De canistro textrinum

[DSMatticus]

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?

It really doesn't matter. At all. Even if you think you can disregard that specific quote as an invocation of rule zero and therefore a change of the setting by DM fiat, the original assumption that the CR 3 vrock is out of line with the D&D setting posited by the MM because the weakest vrock is CR 9 is totally bullshit someone made up. This is what the MM actually says about the CR 9 vrock (or rather, stat blocks in general):

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature. The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

And we're done. That's it. It turns out the CR 9 vrock is not an explicit min that the GM is changing by rule zero. It turns out the CR 9 is an explicit mode and the existence of CR 8 vrocks is already compatible with the MM. It doesn't tell you how to make those CR 8 vrocks, but their existence is compatible with the rules text. Baby minotaurs actually do exist in the setting even if D&D doesn't tell you how to stat them up.

Kaelik and Co are arguing from the standpoint that only actions and entities governed by the rules can possibly exist, therefore since the game doesn't tell you how to make a CR 8 vrock, even if a CR 8 vrock is compatible with the text implicitly or explicitly, it can't actually exist because the rules can't produce it. That falls apart as soon as you point out that the rules are necessarily incomplete. For example: D&D does not cover reproduction. No one's character has ever been born, and if you mention having parents in your background you aren't playing D&D anymore, you have rule zero'd it into the game and are playing something else.

They are ultimately right that "you should tell your players when you introduce weaker versions of things," they are simply wrong about why. They think a CR 3 vrock is incompatible with D&D as written, which means they also throw a fit when you introduce a baby minotaur without telling them babies are something that exist in D&D. That's very dumb. The much more reasonable position is that nobody actually plays D&D by exploring the depths of the lower bound, so when you introduce even a single CR 3 vrock (again, wholly rules text compatible), you are fucking with player expectations in a way that is genuinely disruptive to the game.

[shadzar]

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.

metagaming munchkin alert!

the only thiing a player needs to know being changed before the game is played is changes to the PC. a DM creating 400 new monsters for use with his game that will NOT include any form those printed in the MM, has no reason to tell the PCs jack or shit about his new monsters ahead of time.

stop being a fucking munchkin.

if the DM replaces every spell, then he needs to tell the players because they cant choose spells from a list they dont have.

PoL settings dont exist, they are an ideal and concept such as Utopia, that will never been reached. there is NO default D&D setting, because there is no such thing as THE D&D WORLD.

the players need nothing outside of information how to play their characters. really they only need to know how to RPG to play. they dont need the entire exacting information on every monster BBEG, etc before you play.

if you play the game and given a description of what the characters see, and sue this info given to the characters as a player to say "this is a Vrock", and then have your character that knows nothing about vrocks use ANY of that info, you are metagaming. be it a weakness of the vrock, its method of attack, or even its CR level.

the character know NOTHING of the rules. they dont know a dice is the reason why the sword is doing somewhere between 1 and 8 damage.

stop trying to abuse your knowledge of the game during play.

do you only play through adventures that you have read and already know everything about?

and people wonder why the DMG and MM said to begin with that it wasnt for players, because people like this that cant stop from metagaming.

rule zero is to create the slovelny pus-covered Kaelik with INT of 1 and CR rating of 1. the player didnt need to know its stats before running across it as it was newly created by the GM.

as a player you do NOT get to know everything about the adventure you are playing before you play it. you dont get a handout saying a synopsis of the event, encounters, and such the adventure goes through.

learn the difference between a game and a novel for fucks sake!

[Fuchs]

They are ultimately right that "you should tell your players when you introduce weaker versions of things," they are simply wrong about why. They think a CR 3 vrock is incompatible with D&D as written, which means they also throw a fit when you introduce a baby minotaur without telling them babies are something that exist in D&D. That's very dumb. The much more reasonable position is that nobody actually plays D&D by exploring the depths of the lower bound, so when you introduce even a single CR 3 vrock (again, wholly rules text compatible), you are fucking with player expectations in a way that is genuinely disruptive to the game.

