I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Well, presumably the idea is that this disease will kill the PCs if they don't solve it, and thus this is giving you a time limit and sense of urgency. It doesn't sound like the DM is specifically targeting your PC, so this isn't unfair... but it might be unfun. I would just tell the DM that you aren't having much fun with the current storyline.
I rather enjoy hitpoint reduction as a mechanic. It can be a great tool for making a particular zone on the map feel extra dangerous, a dungeon extra stressful, an individual monster scarier, or some other situation more pressing. D&D, as a game, can have some problems with representing tension with mechanics, and this is one option DMs have at their disposal.
However, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle it—if the DM is using it to build tension for a narrative reason, that can be fun; if they are doing it simply to weaken the players, that is a problem. I also think it can be a problem if the intent is for the reduction to be permanent (unless a result of a meaningful player choice where they accept the permanent loss as part of their choice) or if there is not a clearly defined end to when the HP drops occur.
On its face, I do not have an issue with what your DM is doing - and very well might do the same thing. It has a story reason, does a good job representing your characters wasting away, puts a clock on the action, forcing haste, and has a clearly defined end-point (finding the cure and subsequent recovery). It might be helpful if you tried to look at this from the DM’s perspective on what they are trying to do and why they might think it could be fun for the players, and try to find the excitement in a ticking clock.
While I have no problem with the concept, that does not mean it is not being implemented poorly. We do not really have the facts, but, seeing as you are upset about the situation, at the very least the DM is not doing their due diligence of monitoring their players’ enjoyment when handling high-risk mechanics.
That means that, in addition to trying to see things from their perspective, a conversation might be in order to make sure they see things from yours. A DM is only as good as the information they have; if they are not picking up on your displeasure on their own, they cannot then use that information to adjust their plot. With luck, your DM will take your feedback and adjust to make things more fun for everyone, particularly if you indicate you are willing to cut them some slack as well.
An example of what you could say: "Hey, while i get what you are going for, i am not enjoying this aspect all that much. Can you get to the cure sooner or give us avenues to halt the disease temporarily or something? " That is one way to bring it up that isn't combative.
Don't want to put words in your mouth or emotions where they aren't but it comes off as if you are anxiously demoralized and not motivated by the tension.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Hit Point Maximum reduction is usually temporary. As permanent effect it seems brutal indeed since it's part of a plot twist engineered by the DM, at this rate i expect it to be dealt with rapidly via cure or TPK.
As you stated if there was a clearly defined goal to how to end the HP reduction, I would be more okay with it. But our party has gotten very vague responses from npc's and our most promising lead was a crystal in the peak of a mountain that rumored to have strange powers that may or may be able to SLOW the affliction but would not be able cure it.
So, I guess I'm more discontent that this is happening and we're not getting any real information on how to cure it. it just feels like a wild goose chase whilst our characters slowly wither away.
If the promising lead your DM steered your party towards doesn't give any more insight, your party may want to tell the DM you still don't know how to cure the strange disease you've been afflicted with after a week. Hopefully the situation clarify soon.
If the promising lead your DM steered your party towards doesn't give any more insight, your party may want to tell the DM you still don't know how to cure the strange disease you've been afflicted with after a week. Hopefully the situation clarify soon.
+1 to this. It could be your DM has a plan, it’s just unfolding slowly and is getting frustrating.
And it’s fairly common for a DM to think they’ve planted lots of clues, hooks and directions, but the players haven’t picked up on them. That could be what’s happening here, where your characters are slowly dying, and your DM is wondering why you haven’t just taken the solution that he thought was obvious when he placed it 3 sessions ago. So an out of character conversation can help clear up that confusion.
If the promising lead your DM steered your party towards doesn't give any more insight, your party may want to tell the DM you still don't know how to cure the strange disease you've been afflicted with after a week. Hopefully the situation clarify soon.
+1 to this. It could be your DM has a plan, it’s just unfolding slowly and is getting frustrating.
And it’s fairly common for a DM to think they’ve planted lots of clues, hooks and directions, but the players haven’t picked up on them. That could be what’s happening here, where your characters are slowly dying, and your DM is wondering why you haven’t just taken the solution that he thought was obvious when he placed it 3 sessions ago. So an out of character conversation can help clear up that confusion.
