De canistro textrinum

[Kaelik]

The actual rules say we can change the vrocks and make them weaker.

The "actual rules" tell you how to make stronger Vrocks and different same strength Vrocks.

The fact that a single line says "Rule Zero" doesn't mean that all the actual rules cease to exist.

Likewise, every time a 4e points to page 42 to claim that there totally is calling magic in 4e, they are just as wrong as you.

[Fuchs]

The actual rules say we can change the vrocks and make them weaker.

The "actual rules" tell you how to make stronger Vrocks and different same strength Vrocks.

The fact that a single line says "Rule Zero" doesn't mean that all the actual rules cease to exist.

Likewise, every time a 4e points to page 42 to claim that there totally is calling magic in 4e, they are just as wrong as you.

Tsk tsk, Kaelik. Are you really so pathetic that you cannot admit that the MM itself states that the monsters presented are average versions and not the weakest possible version? That's quite a lot of denying facts.

The entire argument you brought forth with frothing mouth was "Vrocks have to be CR9 at the least, or the setting is ruined!". And now it turns out that those who were claiming "having cr3 vrocks doesn't ruin the setting since you can totally have cr9 vrocks as well" were right.

[Mistborn]

Couldn't you have read my next sentence before responding, so you could be a little bit less focused on ultimatums? I'd still dispute that 70% of the player base is incapable of understanding optimization, and I'd say it is rather "desirable" that they play well, because intelligent emergent gameplay is the best kind.

Most games teach you to play them well. That neither you nor LM believe D&D is one of those games is a failing.

I honestly don't think that learning basic D&D is that hard. I think that the culture surrounding D&D is what causes people not to learn. In experiences have people who genuinely want to learn master the core principles of 3.5 optimization quickly.

Now 3.5 has is imperfect and has a lot of trap options. From a game design perspective the solution is not to say "fuck the rules" so people with bad characters can feel like they've won the solution is to have fewer trap options in your game.

[shadzar]

I guess this is one of those points where Misty finds hard to swallow the man juice he has been dutifully milking from the MM's authors. This applies to Kaelik too, in this case.

You might want to reread this thread nocker we've been over this already. The MM only has rules for weakened versions of printed monsters the same way it has rules for stating up the Jabberwock. If you want be an idiot you can slap the label Vrock on what ever homebrew monster you wanked into existence, but that's different from adding HD too a Vrock according to the MM guidelines.

One of those things is using the rules the other is lying to your players.

notice your own carefully chosen words... "guidelines"..."rules'... if you are a decent DM you explain that the "rules are only guidelines", as has been stated in EVERY edition, so they know the DM can change things.

the players shouldnt be expecting shit form a monster anyway. that is just shitty metagaming payers if they try to quote what the monster should or should not do or be.

[Korwin]

If shadzar would agree with my side of an argument... that would be a real reason to soulsearch myself if I'm eventually wrong.
Its not an 100% shure way, even shadzar may find some things he is right about.
(I wont read them, to much effort.)

Fuchs, yes the quoted text talks about weaker monster, but you dont get actual rules how to create them*.
And, wow now you quote shadzar to tell us you got it right in the first place...?
That might get you on the ignore list by association... not there yet.


*Please quote them if they are there somewhere (and not unuseable Savage Species**)

** Actually Savage Species is about playing monsters, right?
And Frank & K threw them out of the window in the Tomes and presented alternative (more useable) rules?!

[Kaelik]

the MM itself states that the monsters presented are average versions and not the weakest possible version?

The monster manual states that they are the most common versions.

Then it gives rules for making non-mode Vrocks of the exact same CR. Then it gives rules for making non-mode Vrocks of higher CR.

For you to pretend that the statement about most common versions some how makes it part of the rules to make weaker versions is just you lying.

When it states they are the most common versions, and then gives rules for changing feats and adding HD/class levels/ability scores, that makes it really fucking obvious what "most common" means.

