| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPC/monster stat blocks tend to have "morale" sections which specify tactics they will take when they have x hp left. If NPCs are able accurately to judge when they have more or less than 7 hp (for example), why shouldn't the PCs?
When you're running NPCs who have gear, are *you* allowed to judge whether they should attack a PC or 5-foot back and drink a potion based on granular meta-knowledge of their health status?
As GM, you control *everything* in the world, except the PCs. Players generally ought to have as much control over their characters as the GM does of their NPCs, imo. That includes making decisions based on how close they are to unconsciousness/death. When the GM is keeping track of *all* the numbers all the time, I feel like it's taking too many responsibilities away from the players.
As always, however, if your players think it sounds fun, go for it. Every group is going to have its own opinion about what makes their game more exciting. But after you've played a session or two with you as exclusive keeper of the hit points, I'd revisit the decision and see how they're feeling about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't do that,Such info is player knowledge. Pc's need it for builds and uch
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My GM did it that way for years and only changed because of the bookkeeping burden. He would tell us we were "lightly wounded", "moderately wounded", "seriously wounded" or "gravely/critically wounded" based on our percentage of HP left. I didn't mind one bit and got so used to it that when I went to my first con, I was momentarily at a loss as to why the GM was telling me how much damage I took. We all knew our max HPs, so we could roughly gauge where we were. We knew if the barbarian took a shot that took him from full to seriously wounded, that it would likely be enough to outright kill the wizard. And he would occasionally give us more hints like "really, it was just a scratch", or "you've got one foot in the grave already", or even more directly, "you can count your hit points on one hand."
So it can be fine and help with immersion. I would talk it out with your players to see if they would be like to try it. It does add to your bookkeeping though.
You know, I actually forgot, I'm in a play-by-post game where the GM does this ("light wounds," "serious wounds," "critical wounds," etc.). It's just that I'm playing the wizard so I'm not often in a situation where I'm taking hit point damage and have to pay much attention to it.
So I guess I can say it's not a deal-breaker.
Every bit of donkey work I have to do as a DM means it's another item I have to concentrate on as opposed running the world and the story, which means the quality of the job I do takes a hit.
In other words. the net effect would be most likely the opposite.
Also you're forgetting a basic fact. A character or monster that normally has 300 hit points is just as effective in operation when it's down to 10... or 1.
I think the uncertainty you're hoping to represent is intended to be provided by the various dice rolls.
In your place, I would be daunted by the responsibility of conveying life-or-death descriptions _and_ having those descriptions mean to the player in question what they mean to me.
'Thigh cut to the bone' means what? Slowed movement? Immanent exsanguination due to femoral artery transection? 'Hooray, my bone stopped the cut!'? Because I've had players that would hear it those three ways.
So for clarity, we talk in hit points and numbers, and _then_, we apply the color commentary.
But if your table is all of similar enough mindset that you know you'll be heard the way you _think_ you'll be heard, then Go For It, as duty to the GM's Art.
Would you allow for heal checks to diagnose general well-being, possibly as a free action? You're potentially cutting down on the information players have to make decisions to well-below that of the superhuman characters. I would be very careful about such things, and be more willing to step in if a player seems to be working off of false assumptions.
If you run/play a very wargames style, you want to know exactly what your points are.
I have played games like this (hidden HP), and it was fun, but, frankly, those were good enough GMs that it would have been fun whatever. We did have a few players get pretty wierd about trying to work out what their hit points were exactly. That got old fairly quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the sort of thing that causes people to prepare Status repeatedly.
Not good, all it would do would have players incredibly worried about their status, and actually detract from immersion, not to mention that many playrs like to manage their own character and would walk away from a game that was too far in the DM's control. (DM control is fine, they make the story and monsters, benefit from rule zero and whatnot, but put it too far and you just have one guy telling his story and the characters are more witnesses than actors)
Its a lot of work. I would do it for a horror campaign.
|
You know, I actually forgot, I'm in a play-by-post game where the GM does this ("light wounds," "serious wounds," "critical wounds," etc.).
I would be ok with this sort of method. It communicates the character's status without giving exact details.
However, as the GM you have to decide if the extra bookkeeping is worth it. There is already a lot to keep up with and if you ever find the game slowing down because you have too much to do, you should consider streamlining and giving up on some of that work. Immersion is important, but keeping the players engaged is much more so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would run, not walk, away from a game like this. It takes away a small piece of control that a player has over the story by separating them from a mechanic that is a core component of the game, and it creates a significant trust issue with a GM who now has complete omniscience in combat.
Maybe if you and your players have known each other for a while and already had that trust, and there was already an expectation that some hand-waving was going to happen, it would work. If you were able to do the bookkeeping. But otherwise? No way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would run, not walk, away from a game like this. It takes away a small piece of control that a player has over the story by separating them from a mechanic that is a core component of the game, and it creates a significant trust issue with a GM who now has complete omniscience in combat.
Maybe if you and your players have known each other for a while and already had that trust, and there was already an expectation that some hand-waving was going to happen, it would work. If you were able to do the bookkeeping. But otherwise? No way.