Yeah, GMs have a bad habit of forgetting that what's obvious to them, with their omniscient perspective about the whole adventure, isn't necessarily so obvious to the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One of the things that's become apparent to me from playing TTRPGs is that DMs and players often have differing ideas of what's fun in these games. Honestly, you can generally tell whether someone is a DM or player by how they approach certain things and as to whether they find them fun, what they focus on, etc. A lot of the disagreements on what good mechanics are etc in games (like here on DDB, but also other forums for other games) boil down to the differences in these perspectives. It gets to the point where one side can't even understand why the other doesn't find their idea of fun...well, fun.
How to build up tension is one of those areas that players and DMs differ on in their attitudes on what works and what doesn't. Having characters visibly inch towards death with no clue how to progress to stop their death? Yeah, that's often a DM's view of what's fun, and tends to drive players crazy.
If things don't clear up, I'd have a word with the DM. DMs often don't realise that while this kind of setup is fun for the DM and from the perspective of observers listening to the story, it's often not so fun for the players (and in your case, it seems as though it's not for you).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Why confront the DM at all? The DM has created a mechanic, that seems to have an internal logic, and hearkens back to older days of D&D where permanent LEVEL loss, let alone HP, was very possible. Sounds like your DM wants to introduce more difficulty, more urgency, into his campaign. Good for the DM. Just play within the mechanics the DM has set out.
I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Why confront the DM at all? The DM has created a mechanic, that seems to have an internal logic, and hearkens back to older days of D&D where permanent LEVEL loss, let alone HP, was very possible. Sounds like your DM wants to introduce more difficulty, more urgency, into his campaign. Good for the DM. Just play within the mechanics the DM has set out.
Speaking as someone who already posted a defense of these types of mechanics, the above is not particularly good advice—it is pretty telling that the above user sees “have a conversation with your DM” as “confront,” betraying their mindset that the player-DM dynamic is antagonistic.
Any competent DM is going to welcome a conversation with their players - after all, the competent DM wants everyone to have fun (again, to be clear, I fully believe these types of mechanic can be fun—I love a ticking, lethal clock as both a player and DM). For the most part, only a poor and/or scared DM does not want a player to provide input and constructive criticism. This does not mean they will take your constructive criticism and change their behavior - especially if they have good reasons for their actions. But, assuming they meet a minimum standard or competence, they will want to know your thoughts—after all, more information is always better, as that gives them options on whether they want to use the information or not. Sharing feedback is a pretty basic reality of any social event - and has always been - so you can pretty much ignore any “don’t talk to your DM” advice unless tour DM is particularly fragile.
————
Circling back to your point about the DM being vague, I agree with what others have said - a common DM mistake is to think something is obvious, simply because they know what the answer is. I will note, it does seem from your post that you are a bit dismissive of the Crystal that slows the progression down - this seems like a pretty good boon to me. Not only will it help reduce the effects of the disease, it might contain clues on how to cure it - after all, if it helps slow, maybe you could research what properties cause it to slow the diseases and figure out how to supercharge those properties to make a cure. That is exactly the kind of clue a DM is very likely to use - it both gives the players a bit of a reprieve and sets them on the right path for greater success.
I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Why confront the DM at all? The DM has created a mechanic, that seems to have an internal logic, and hearkens back to older days of D&D where permanent LEVEL loss, let alone HP, was very possible. Sounds like your DM wants to introduce more difficulty, more urgency, into his campaign. Good for the DM. Just play within the mechanics the DM has set out.
Speaking as someone who already posted a defense of these types of mechanics, the above is not particularly good advice—it is pretty telling that the above user sees “have a conversation with your DM” as “confront,” betraying their mindset that the player-DM dynamic is antagonistic.
Any competent DM is going to welcome a conversation with their players - after all, the competent DM wants everyone to have fun (again, to be clear, I fully believe these types of mechanic can be fun—I love a ticking, lethal clock as both a player and DM). For the most part, only a poor and/or scared DM does not want a player to provide input and constructive criticism. This does not mean they will take your constructive criticism and change their behavior - especially if they have good reasons for their actions. But, assuming they meet a minimum standard or competence, they will want to know your thoughts—after all, more information is always better, as that gives them options on whether they want to use the information or not. Sharing feedback is a pretty basic reality of any social event - and has always been - so you can pretty much ignore any “don’t talk to your DM” advice unless tour DM is particularly fragile.
————
Circling back to your point about the DM being vague, I agree with what others have said - a common DM mistake is to think something is obvious, simply because they know what the answer is. I will note, it does seem from your post that you are a bit dismissive of the Crystal that slows the progression down - this seems like a pretty good boon to me. Not only will it help reduce the effects of the disease, it might contain clues on how to cure it - after all, if it helps slow, maybe you could research what properties cause it to slow the diseases and figure out how to supercharge those properties to make a cure. That is exactly the kind of clue a DM is very likely to use - it both gives the players a bit of a reprieve and sets them on the right path for greater success.