The fact that the most common Vrock by definition is one that just crawled out of a spawning bit in the last day is just more evidence that most common versions are in fact the weakest versions according to the actual rules, because the actual rules only provide ways to make the different but just as strong, or stronger.

For you to claim "most common" by definition means that there must be weaker versions is just you lying through your teeth.

[shadzar]

The actual rules say we can change the vrocks and make them weaker.

The "actual rules" tell you how to make stronger Vrocks and different same strength Vrocks.

The fact that a single line says "Rule Zero" doesn't mean that all the actual rules cease to exist.

Likewise, every time a 4e points to page 42 to claim that there totally is calling magic in 4e, they are just as wrong as you.

Page 42 in 4th is a sales gimmick, not the original concept for D&D. it basically says, we are trying to sell you some polished terd, and going to make it pretty like D&D, but having nothing to do with D&D, thus its powers system and tiers, and "roles"; and to decorate it the reused and obfuscated the meanings of "red box" including the artwork on the box from 30 years prior, and the book Rules Cyclopedia for their shitty web presence wannabe wiki.

the only way page 42 works for 4th edition like all the previous "rules are only guidelines" type quotes is that it provides rule zero, and to make the game D&D you have to rule zero ALL of 4th by throwing the books away and playing something that IS (A)D&D as opposed to Marvel Superheroes in Medieval Fantasy Times that the 4th books contain.

the fact they failed to provide examples of lowering a monsters CR, does not mean it is not possible, they just fucked up. ergo why they added the proper wording in 3.5 that was left out of 3.0, but failed to add examples of it.

where in chapter 5: making monsters (3.5 MM page 295) does it state you cant recreate other monsters? it doesnt. you use the vrock as a base/template for the monster design, and adjust everything to the CR rating wanted.

when done calculating all your crap to change the monster you end up with your Pygmy Vrock CR3, or whatever you wish to call it, a Vrockling for all i care!

[Fuchs]

@Kaelik: How much in denial of facts can you be? It states there that the GM can make weaker versions, so the versions in the book are not the weakest there are. Do you have a problem with logic, Kaelik? Or with interpreting rules? Or reading? Or are you just a liar?

@Fox Warrior: The rules say you can have weaker versions of the monsters. Which means the entire argument of "CR3 vrocks are impossible, CR9 vrocks are the lower limit" is wrong. Which was the main argument of Kaelik and co.
That there are rules to make stuff weaker was already demonstrated - curses, level drain etc. - though honestly, simply eye balling how far you reduce the relevant numbers is probably easier.
But the main point is that the MM itself disproves the claim that there cannot be CR3 vrocks.

What's so difficult about stating "ok, default D&D doesn't limit vrocks to cr9 or tougher, but I still prefer that for my games"? It's not wrong, it simply means the whole thing is a matter of personal preference.

[Kaelik]

It states there that the GM can make weaker versions

Page 42 of the 4e DMG says the DM can make up things too. Does that mean that the actual rules for 4e are not terrible because the DM can change them?

If not, then why does the ability of the DM to rule zero the MM change the actual rules for Vrocks?

[Korwin]

@Kaelik: How much in denial of facts can you be? It states there that the GM can make weaker versions, so the versions in the book are not the weakest there are.

@Fox Warrior: The rules say you can have weaker versions of the monsters.

Oh grand Master of the Rules, please point me to the place where those mystical rules are? How do I lower the CR of an Balor by one? (Please dont pull them out of your or anyones ass.)

[Foxwarrior]

I honestly don't think that learning basic D&D is that hard. I think that the culture surrounding D&D is what causes people not to learn.

Yeah... I think I agree with you. If D&D was treated like a board game, the idea that you could play it without reading the rulebook first would be totally absurd. But because there's a DM to adjudicate the rules, people treat it more like a computer game instead, where most publishers don't even bother providing a summary rulebook.