Its OK John you've been hurt before I understand let it out buddy.
It's a bad idea unless the GM is going to constantly remind them. I can't imagine anything being worse than
"I think I can take this goblin on"
2 damage
"You fall to the ground and start bleeding out"
Lol yeah I think if mistreated it would suck but to be fair the dm could just as easily go ok 20 damage and your dead assuming the DM uses it correctly the only thing that actually changes is your direct knowledge of specifics. To much work for me personally but to each their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't ask us, ask your players. As you can tell the opinions on this matter run the width of the spectrum and what you really need to know is where they stand. We are inconsequential.
I believe the idea has some merit but can just as easily understand the opposite point of view so you might suggest running a separate oneshot adventure simply as a testrun. This way it doesn't risk your actual campaign if the idea isn't picked up or has unforeseen consequences. Afterwards, ask your players about the experience and go from there.
I have run in a game that the GM never told us our HP. He kept track of all damage and HP totals and frankly it was seriously annoying and the whole group quit after about 8 sessions.
He never told us our damage or how many HP we had left. Often times we would not know when to heal or what power healing spell to use so precious resources were wasted. He basically said either we were fine/wounded/near death and that was it.
Not knowing your own hits does make combat a lot more tense but in my experience it was not a 'fun' tense.
Many years ago in an attempt to get our rather large group (I think there where 10 of us) to focus more on role playing then roll playing. We decided to co DM a 2nd edition AD&D campaign where we would tell the players none of the hard numbers. The players didn't even know their ability scores in the beginning.
It worked really well at first and the players all really got into their characters heads. The players really did role play their characters' history's and motivation. It produced some of the best pure role playing I've ever seen first hand. Still, despite it doing exactly what we hoped it would, it became to much of a hassle to keep it up for the whole campaign. I believe by the third or forth session we went back to the standard format for playing.
So... your experience may vary. Try for a session or two, if your players like it and you can handle the extra work, great. If not, stop it and move on. After all we're all playing the game to have fun.
I would run, not walk, away from a game like this. It takes away a small piece of control that a player has over the story by separating them from a mechanic that is a core component of the game, and it creates a significant trust issue with a GM who now has complete omniscience in combat.
Maybe if you and your players have known each other for a while and already had that trust, and there was already an expectation that some hand-waving was going to happen, it would work. If you were able to do the bookkeeping. But otherwise? No way.
I dunno about that. There are DMs I generally trust enough to game with, but certainly not enough to yield over that much control. If they proposed, or worse, tried to impose something like this, it would be a deal breaker.
I did this once. Gave up eventually due to the bookkeeping. It got to be not worth the trouble.
It could be fun if implemented properly. I might give them approximate % of their hps instead of colorful descriptions. I have tried it but gave it up due to the extra bookkeeping involved. A oouple of seconds doesn't sound like much, but those seconds add up quickly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*holds GM's head underwater after losing character due to charging while ignorant of being at 0 HP*
Huh? What? Immersion? Yeah, we've got full immersion...
Seems like it's a lot of extra work for the GM, for what is at best a pretty small benefit. Add in the fact that it's also something that wouldn't go over well with a lot of players (myself included) and it doesn't seem like the best way to run things.
That said, if the players want it and the GM doesn't mind the extra work, go for it.
It's also a matter of being organized and having the proper HP count sheet (paper or computer at the ready)... but seriously, most players will want to manage that, and might not enjoy an "immersive" description of how well or how bad they feel
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I loathe the idea with a fiery passion. I'd at least strongly consider voting with my feet.
The issue isn't so much with the character TAKING the damage assuming (BIG assumption) that you're consistent enough with the descriptions or adopt one of the suggestions above about explicitly telling PCs which "band" they're in.
The issue is with the healer. As the healer I really need to know how many hit points people are down in order to decide which of my resources to use.
And you get things like the Life Oracles ability which trigger off of characters being 5 hit points or more down.
Another issue is that players tend to exaggerate how much danger their characters are in anyway. Not knowing how far down they are is going to exacerbate this. Hiding information is going to make characters MORE cautious which is often NOT a good thing.
Oh, and you're almost certainly underestimating the work that you'll be doing. You now have to track DR and temporary hit points, players Stoneskin, etc etc.
|
I could see an unintended side effect of making the players ultra cowardly because they lack the info to judge threats appropriately. Or they might act foolhardy because they lack the info to judge threats appropriately. I'd strongly consider adding hero points to the game so players can stave off death. That added bonus might be enough to make this work as intended.
Probably not something I would enjoy personally, but it sounds interesting. Please come back with updates!
My GM did it that way for years and only changed because of the bookkeeping burden. He would tell us we were "lightly wounded", "moderately wounded", "seriously wounded" or "gravely/critically wounded" based on our percentage of HP left. I didn't mind one bit and got so used to it that when I went to my first con, I was momentarily at a loss as to why the GM was telling me how much damage I took. We all knew our max HPs, so we could roughly gauge where we were. We knew if the barbarian took a shot that took him from full to seriously wounded, that it would likely be enough to outright kill the wizard. And he would occasionally give us more hints like "really, it was just a scratch", or "you've got one foot in the grave already", or even more directly, "you can count your hit points on one hand."