The OP used the word "confront" in his post. And I have been hearing for years this euphemism of "constructive criticism" for years aka "DM, I don't like this part of the game, change it." The DM has introduced a very interesting mechanic into what I assume is a 5e game, that makes sessions time sensitive, and leads to increased tension in said sessions. And this is a kind of tension that is very very good. Asking the DM to change it is not the answer.
When the increasing tension turns into anxiety such that someone would make a post about it seeking feedback, the game mechanic is no longer doing it's job, which is ultimately to make the game overall enjoyable.
When the increasing tension turns into anxiety such that someone would make a post about it seeking feedback, the game mechanic is no longer doing it's job, which is ultimately to make the game overall enjoyable.
You are introducing that term, not the OP. Is the rest of the table complaining? We have zero evidence one way of the other. Maybe the other players are loving it. One player not enjoying a mechanic is not a reason to end said mechanic. That person can always walk away from the table if something bothers them that much.
When the increasing tension turns into anxiety such that someone would make a post about it seeking feedback, the game mechanic is no longer doing it's job, which is ultimately to make the game overall enjoyable.
You are introducing that term, not the OP. Is the rest of the table complaining? We have zero evidence one way of the other. Maybe the other players are loving it. One player not enjoying a mechanic is not a reason to end said mechanic. That person can always walk away from the table if something bothers them that much.
Or, and hear me out, they can have a conversation like adults, and come to a resolution. It doesn't even have to be the DM changing their mind, the DM could just say, "Trust me, i think you will enjoy the pay off" or " I do have a plan, can you just bare with me a little longer?" If a player just walks away, and the DM doesn't know why, then they don't improve. The DM could think that everyone is enjoying it and not know it is causing distress. The DM might want to know if there is a problem or not, and the Player might need to know " There was a hint that you missed, think on it again." A healthy conversation solves many problems. I get that you like that kind of tension and mechanic farmer, but just because you like it, that does not mean everyone else does, or should.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
When the increasing tension turns into anxiety such that someone would make a post about it seeking feedback, the game mechanic is no longer doing it's job, which is ultimately to make the game overall enjoyable.
You are introducing that term, not the OP. Is the rest of the table complaining? We have zero evidence one way of the other. Maybe the other players are loving it. One player not enjoying a mechanic is not a reason to end said mechanic. That person can always walk away from the table if something bothers them that much.
You're right we don't know the whole story, we just know a part of it. However, if one person isn't enjoying it whats the harm in trying to discuss it with the DM?
Food for thought years ago, I brought up a story about a table I used to play at, I don't anymore (oddly enough not for reasons at all with that story..its more of a mess with a newer member who wasn't apart of that story, that;s the reason I walked away). In that story, rather poorly I might add, described the scenario but I did manage to leave some things out. This was not done intentionally but was done because at the time I was focused on a narrow scope.
All replies to that post, were not positive, they could feel I was leaving things unsaid but also didn't know what and so they wrote their own conclusions ultimately thinking I was the "jerk" (which I can understand why that stance was took). The problems described in that story still happen and now at this point I do hear the disgruntled cries from people not willing to try to talk about it because too many of them just think (but it can cause A to change) and that's their choice.
No reason to constantly assume doom and gloom when based off how its described I doubt many people would have fun with that mechanic and there is no reason to bring it up (their fears, their distaste, etc).
Although I do speak from experience, sometimes one has to walk away from a table. That's just life.
Would it be better for the player is they kept the HP's and instead had other negatives added on like exhaustion or encumbrance effects or a reduction in ability scores.
I have found a HP reduction is often the better option.
I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Okay so the obvious question here is: Why haven't you sought out a Cleric or other spell caster who could remove the disease?
Second, how did you get the disease in the first place? 🤔
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm playing a fighter that has had his maximum hit points permanently reduced by 9 then again by 18 in addition to the previous 9. So my lvl.6 fighter has gone from 59 HP to 31 which is frustrating to me.
some campaign backstory is that we were afflicted by a strange disease that our party is currently trying to cure. After about a week in game time we have not made any progress in our search and were asked to make con saves and our entire party lost maximum hit points ranging from 5 to 9. Now after another week of game time traveling a mountain chasing the most promising lead that our dm has steered us towards I've lost even more max hit points almost totaling half my total hit points.
it seems a bit harsh, and I don't really know how to confront the dm about it.