The thing is, the computer game model reduces the time investment for getting players playing the game, so they're more likely to try it out. Actually playing D&D most of the time doesn't even really need an especially firm grasp on the details of the rules, and learning which maneuvers are good during play time can be fun. However, character optimization cares a great deal about implementation details, so suddenly the players end up needing to learn how everything interacts with everything else in order to play.

[shadzar]

@Kaelik: How much in denial of facts can you be? It states there that the GM can make weaker versions, so the versions in the book are not the weakest there are.

@Fox Warrior: The rules say you can have weaker versions of the monsters.

Oh grand Master of the Rules, please point me to the place where those mystical rules are? How do I lower the CR of an Balor by one? (Please dont pull them out of your or anyones ass.)

3.5 MM, page 295. find the monster in question, use it as a template for your new monster. make adjustments as needed for the CR level desired. stick the name Balor, on your new monster.

If you think that a certain monster is worth more (or less) than its Monster Manual rating, feel free to change it.

or do that, and just change the damn CR down by one for ANY monster.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Yeah... I think I agree with you. If D&D was treated like a board game, the idea that you could play it without reading the rulebook first would be totally absurd. But because there's a DM to adjudicate the rules, people treat it more like a computer game instead, where most publishers don't even bother providing a summary rulebook.

The thing is, the computer game model reduces the time investment for getting players playing the game, so they're more likely to try it out. Actually playing D&D most of the time doesn't even really need an especially firm grasp on the details of the rules, and learning which maneuvers are good during play time can be fun. However, character optimization cares a great deal about implementation details, so suddenly the players end up needing to learn how everything interacts with everything else in order to play.

That's an interesting analogy. Especially when I consider that in Neverwinter Nights, I give my characters a magic ring that lets them use Implosion, Invisibility, Haste, and Heal at will, plus another that gives immunity to debuffs, death effects, and damage. So I can fast-forward past tedious combats, you see. I take them off if a fight is fun.

[Foxwarrior]

I'm not sure what your point is, Avoraciopoctules, except maybe that Neverwinter Nights has a lot of tedious combats.

[Avoraciopoctules]

There is a subgroup of D&D fans and MCs who are much more interested in how they can use d20 character stats to give some shared assumptions to their MTP than in playing the game as written.

BUT, if they do this, there will be occasions where people will want to suddenly drop back into much more authentic D&D for a scene or two. But it can be difficult to predict when this can happen. In game with multiple people involved, this could be problematic.

[DSMatticus]

Wait, so the MM explicitly fucking says vrocks weaker than CR 9 can exist, and the response is that they don't? That's not even moving your goalposts. That's having your goalposts destroyed and turned into a scorching crater and claiming "I didn't see it go in. No point." Fuck you, you disingenuous asshats.

The fact is that arguing from 'D&D setting by raw' is a stupid fucking argument because it is both wrong, and more importantly, irrelevant. The MM never, ever claims that the provided statblock is the weakest. It does explicitly say the GM can make stronger or weaker monsters. Now, those are separate and happen (or fail to happen, in the case of the former) in separate places, because even if you want to pretend the second is rule zero bullshit and ignore it on some incredibly slim and dishonest pretext, the first is still a delusion pulled out of Kaelik's ass (I think he's the one that started that) because the MM says something entirely different, and the only way to reach that conclusion is to think that by mode they mean min, which it never has and never will. The actual text of the actual fucking manuals implies a game world in which the existence of a CR 8 vrock is totally and wholly unrevolutariony. Full fucking stop, end of the god damn story. That is a D&D setting compatible with the MM.

Now, this is still also irrelevant because D&D setting by raw includes shadows and chainbinding, and nobody here is going to stand up and say "if you aren't playing in a necromantic hellscape devoid of life, you aren't playing D&D," or "if you aren't playing in a world where wishes grow exponentially towards 'I fireball the surface of everything ever,' you aren't playing D&D." The D&D setting implied by the strictest core raw text is not one anyone actually any bends over backwards to protect. It's actually pretty fucking terrible.