If and how disruptive it is depends on individual players and their preferences. Some people actually like it when they cannot metagame since all sorts of monsters are changed and adapted. Others don't really know monsters anyway, and so don't know if cr3 vrocks are different from the majority of vrocks. Or they still think in 2E stats for some monsters.

But the basic fact is: People cannot count on their interpretation of what D&D is to be shared by anyone else, so if they start a new game they should make sure everyone is on the same page.

[Foxwarrior]

In short, have some fucking human empathy.

Why does most of the rest of your post sound more like "have pity on those ignorant sods, and don't try to help them improve"?

[Foxwarrior]

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.

These people should try M&M. The rules are simpler (and therefore easier to drop back into), and more devoted towards helping people define the good stuff (powers with interesting MTP consequences).

[Fuchs]

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.

These people should try M&M. The rules are simpler (and therefore easier to drop back into), and more devoted towards helping people define the good stuff (powers with interesting MTP consequences).

Getting less people to play D&D is not a good idea.

[DSMatticus]

If and how disruptive it is depends on individual players and their preferences. Some people actually like it when they cannot metagame since all sorts of monsters are changed and adapted.

Implicit communication via a routine ("this is what we always do, so I will assume the disclaimer is the same as last time") is totally acceptable. But that implies a routine among a personal group, which is something that has to be established at some point, which will require that you speak words. Aloud. In their presence. If player expectations are to be invalidated, those players need to know their expectations are being invalidated so they can contribute to the events at the table.

Why does most of the rest of your post sound more like "have pity on those ignorant sods, and don't try to help them improve"?

You improve at D&D by studying. The material is slightly more fun than what you have to study for the typical course, but nonetheless some people simply don't enjoy investing that much time into reading and tinkering with D&D but do enjoy playing it. And worse, all of that studying has to be front-loaded such that you learn how to make a good character before you are allowed fun. And what is and isn't good varies wildly by table, such that the more you encourage charop and system mastery, the harder it is for people to overcome the front-loaded workload and start having fun themselves.

If you actually want to help people improve, actual punishment a la "I'm going to keep ripping up your character sheet until you get it right!" is not and will not be the way to go ever.

[Fuchs]

In short, have some fucking human empathy.

Why does most of the rest of your post sound more like "have pity on those ignorant sods, and don't try to help them improve"?

Many people play games to have fun first and foremost, especially a game where you don't compete against others, such as D&D. Those who want to improve as a main goal might be better served with competitive wargames - but that's again driving people away from D&D.

[Korwin]

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.

These people should try M&M. The rules are simpler (and therefore easier to drop back into), and more devoted towards helping people define the good stuff (powers with interesting MTP consequences).

Getting less people to play D&D is not a good idea.

What why? I like M&M. Actually we are playing at the moment M&M and not D&D.

If another system is better for an playstyle, why not use the other system?

[Fuchs]

Implicit communication via a routine ("this is what we always do, so I will assume the disclaimer is the same as last time") is totally acceptable. But that implies a routine among a personal group, which is something that has to be established at some point, which will require that you speak words. Aloud. In their presence. If player expectations are to be invalidated, those players need to know their expectations are being invalidated so they can contribute to the events at the table.

Yeah, just no one should assume their own assumptions are shared by anyone else. And stuff will get missed in the "briefing" anyway, because no one thought to bring it up until it appears in game.

[Fuchs]

These people should try M&M. The rules are simpler (and therefore easier to drop back into), and more devoted towards helping people define the good stuff (powers with interesting MTP consequences).

Getting less people to play D&D is not a good idea.

What why? I like M&M. Actually we are playing at the moment M&M and not D&D.

If another system is better for an playstyle, why not use the other system?

M&M is less common, and is likely seen as "the superhero game", which is not what people go for when they want to play a fantasy game.

[Foxwarrior]

DSMatticus: Why not say something I didn't already agree with?

Like

Getting less people to play D&D is not a good idea.

, for example. I'm not some sort of WotC junkie, so I can believe that other TTRPGs which are better than D&D can and should be made.

