory at the time was that player knowledge of their characters' hit points fostered an innate "meta-gaming" (a vile form of roleplaying that I seek out and destroy at every opportunity).
It might not seem like a big deal but it has quite an impact on the game when you think about it. Should our group press on or fall back and recover after that last battle? Well, we have enough hit points - let's just go! Four wounded characters and only one healing spell/potion/device - whoever "needs" it most gets it! Or worse yet, let's not waste a higher level healing spell on a character when a lower level one will do. Help, my character is at one hit point - someone must break off from battle and help me now!
Instead, the players in my group are only aware of their character's hit point status in the most general terms. They are told, of course, when they get wounded - from "merely a flesh wound" to "a mighty blow that sends you reeling". I also inform them when their character's hit points are at/near half, a quarter, and single digits. If a character is below 3 hit points (but still conscious), I inform them that they are "barely standing" or "struggling to remain conscious". The healers in a party can never be certain exactly how close their comrades are to death. Hesitation can be the difference between life and death!
It probably sounds more complicated than it is and I like the flavor it adds to my game.
Anyone else out there have similar experiences?
It is something I have always considered doing as I think I'd like it.
Is it time consuming to do and how did your players feel when you first started using it?
We tried this for a bit in college, but we could never work it out properly. Part of the problem was conistency. It took alot on the DM's part to keep the descriptions of wounds accurate. If he said "gash on the leg" it might have meant 5 points down or 20 points down.
As the party cleric, I got very annoyed, as I had to keep asking the DM to clarify how badly people were hurt. Plus, we kept resting after every nick and scratch, which bogged down the game alot. We lost all empowerment, as the DM was in control of our level of confidence in our PC's ability to preservere. We gave it up after numerous arguments and snippy comments.
In real life, you'd know if you were too hurt to go on, and you can see how hurt someone else in your party is. Hit points are the mechanics that players and DMs use to put those observations in game terms. If you lost 2 points of strength, you would know. . . the PCs would feel the heavier weight of his sword, etc. Why make the mechanics a secret? In our case, the negatives outweighed the benefits.
With encouragement, your players can role-play their hit points as much as they can anything else in the game.
|
I agree with Chris, if the players know, they will roleplay it up. I have a mage in my party that loves to act out every nick as a dire, horrible wound because he has roleplayed the character as having a low pain threshold. Our healers would waste cure mods on him instead of cure minors which would drop the party resources faster than necessary if we didn't know our HP. I don't want to be a cleric who needs to waste a combat action to do a heal check and see who needs the healing, it wastes the cleric's actions and limits his class to party healer, not Divine Force to be reconned with.
This is the same problem as the DMs who don't want characters to role for skill checks on their own for fear of Metagaming. Stomping out metagaming is done by teaching players not to metagame, not by putting blinders on them and taking game mechanics out of their hands. Eventually the DM will be so bogged down with player actions that it will slow down the game, and players will sit back waiting for something to do while the DM tries to figure out what each player's skill modifiers are and what other conditional modifiers are needed to adjust the 6 or so character's skills. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. I like rolling the dice. I also like role-playing the dice rolls.
as always IMO
FH
Well, technohippy, admittedly my players were a little skeptical/uncertain when I first introduced this new system but unlike Chris & Fake Healer I've NEVER had any players (even ones new to my DMing, who come and go every couple years) mutter one word of complaint. I don't find it one tiny bit time consuming. I mean, the DM already has to roll the damage dished out by the monsters; what's the big deal about marking it off on a sheet of paper? I keep a very simple sheet by my side that has each character's name across the top (we typically play with about 6 characters) and their respective hit points listed under their name. Damage is just marked off and described accordingly as it happens.
I realize that the entire game mechanic of hit points isn't very realistic and is simply a necessary evil; but I think having the DM control it brings it closer to reality. I don't agree with those who argue that a person knows precisely how badly they are injured. I maintain that a person only has a general idea of how badly they are hurt. People might be closer to death than they imagine or not nearly as wounded as they think.
I also counter those who would complain about "wasting" the cleric's time with the reasoning that it is simply realistic. IRL, a medic in a battle situation "wastes" time checking on wounded individuals who are either already dead or beyond help. I've had characters killed, for example, by falling down a pit. The cleric, or whomever, risks his own life to climb down into the pit and heal his friend only to discover it's too late. That's way more realistic then everyone standing at the top saying, "Well, he's dead. Does anyone want to bother climb down and retrieve the body?". I've never had a PC cleric complain about this system (or as I said earlier, *anyone* for that matter) as I believe it *gives* more to that player than it *takes away*. You want to feel like you truly have the power over life and death? Wait until your hesitation causes someone to die needlessly or your quick action saves someone on death's door!
I didn't come up with this system, I just adopted it. I think it's good and it works great for me and my players. Clearly, it's not for everyone. I would encourage people to give it a try though. It can add a level of realism to the game, which, IMO, is always a good thing.