So it can be fine and help with immersion. I would talk it out with your players to see if they would be like to try it. It does add to your bookkeeping though.
This is exactly how iv run my medieval fantasy tables for the past 20 years, going a different route only if we are trying out a new game system. So my players have experienced both play styles, and only people who are used to playing with different GM's have complained about it in all those years.
However, since we started playing pathfinder, i also adopted a rule to ask my players to take notes of all injuries they take, and when they get healed, they can remove those.
So if you took a stab on your rib, it's a good idea to write that down until your wounds are healed as a reminder that you are injuried.
Not all of them take those notes and they have charged into combat with a dozen hit points left. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't, but they were fully aware of their wounds.
This extra bookkeeping is much less of a problem than players who don't write down their damage or subtract less damage from their hit points than they should have. Which will happen with spells cast and other resources used up that go from "nothing" on one session to "fully recharged" on another.
I think the proposed change breaks immersion rather than enhances it. The one thing that a character is most aware of is his own condition, or how much fight he has left in himself. In the absence of a magical effect that renders him unaware of such things (and a few such effects do exist), a player should know his PC's hit point total.
As a player it's eh, I wouldn't enjoy it but it wouldn't ruin the game for me.
As a GM I'm screeching internally at the thought of all the extra bookkeeping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure the first time you have a character death due to someone not knowing exactly how close to 0 HP they are, there are going to be hurt feelings.
You could start telling them when they figure they're "1 hit away" or something, but that's extra bookkeeping and I know I'm going to screw that up sometime.
I think that "immersion" is something that people strive for in video games, but it's less relevant as a goal in tabletop because you almost get it for free as the world is capable of reacting organically to players (as the world is controlled by a human being and not a computer program.)
OK, I can buy the arguments that you don't like losing that little bit of control. I cannot buy the arguments that a character would automatically know just how hurt they are. Experience, personal and from people I know, tells me that you are often completely unaware of just how hurt you are. It takes a while for pain to set in, especially when adrenaline is flowing.
Immersion is not something that a lot of players are going for, this is a wargame dominated system. There are the full spectrum of player types, but this forum is going to be weighted towards rules over roles.
Yeah, as far as immersion goes, I figure I would actually be thinking about HP *more*.
When HP is a number, I think of it matter of factually, it's a number, I use it to make some tactical decisions, and then I move on. I don't think about HP any longer than I need to for making tactical decisions.
If HP isn't given to me, though, those tactical decisions don't go away- but now I'd have to guess my HP. Which leads me spending more mental space trying to mentally track a hidden number, which actually would lead to me spending *more* time thinking about HP, which leads to *less* immersion in the game world.
Why wouldn't I be able to just let go? Well, I actively enjoy the tactical element of the game. But more importantly, as Cabbage and others pointed out, character death can and often is caused by running out of HP, and the #2 goal for me is to avoid my character's deaths(the #1 goal is to avoid failing will saves that kill my party). Therefore, hidden or not, HP is still a vital concern.
The exception would be in particularly laid back games where combat and hp-based character death isn't a concern in general. Still would find the bookkeeping irritating as a GM though.
OP, I would hold onto this idea of 'not knowing your own stats' if the player was ever under say... a mind control effect or had bad wisdom damage. Seems like a good way to make the game more interesting.
knowing the people I played with they would most likely become the type of paranoid that's not desired outside of horror games
[...] The issue is with the healer. As the healer I really need to know how many hit points people are down in order to decide which of my resources to use. [...]
Can't but completely agree with this.
"moderately wounded" will mean cast a cure moderate wounds will be enough?
And the answer is depends, to the low CON wizard or the high CON Barbarian? And what about the people in the middle?
And what level are we talking about? 25% of the life of a 5 level character is not the same than 25% of the life of a 15 level character.
But not only the Healer; a hit that makes the barbarian "light wounded" is enough to worry me and go to protect the squishiest? Or I can more or less safely assume they'll can resist one or two blows and I'll opt for other options like focus fire?
The only good option is when you play a character whose actions aren't affected from what happen to other players, i.e. my glass cannon will continue attacking as I have no options to heal, protect or control the battlefield.
I could play it, but I didn't enjoy it as much and woun't even think in making certain kind of characters.
The healer issue is one that exists in many games that don't use this variant. Some GMs let players track their own HP, but don't let them tell the exact number to other characters, because that's metagame knowledge - if you want to know exactly how badly hurt someone is, there are spells for that.
True, but you know who you're trying to heal, and each character's level. The healer knows that 25% of my high-CON Barbarian's HP is probably about 50% (this is a guess, I don't keep track of other player's max HP - I might if I was a healer) of the low-CON caster's HP."moderately wounded" will mean cast a cure moderate wounds will be enough?
And the answer is depends, to the low CON wizard or the high CON Barbarian? And what about the people in the middle?
And what level are we talking about? 25% of the life of a 5 level character is not the same than 25% of the life of a 15 level character
Which is a bit of meta-gaming which then counteracts the original stated goal of increasing immersion...