And Fuchs's assertion about what people expect gets kind of mangled when you consider how differently Fuchs and Lord Mistborn play D&D.

[Fuchs]

DSMatticus: Why not say something I didn't already agree with?

Like

Getting less people to play D&D is not a good idea.

, for example. I'm not some sort of WotC junkie, so I can believe that other TTRPGs which are better than D&D can and should be made.

And Fuchs's assertion about what people expect gets kind of mangled when you consider how differently Fuchs and Lord Mistborn play D&D.

"Mutants and Masterminds" doesn't evoke "Orcs, wizards and elves" but "Marvel". The vast majority will think "Superheroes", not "hey, one could play a fantasy game with it too".

[Foxwarrior]

Then rip off the cover.

[Roog]

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.

These people should try M&M. The rules are simpler (and therefore easier to drop back into), and more devoted towards helping people define the good stuff (powers with interesting MTP consequences).

M&M is an effects based game, designed to be used as a toolbox. It's not a lot of use for setting shared assumptions about the world for mtp.

[K]

In short, have some fucking human empathy.

Why does most of the rest of your post sound more like "have pity on those ignorant sods, and don't try to help them improve"?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HELP THEM IMPROVE.

DnD is like football or chess. Everyone can learn to play football or chess at a basic level in fifteen minutes, and a skilled teacher can help them reach their final potential, but only the smallest percentage will ever be good enough to see a Super Bowl or be counted as a Grandmaster. Hell, most won't even make first cut in a highschool league or local club, but that's OK.

Should we knock over people's boards or slap the ball out of their hands because they can't compete at the highest levels? Or do you grow the fuck up and accept that it's just a game and the only important concern is making a fun game that the most paying customers want to play?

[Mistborn]

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.

This is not at all similar to what I have experienced. When I first started playing D&D I was in middle school and I developed a rough sense of optimization pretty quickly. The people who I've played with who learned the quickest were all in highschool. Neither myself or them were "A" students.

If you actually want to help people improve, actual punishment a la "I'm going to keep ripping up your character sheet until you get it right!" is not and will not be the way to go ever.

You don't need MTP to prevent that though. Idealy you start the players with easy encounters and they work their way up. Remember I never said that low CR encounters are badwrong just that people are going to want to progress to normal mode at some point. Having the entire group start on easy mode and work their way up would probably be the ideal.

This actually reminds me of a story from that group.

They were retrieving a Psionically active crystal from an underground labyrinth as part of a larger plotline. Guarding the labyrinth were several Earth Elementals and one Crystal Elemental (A large Earth Elemental with the Phrenic template). The barely scarped by fighting the Earth Elementals but then when they got to the Crystal Elemental it one of the more brutal TPK I've ever presided over.

They were shocked and the asked what the CR was on that monster and when they saw it was only one higher than the party they put their loss down to luck. They made a new party and promptly lost to the Elemental again in a longer more drawn out conflict. I suggested that maybe I would be better for them to get NPC help and I offered to have their higher level patron assist them. (I was a younger and more innocent person then.)

To my surprise they refused. Repeatedly losing to an opponent they should have been able to beat and then having me bail them out by proxy didn't sit well with them. They wanted to defeat this death machine that I had created on their own. I loaned them my XPH and they all got together between sessions and came back with yet another party.

They won without losing a single party member and there was a euphoric feeling in the room. They got through the rest of the campaign without anyone dying. I don't think that they would have enjoyed may campaigns as much if they didn't know so clearly that the monsters could kill them.

[nockermensch]

<stuff>

Man, I miss being young and having entire afternoons to myself.

[Stubbazubba]

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?

Complete non sequitur. No one's arguing the validity of the rules - we know they're borked - we're arguing about whether or not the DM can Rule Zero certain monsters to a lower power level than they appear in the MM. That has to do with setting, narrative, and possibly table psychology, but not the validity of rules. Both 3.5 and 4e are terrible, and you are now saying that we should not be allowed to fix them if you don't like it.

You don't need MTP to prevent that though. Idealy you start the players with easy encounters and they work their way up. Remember I never said that low CR encounters are badwrong just that people are going to want to progress to normal mode at some point. Having the entire group start on easy mode and work their way up would probably be the ideal.