Well, presumably the idea is that this disease will kill the PCs if they don't solve it, and thus this is giving you a time limit and sense of urgency. It doesn't sound like the DM is specifically targeting your PC, so this isn't unfair... but it might be unfun. I would just tell the DM that you aren't having much fun with the current storyline.
I rather enjoy hitpoint reduction as a mechanic. It can be a great tool for making a particular zone on the map feel extra dangerous, a dungeon extra stressful, an individual monster scarier, or some other situation more pressing. D&D, as a game, can have some problems with representing tension with mechanics, and this is one option DMs have at their disposal.
However, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle it—if the DM is using it to build tension for a narrative reason, that can be fun; if they are doing it simply to weaken the players, that is a problem. I also think it can be a problem if the intent is for the reduction to be permanent (unless a result of a meaningful player choice where they accept the permanent loss as part of their choice) or if there is not a clearly defined end to when the HP drops occur.
On its face, I do not have an issue with what your DM is doing - and very well might do the same thing. It has a story reason, does a good job representing your characters wasting away, puts a clock on the action, forcing haste, and has a clearly defined end-point (finding the cure and subsequent recovery). It might be helpful if you tried to look at this from the DM’s perspective on what they are trying to do and why they might think it could be fun for the players, and try to find the excitement in a ticking clock.
While I have no problem with the concept, that does not mean it is not being implemented poorly. We do not really have the facts, but, seeing as you are upset about the situation, at the very least the DM is not doing their due diligence of monitoring their players’ enjoyment when handling high-risk mechanics.
That means that, in addition to trying to see things from their perspective, a conversation might be in order to make sure they see things from yours. A DM is only as good as the information they have; if they are not picking up on your displeasure on their own, they cannot then use that information to adjust their plot. With luck, your DM will take your feedback and adjust to make things more fun for everyone, particularly if you indicate you are willing to cut them some slack as well.
An example of what you could say: "Hey, while i get what you are going for, i am not enjoying this aspect all that much. Can you get to the cure sooner or give us avenues to halt the disease temporarily or something? " That is one way to bring it up that isn't combative.
Don't want to put words in your mouth or emotions where they aren't but it comes off as if you are anxiously demoralized and not motivated by the tension.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
Hit Point Maximum reduction is usually temporary. As permanent effect it seems brutal indeed since it's part of a plot twist engineered by the DM, at this rate i expect it to be dealt with rapidly via cure or TPK.
As you stated if there was a clearly defined goal to how to end the HP reduction, I would be more okay with it. But our party has gotten very vague responses from npc's and our most promising lead was a crystal in the peak of a mountain that rumored to have strange powers that may or may be able to SLOW the affliction but would not be able cure it.
So, I guess I'm more discontent that this is happening and we're not getting any real information on how to cure it. it just feels like a wild goose chase whilst our characters slowly wither away.
If the promising lead your DM steered your party towards doesn't give any more insight, your party may want to tell the DM you still don't know how to cure the strange disease you've been afflicted with after a week. Hopefully the situation clarify soon.
+1 to this.
It could be your DM has a plan, it’s just unfolding slowly and is getting frustrating.
And it’s fairly common for a DM to think they’ve planted lots of clues, hooks and directions, but the players haven’t picked up on them. That could be what’s happening here, where your characters are slowly dying, and your DM is wondering why you haven’t just taken the solution that he thought was obvious when he placed it 3 sessions ago. So an out of character conversation can help clear up that confusion.
Yeah, GMs have a bad habit of forgetting that what's obvious to them, with their omniscient perspective about the whole adventure, isn't necessarily so obvious to the players.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
One of the things that's become apparent to me from playing TTRPGs is that DMs and players often have differing ideas of what's fun in these games. Honestly, you can generally tell whether someone is a DM or player by how they approach certain things and as to whether they find them fun, what they focus on, etc. A lot of the disagreements on what good mechanics are etc in games (like here on DDB, but also other forums for other games) boil down to the differences in these perspectives. It gets to the point where one side can't even understand why the other doesn't find their idea of fun...well, fun.
How to build up tension is one of those areas that players and DMs differ on in their attitudes on what works and what doesn't. Having characters visibly inch towards death with no clue how to progress to stop their death? Yeah, that's often a DM's view of what's fun, and tends to drive players crazy.