This line of argument is a dead end. Its origin is a misunderstanding of what the word typical means, it rejects actual text from the damn book that suggests it's total bullshit, and to hold any slim shred of consistency it requires the acknowledgement that shadow swarms and chainbinding are one-true-D&D and not having them is not-D&D.

[K]

Couldn't you have read my next sentence before responding, so you could be a little bit less focused on ultimatums? I'd still dispute that 70% of the player base is incapable of understanding optimization, and I'd say it is rather "desirable" that they play well, because intelligent emergent gameplay is the best kind.

Most games teach you to play them well. That neither you nor LM believe D&D is one of those games is a failing.

Yeh, DnD is not one of those games. It's a game where the majority of people just play and don't get better. It's wildly complex, completely arbitrary, 90% trap options, and dense enough that getting just the jist of the rules requires somewhere between 20-30 hours of reading and a good background in statistics and logic theory.

Go online and watch people play real games with real players.

"DnD with Pornstars" is a perfect example of my point in the form of a video web series. These are not brilliant strategists with a good grasp of number theory and statistics who obsessively read online for great builds and inventive uses for spells, but average people who enjoy RPGing and need the DM to confirm their bonuses on most rolls because they don't have good basic math skills and 90% of the rules are a riddle to them. They pick PrCs because they "sound cool" and the limit of their optimization skills is being a Wizard who doesn't use a crossbow during every combat round (something that noobs will sometimes just do because they don't understand that the game gives you trap options as a default).

In my experience, the "A" student in school who is on the path to grad school is the same one who can make and play a powerful DnD character. The rest of the DnD membership, the people who don't have the skills and talents to even get a Marketing degree from a state college, are never going to play at the level of the future grad student and punishing them for that failing is nonsensical at best and cruel and destructive at worst.

It's especially terrible when you consider that the game is designed so that the DM can give PCs challenges suited to their skill level and play style. Driving friends out of the hobby to suit the online epeens of people who are demonstrably douchebags is just the worst model for social behavior ever, and it makes for unpleasant games and poor sales of those games.

In short, have some fucking human empathy.

[Fuchs]

It states there that the GM can make weaker versions

Page 42 of the 4e DMG says the DM can make up things too. Does that mean that the actual rules for 4e are not terrible because the DM can change them?

If not, then why does the ability of the DM to rule zero the MM change the actual rules for Vrocks?

The claim was: There cannot be weaker vrocks, the rules do not allow it, hence having weaker vrocks ruins the setting.

Please tell me why "In most cases, a monster entry describes a typical individual of the kind in question, which is the most common version encountered by characters on adventures. The DM can modify these entries, create advanced or weaker versions, or alter any statistics to play a monster against type and surprise the characters." means "Vrocks can't be weaker than CR9".

[Fuchs]

@Kaelik: How much in denial of facts can you be? It states there that the GM can make weaker versions, so the versions in the book are not the weakest there are.

@Fox Warrior: The rules say you can have weaker versions of the monsters.

Oh grand Master of the Rules, please point me to the place where those mystical rules are? How do I lower the CR of an Balor by one? (Please dont pull them out of your or anyones ass.)

You don't get it. The entire point is that CR3 vrocks are possible, the CR of a monster manual entry is not set in stone.

[Kaelik]

The claim was: There cannot be weaker vrocks, the rules do not allow it, hence having weaker vrocks ruins the setting.

No, that was never the claim. At no point ever did anyone claim, "MCs cannot use rule zero on monsters by the rules."

The claim is quite clearly that when MCs rule zero monsters, they are rule zeroing monsters, and therefore need to fucking tell the players ahead of time about the fact that they are doing so, exactly like all other rule zero.