I was just rereading Fake Healer's post and wanted to point out that his example of his low pain threshold character exactly proves my point. The low pain threshold character is crying and carrying on like he's going to die when actually the party's resources would be better spent elsewhere. That's exactly the point! The cleric SHOULD be wasting those cure mods on him rather than cure minor spells. It negates the entire purpose of that player's great role-playing for everyone to automatically dismiss it because they *know* that his wounds aren't as serious as he claims. I have friends who are hypochondriacs but I didn't know that instantly the first time they ever complained about some imagined sickness. Why should it be different in game terms? And actually, with my system this player's roleplaying could eventually result in some comical results. Eventually that character really *is* going to be at death's door and in typical boy-who-cried-wolf fashion the party's cleric is going to be less than motivated to break off his combat to rush to his aid. It might even result in that character's death (when he might have been saved had the party's healer taken him seriously that time) - voila! You have an opportunity for that character to develop and learn a lesson ("hmm, maybe I should tone down my hystrionics"). Great playing, great role-playing, fun had by all. With your current reaction to that player's clever foible, the player is the one who's "wasting" his time!
I have to chime in on this thread. I'm so opposed to this kind of DM control. There are 2 basic principles in D&D. One is that the PLAYER is responsible for his/her character and maintaining all of its elements - not the DM. And the DM is responsible for EVERYTHING else - not the player. Once you start crossing those lines, you've got a problem.
Meta-gaming is a part of D&D that can be a minor annoyance or a major problem in every gaming groups' game. IT IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. Human nature ensures that even if we try our best to role-play against player knowledge, sometimes we will still subconsciously make decisions based on elements our characters are not aware of. It happens.
Taking control of a basic element that every player should be in control of - knowing how many hit points they have - is a horrible move by a DM. It shows complete and utter faithlessness in your players' ability to role-play and makes the DM look like a big egocentric control freak.
TEACH them how to NOT metagame-assuming the DM is not just another big fat meta-gamer, too. But don't force it on them.
In our group, both the DM and players keep track of hit points. We've never had a problem and we all (we switch-off DMing) use this method without prior arrangement. We've never had any trouble or complaint.
Oftentimes the players return for a session after a few weeks away and look to the DM to tell them their hit points. It also allows us to compare HP totals for accuracy.
We also play a friendly game with all rolls in the open, and knowing the PCs HP totals allows the DM to "dial it back a bit" if needed.
As a DM I find that generally the threat of death (and characters DO occassionally die) beats clobbering weakened PCs. It may not always be realistic, but making *small* adjustments (such as not rolling for wandering monsters as often or having enemy spellcasters use their strongest spell against the weakest PC, etc.) makes for less time needlessly rolling up new PCs.
Don't get me wrong -- PCs in die in our campaigns. PCs that undertake foolish actions die sooner. I don't believe in total DM control or removing the danger (hence all open rolls, including damage and criticals) but I do feel there is a line to be straddled, wherein the game stays exciting and the PCs sometimes feel afraid or outgunned, yet folks aren't dying continually.
Deadly campaigns in 1st and 2nd Edition led to me playing for years and never having a PC above 5th level; I've had enough of that. I've never had complaints that things were too easy, and usually my players are wiping their brow and recalling close shaves by the end of a session. It's all about moderation.
(One player -- who is somewhat competetive, believes strongly in PCs dying fairly often, and hates any DM fudging -- actually keeps track of his AND other players' HPs, which I do find annoying as both DM and player.)
>> You want to feel like you truly have the power over life and death? Wait until your hesitation causes someone to die needlessly or your quick action saves someone on death's door!
If the DM is the only one to know the hit points, then there's no way for the cleric to know his quick actions saved someone.
Thank you, d13. This was my point in my original post. I'm not trying to force this system on anyone and I freely admit it is not for everyone. I'd also like to reiterate that it is not MY personal system that I came up with but merely one I adopted after seeing it in either a Dragon article or some "core" material out there (I know it didn't come from any "outside" source because I only ever read/buy WotC-sanctioned material). My ORIGINAL QUESTION/COMMENT was just if others used this system and if so was it or was it not successful. I'm not really interested in some heated debate on whether the masses out there do or do not approve of my DMing style! It works for me and others should not be quick to judge something they essentially have no knowledge of.
And DMFTodd - point well taken.
SirMarcus, I played in such a game and of the 5 players around the table only one - the DM's buddy - liked it. Ultimately, 3 of us walked away from that game after about 2 or 3 sessions.
If your group likes it, then so be it. The guy that ran that particular game was a total control freak and a wannabe thespian masquerading as a DM. He was horrible at both! ::shudder::
Sorry to take the aggressive debater attitude. I just really hate that kind of system. And it's all because of a really crappy DM. I suppose that if done properly, you could probably pull it off and make it enjoyable for the players. However, I couldn't see that particular gaming style lasting for more than 1 campaign before reverting back to a more traditional game style.