If things don't clear up, I'd have a word with the DM. DMs often don't realise that while this kind of setup is fun for the DM and from the perspective of observers listening to the story, it's often not so fun for the players (and in your case, it seems as though it's not for you).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why confront the DM at all? The DM has created a mechanic, that seems to have an internal logic, and hearkens back to older days of D&D where permanent LEVEL loss, let alone HP, was very possible. Sounds like your DM wants to introduce more difficulty, more urgency, into his campaign. Good for the DM. Just play within the mechanics the DM has set out.
Speaking as someone who already posted a defense of these types of mechanics, the above is not particularly good advice—it is pretty telling that the above user sees “have a conversation with your DM” as “confront,” betraying their mindset that the player-DM dynamic is antagonistic.
Any competent DM is going to welcome a conversation with their players - after all, the competent DM wants everyone to have fun (again, to be clear, I fully believe these types of mechanic can be fun—I love a ticking, lethal clock as both a player and DM). For the most part, only a poor and/or scared DM does not want a player to provide input and constructive criticism. This does not mean they will take your constructive criticism and change their behavior - especially if they have good reasons for their actions. But, assuming they meet a minimum standard or competence, they will want to know your thoughts—after all, more information is always better, as that gives them options on whether they want to use the information or not. Sharing feedback is a pretty basic reality of any social event - and has always been - so you can pretty much ignore any “don’t talk to your DM” advice unless tour DM is particularly fragile.
————
Circling back to your point about the DM being vague, I agree with what others have said - a common DM mistake is to think something is obvious, simply because they know what the answer is. I will note, it does seem from your post that you are a bit dismissive of the Crystal that slows the progression down - this seems like a pretty good boon to me. Not only will it help reduce the effects of the disease, it might contain clues on how to cure it - after all, if it helps slow, maybe you could research what properties cause it to slow the diseases and figure out how to supercharge those properties to make a cure. That is exactly the kind of clue a DM is very likely to use - it both gives the players a bit of a reprieve and sets them on the right path for greater success.
The OP used the word "confront" in his post. And I have been hearing for years this euphemism of "constructive criticism" for years aka "DM, I don't like this part of the game, change it." The DM has introduced a very interesting mechanic into what I assume is a 5e game, that makes sessions time sensitive, and leads to increased tension in said sessions. And this is a kind of tension that is very very good. Asking the DM to change it is not the answer.
When the increasing tension turns into anxiety such that someone would make a post about it seeking feedback, the game mechanic is no longer doing it's job, which is ultimately to make the game overall enjoyable.
You are introducing that term, not the OP. Is the rest of the table complaining? We have zero evidence one way of the other. Maybe the other players are loving it. One player not enjoying a mechanic is not a reason to end said mechanic. That person can always walk away from the table if something bothers them that much.
Or, and hear me out, they can have a conversation like adults, and come to a resolution. It doesn't even have to be the DM changing their mind, the DM could just say, "Trust me, i think you will enjoy the pay off" or " I do have a plan, can you just bare with me a little longer?" If a player just walks away, and the DM doesn't know why, then they don't improve.
The DM could think that everyone is enjoying it and not know it is causing distress. The DM might want to know if there is a problem or not, and the Player might need to know " There was a hint that you missed, think on it again."
A healthy conversation solves many problems. I get that you like that kind of tension and mechanic farmer, but just because you like it, that does not mean everyone else does, or should.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
You're right we don't know the whole story, we just know a part of it. However, if one person isn't enjoying it whats the harm in trying to discuss it with the DM?
Food for thought years ago, I brought up a story about a table I used to play at, I don't anymore (oddly enough not for reasons at all with that story..its more of a mess with a newer member who wasn't apart of that story, that;s the reason I walked away). In that story, rather poorly I might add, described the scenario but I did manage to leave some things out. This was not done intentionally but was done because at the time I was focused on a narrow scope.
All replies to that post, were not positive, they could feel I was leaving things unsaid but also didn't know what and so they wrote their own conclusions ultimately thinking I was the "jerk" (which I can understand why that stance was took). The problems described in that story still happen and now at this point I do hear the disgruntled cries from people not willing to try to talk about it because too many of them just think (but it can cause A to change) and that's their choice.
No reason to constantly assume doom and gloom when based off how its described I doubt many people would have fun with that mechanic and there is no reason to bring it up (their fears, their distaste, etc).
Although I do speak from experience, sometimes one has to walk away from a table. That's just life.
Would it be better for the player is they kept the HP's and instead had other negatives added on like exhaustion or encumbrance effects or a reduction in ability scores.
I have found a HP reduction is often the better option.
Okay so the obvious question here is: Why haven't you sought out a Cleric or other spell caster who could remove the disease?
Second, how did you get the disease in the first place? 🤔