That would be the ideal, and in the future games should be designed so that a single character can ease into more and more complex game modes, if that's the way the developers want the game to go. D&D doesn't work that way; the choices you make at level 1 and 2 make or break you at level 8 or 9. The same character can't improve without completely ignoring how it started (You're a 3rd level Monk? Yeah, just multiclass out and kiss those levels good-bye).

Let's compare this to Mario. In Mario, you always begin each level, each adventure, if you will, at the same power level. Mario has the ability to get through the entire level, no trap options, no dead levels, no 'gotcha' monsters. Each time you "try" and lose you start the level over and are playing again within seconds.

But let's assume some D&D assumptions in Mario: There's character selection, and what's more, it's a lengthy, tedious process of allocating like a dozen different resources to little statistics. In the end, characters who are mushroom people just can't make the actual jump necessary to beat a certain level. Princesses are too slow to make it through a certain high-level obstacle. Only plumbers can access the entirety of the game. Each time you "try" you have to make a new over-detailed character and replay the entire game.

Now there is a certain subculture of gamers who enjoy crazy-challenging games like that, but even they would object to putting in trap options and making you sit through not playing for a lengthy amount of time before you could "try" again. Meanwhile, the rest of the gaming population would at best try that once, realize the costs outweigh the benefits, and move on. After a time, no one would even want to touch that game because the game's "true fans" start heckling the casuals for not knowing better than to make a princess, calling that part of 'improving.'

D&D is not I Wanna Be The Guy or anything even remotely in that direction.

[Kaelik]

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?

Complete non sequitur. No one's arguing the validity of the rules - we know they're borked - we're arguing about whether or not the DM can Rule Zero certain monsters to a lower power level than they appear in the MM. That has to do with setting, narrative, and possibly table psychology, but not the validity of rules. Both 3.5 and 4e are terrible, and you are now saying that we should not be allowed to fix them if you don't like it.

No, Fuchs is arguing that when he drastically changes the rules under rule zero he doesn't have to tell the players that he is going to do so.

No one has ever said that you cannot rule zero monsters to a lower power level. We have said that when you are rule zeroing monsters to a lower power level, you are rule zeroing, and therefore you should have to do the thing that all sane people do when they rule zero things that effect the setting, which is tell your goddam players ahead of time.

[Foxwarrior]

In short, have some fucking human empathy.

Why does most of the rest of your post sound more like "have pity on those ignorant sods, and don't try to help them improve"?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HELP THEM IMPROVE.

DnD is like football or chess. Everyone can learn to play football or chess at a basic level in fifteen minutes, and a skilled teacher can help them reach their final potential, but only the smallest percentage will ever be good enough to see a Super Bowl or be counted as a Grandmaster. Hell, most won't even make first cut in a highschool league or local club, but that's OK.

Should we knock over people's boards or slap the ball out of their hands because they can't compete at the highest levels? Or do you grow the fuck up and accept that it's just a game and the only important concern is making a fun game that the most paying customers want to play?

Well that's a rather defeatist attitude, which you back up by saying "only a small percentage of people will be good enough to qualify for championships that are designed to select for a small percentage of people". If everyone was Superman, still only one of them would make first cut. There are vanishingly few games that I've played for hours without improving at them in the slightest; does that make me some sort of ideal champion demigod?

And no, of course you don't knock over people's boards, because then they are deprived of their opportunity to improve. If they weren't improving in any way, you should knock over their boards because they could be out doing something fun that also improved their lives in a permanent (or temporary) fashion instead.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Every time I have been in the position of having to try to force someone to bring a better game to the table it has ended badly. This is not high school. People should not have to do fucking homework just because you don't think they're pulling enough weight in their social gathering passtime.