[DSMatticus]

But most of them will kill you over and over again until you play right. I do believe Lord Mistborn's position on exactly that was that the players should keep making new characters until they make something good.

"Kill" in a videogame is a wholly different function with wholly different consequences than it is in a TTRPG. Those are not the same thing. When you die in NWN or any D&D game, you are playing the game again in less than a minute. Videogame D&D analogues put you back in the action essentially immediately. Other genres do it just as fast. It's usually not even a punishment. The game is basically built out of positive incentives like "yay, you killed people! Have points!" The 'punishment' for dying is "oops, too slow on the draw that time! But that's okay, go kill some more people!"

"Kill" in a TTRPG is both time-consuming and a veto on that player's contribution to the shared story (their character). It is an actual punishment. And yes, it probably should happen occasionally at most tables, because death can be an experience for the campaign that exceeds its negatives. But it has actual negatives that aren't trivial bullshit like "wait 10 seconds to respawn," "press f8," or "run back to your body." They use the same word, but they work in fundamentally different ways and have fundamentally different effects and the similarities are essentially only nominal, in the same way that killing my neighbor is not the same thing as shooting his virtual avatar in the face.

[Fuchs]

The claim was: There cannot be weaker vrocks, the rules do not allow it, hence having weaker vrocks ruins the setting.

No, that was never the claim. At no point ever did anyone claim, "MCs cannot use rule zero on monsters by the rules."

The claim is quite clearly that when MCs rule zero monsters, they are rule zeroing monsters, and therefore need to fucking tell the players ahead of time about the fact that they are doing so, exactly like all other rule zero.

If the manual actually says "there are weaker monster versions around" then the GM doesn't have to tell the players that he is using those. That's the entire point of a rule that says "hey, the GM can change the stats here to surprise you". The surprise you so dread is explicitely stated as a-ok.

In other words, the rule book you worship tells you "The GM can change those stats, don't expect them to be used in all cases".

Which means you're assumption that the GM needs to ask for permission before changing stats is a house rule. Something that's good to mention, seeing how some people here have trouble with it, but not default D&D.

Understand now? Your entire idea that you have to know the stats of monsters is wrong.

Edit: I'd even argue this is not rule zero, since it's specifically stated in the monster manual. Rule zero is a general clause, no need to repeat it it covers everything. This however specifically widens the range of monster CRs.

[...You Lost Me]

Fuchs, saying "it's in the rules" isn't even an argument. The fact that the MM has a quote saying "the DM can do whatever he wants to the monster" is not justification that the rules support scaling monsters down.

Also, Avorio has a vrock. Could we discuss that?

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, saying "it's in the rules" isn't even an argument. The fact that the MM has a quote saying "the DM can do whatever he wants to the monster" is not justification that the rules support scaling monsters down.

It counters the "the rules do not allow CR3 vrocks without houseruling vrocks" claim. While no exact game mechanics are given it's clearly intended that weaker vrocks exist. Which means the entire "but the MM defines Vrock as CR9 or better, anything else is house ruling stuff" whining is wrong.

[Kaelik]

That's the entire point of a rule that says "hey, the GM can change the stats here to surprise you". The surprise you so dread is explicitely stated as a-ok.

In other words, the rule book you worship tells you "The GM can change those stats, don't expect them to be used in all cases".

Which means you're assumption that the GM needs to ask for permission before changing stats is a house rule.

Every rulebook ever says that rule zero exists. None the less, if you implement rule zero, you need to inform your players. The fact that a rulebook says "the rules can be changed" does not mean you don't have to tell your players you are changing the rules.

The DMG also says that DMs can change PrCs any damn way they want, but if your player takes a level of Archmage only to find out afterwords that you changed the level 1 ability to "You can never cast spells again" even though the book explicitly tells you that the DM can change those rules if he wants, the player is still in the right for insisting that the DM needed to tell him beforehand, and the DM is still in the wrong for changing the rules without telling the players ahead of time.