Who wants to keep track of a PCs hit points anyways? I'm too busy taking them away! :)
This is completely ridiculous.
However a group decides to deal with HP - whether its the DM or the Players keeping track of them - it is utter nonsense that a player would keep track of OTHER PC's HP total. You should try to put an end to this.I'm certainly not above a player telling me if I am making a mistake as I referee a game, but I draw the line at Players "keeping score" to see whether I have screwed up or not. This is totally unacceptable. It takes away from roleplaying and probably slows down gameplay with unnecessary arguments. The player should worry about his own character, and leave the rest of it to the DM.
You're right, it is!
The player in question is a extremely nice guy and a long-time friend, but our DM styles differ. He loves rolling up new PCs (almost more than playing them it seems) and considers regular PC death part of the game, owing back to his 1st Edition days. I feel PC death should be more rare, certainly not every session or even every other session. This "score-keeping" has never lead to an argument or challenge of DM authority so far. But I digress...On the main point, our group doesn't find the DM tracking HPs (or, more accurately, double-checking them) as controlling (or difficult) but rather part of the DM's job. The DM keeps track of encounters, weather, sounds, smells, events, what the gods do ... he should at least know if the adventurers are alive or dead without having to ask! ;)
Who wants to keep track of a PCs hit points anyways? I'm too busy taking them away! :)
Ha! Now that's the spirit!
I quite like the idea, thinking of giving it a go.
If it no one is having fun then I'll stop. If it turns out to work for us then we'll continue to use it.
SirM's group are obviously enjoying it and it sounds like fun to me, I'll see what my players think.
It's only really meta-gaming when the player knows something his character doesn't. Values on a character sheet represent things that the character already knows about himself. A character in full plate knows that he's better protected than if if he were wearing banded mail. He knows that he's highly above average in strength, and probably knows (but doesn't like to admit) that he has all the intelligence of two short planks.
Similarly, he knows how wounded he is, and that's what his hit points represent. I like to be able to say, "Crap, I'm down to ten hit points out of a hundred, I'm in trouble here." I think my character would understand the implications of his condition, if not the numbers behind it.
Anyone else out there have similar experiences?
I had done it while playing 2nd Ed. I stopped because it was another task for an already busy DM. I had the same organisation as you have but there are also other factors to consider.
For example, my players asked for their wounds descriptions over and over. Then they asked for the description of the effect of the Cure Moderate Wounds spell the cleric just cast on them. Then they wanted to know if they felt better or REALLY better after this spell gave them back 11 hp. Then they argued endlessly with the cleric because the description was clear enough to cast a higher-level Cure spell. Then the cleric argued with me because my description wasn't clear enough...
To avoid nervous breakdowns on both sides of the screen I cut the crap after a few month. I now enforce a house rule which states no one can ever read aloud his or her hp total. They must roleplay it. I allow a Heal check DC15 from the cleric to assess the severity of the wounds. If succeed by 5 or more, the player of the wounded character may tell the total he or she's missing rounded to next full figure (10, 20, 30 and so on). It works very well like that.
I guess you don't have French-Mediterranean-bad tempered players. :)) Lucky you !!!
Bran.
In my game anyone with healing abilities has a chance to assess a downed ally (or I suppose, even a foe if they wanted) from a purely asthetic condition. This doesn't pull the cleric (or whomever) away from combat, they can just "look" and may be able to determine how close to death the injured person is (stabilized versus less than two rounds from death). Of course, a character can also do a full healing check (thereby pulling them away from any other action) and if they're successful I tell them flat-out what the injured character's hit points are. More often than not, healers do not take the time to do this check however - the players have learned to heal first, ask questions later.
Who wants to keep track of a PCs hit points anyways? I'm too busy taking them away! :)
Hear, hear - I'm too busy trying to get the hps down past that -10 mark to want to deal with other distractions.
In my game anyone with healing abilities has a chance to assess a downed ally (or I suppose, even a foe if they wanted) from a purely asthetic condition. This doesn't pull the cleric (or whomever) away from combat, they can just "look" and may be able to determine how close to death the injured person is (stabilized versus less than two rounds from death). Of course, a character can also do a full healing check (thereby pulling them away from any other action) and if they're successful I tell them flat-out what the injured character's hit points are. More often than not, healers do not take the time to do this check however - the players have learned to heal first, ask questions later.
Hmm - I would expect the level of mortality in a campaign might really effect how well this system goes over. If players die quite infrequently and building them up along with their personality is a big part of the game then its a lot easier to accept this sort of a system.
If just keeping your character alive session to session requires a good deal of skill and a pinch of luck this sort of a system is likely to face significant resistance - its hard enough staying alive when you know your current condition...