[Slade]

crosspost

Vrock (lesser)
Size/Type: Large Outsider (Evil) (Demon)
Hit Dice: 4d8+4 (22 hp)
Initiative: +3
Speed: 50 ft., fly 40 ft. (clumsy)
Armor Class: 15 (-1 size, +3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 12, flat-footed 12
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+12
Attack: Claw +8 melee (1d6+4)
Full Attack: 2 claws +8 melee (1d6+4) and bite +3 melee (1d6+2)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Dance of Ruin, Fiendspores, Spell-like Abilities
Special Qualities: Low-light vision, Evasion, Fire Resist 4, Lightning Resist 8
Saves: Fort +5, Ref +9, Will +6
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 17, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10
Skills: Concentration +5, Diplomacy +3, Hide +10, Intimidate +7, Knowledge (any one) +7, Listen +9, Move Silently +10, Search +3, Sense Motive +6, Spellcraft +3, Spot +9, Survival +6 (+8 following tracks)
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Lightning Reflexes
Environment: Skull-shaped castles
Organization: Solitary, pair, or squad (2d6+1 demonic leader of CR 6 or higher)
Challenge Rating: 3
Treasure: Standard
Alignment: Usually Chaotic Evil
Advancement: by class

Dance of Ruin (Su)
To use this ability, a group of at least three vrocks must join hands in a circle, dancing wildly and chanting.

At the end of 3 rounds of dancing, a wave of crackling energy flashes outward in a 100-foot radius. All creatures except for demons within the radius take 2d6 points of damage per vrock (Reflex DC 12 half). Stunning, paralyzing, or slaying one of the vrocks stops the dance. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Fiendspores (Su)
As a full-round action, the vrock may fling magical spores at a 5-foot radius area within Short range. Non-demon targets struck by the spores take 1d6 damage as they penetrate the skin. Furthermore, the spores grow, dealing an additional point of damage each round for 10 rounds. At the end of this time, the victim is covered with a tangle of viny growths. (The vines are harmless and wither away in 1d4 days.) While covered in fully-grown Fiendspore vines, Fast Healing and Regeneration work half as quickly, and healing spells are half as effective. A delay poison spell stops the spores’ growth (and allows normal healing if fully-grown) for its duration. Bless, neutralize poison, or remove disease kills the spores, as does sprinkling the victim with a vial of holy water.

Once this ability has been used, the Vrock must wait a minimum of 10 rounds before using it again. Targets already affected by Fiendspores take no additional damage or harm from additional exposure.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp):
3/day: Mage Hand, Message
1/day: Dimension Door, Mirror Image

Your Vrock:

Why Resist Fire 4 not 5?
Why only 2d6 not 3d6?

Why are spores full rd and must wait 10 rounds? Wouldn't move or standard action and 10 be more reasonable?
Then why Dimension door 1/day not at will? He loses an action when using so it isn't too powerful (can't act after casting).

[Avoraciopoctules]

The resistances either equal HD or are twice HD.
2d6 is pretty arbitrary, it could probably go up to 3d6 and not be a problem.

The spores have been changed to work much differently, where you shoot 4 squares with a long-term debuff. The full-round is to keep the Vrock from using the attack while it is in the air. That said, I'm open to other ideas.

I kinda liked the idea of the lesser Vrock being something you could shoot at as it approached. If it could teleport ambush people repeatedly, I'd want to bump it up a CR point or 2. But if the teleporting is part of what people like, I could certainly add it back.

[K]

If they weren't improving in any way, you should knock over their boards because they could be out doing something fun that also improved their lives in a permanent (or temporary) fashion instead.

No, you shouldn't because IT'S A FUCKING GAME. Playing it is the temporary improvement of their lives because they are having fun.

Playing to have fun is the point, not improvement.

At no point are you justified in going to the 45-year-olds in the park who are playing football and tell them to stop because their skills have plateaued. By the same token, you don't kick people out of the chess club for not being good at chess because the point of a club is to have fun in a social atmosphere and not to exclude people who aren't good enough (though there are clubs like MENSA who do exist to exclude others, and they are basically rightly well-known for being socially-inept dickwads).

If you can't enjoy playing games with people who are below your skill level, then it's your problem. You are the one who should stop playing so that other people can have fun because no one appreciates your desire to educate them at the expense of their fun.