De canistro textrinum

[shadzar]

There is no moral or practical good in getting better at D&D. It will not make you a better friend, a better employee, a better lover, or a better person. The only thing getting good at D&D will do is make you better at D&D and possibly teach you lessons in game design in that you have gained the mastery necessary to notice D&D's fuck-ups,

I disagree, D&D years back, has helped expand my vocabulary, perhaps even bettering my reading ability

there is a LOT D&D can make people understand more, but sadly most of that is lost now.

Vocabulary, well everything is a keyword now, and defines the word in a way outside of the English language for the game. so that is out.

practical use of algebra... well i have given the equations for THAC0 enough people can go back and look at them. you were mistakenly given one version where you had to solve with, not for an unknown, and people just couldnt move AC from the unknown side to the known side.

cooperation, people are too busy competing with each other during play than working together. treasure division for one example. the group got treasure and gave it to who needed it. a fighter would get a magic sword, not a magic wand because it would be of most help to the group for him to have it. the wizard gets the wand. now its all about $$$ value must be spread evenly.

interest in reading is also a thing form the past. new editions have a lack of reason to read it. it is like fridge instructions, you read it because you must, not because you want to. it just isnt interesting in many places.

it used to teach probability also, and correctly. gave you the bell and linear curves. now, unlimited ranges mean you rarely know if you have a chance for something to work, so you sort of have to grab every possible bonus to hope it increases your chances as infinitely smaller they are for the seemingly unlimited ranges.

it used to allow for learning better problem solving, now just list picking mostly. say before it was thinking outside the box, simply because there was no box, but now mostly the box is a cage many cannot escape from to think outside of.

record keeping and tracking... gone. dont worry about ammo, just assume you always have enough, same for money.

the game has become complacent in its competition of video games that do all those things for you. i like the thing GW says that D&D is not and never has been competition for them because GW isnt in the RPG business they are in the Warhammer business, and nobody but them makes warhammer. while many people make miniature games, nobody really makes anything that comes close to warhammer.

D&D forgot this and tried to earn EVERY entertainment dollar from every source possible, movies, video games, novels, etc. it became something to be all things to all people, and in doing so, trying to be the best PnP video game, and PnP movie, etc.. it forgot how to be D&D and allow for those things it used to teach.

now it can teach... grocery list making? arguing with authority figures? ow to pander to everyone and in the process make a product that lack quality (see $1 calculators)?

did it need to teach all that stuff in the beginning, yes and no. it needed to show how the game worked for novices, the vocabulary in some cases were just a bonus above and beyond what was needed (Gygaxian prose). as i have long said, things have been lost in each edition of the game taking for granted that new editions gain only experienced players. and things were added in places to replace some lost thing that probably shouldnt have been added. (3.5 DMG pg 8, leaving out that deep-immersion is fun, while making sure to put it in for the kick-in-the-door style). this may have actually tailored a generation of gamers to play a certain way. thus we have the infamous from James Wyatt, "the game is about killing things and taking their stuff, not traipsing through faerie rings and talking to the little people"; that was 4th edition wherein you didnt stop to talk to the city gate guards, you just skipped it and got on to the "fun", the fighting. and the "everything is core" so you need to buy everything from us to play mentality of 4th, as opposed to Gygax from 1st who was attributed with saying "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules". how we got to game must be played RAW from

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME.

i will never know except for a marketing ploy.

[shadzar]

First thing, this is the method to reduce the CR?
Page number?

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

end of story. the DM can change to CR up or down on a whim.

[Korwin]

Why is this still a point of discussion? Fuchs is dropping the ball here, but I'm pretty sure I covered this.

Its so totaly not covered.

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.

Its not done, because there are no rules to get from an CR 9 Vrock to an CR 3 Vrock.
You have to totally pull something out of your ass. You have to create an new monster on an case by case basis. Or create some homebrew rules how you get from an CR 9 anything to an CR 3 anything. IMHO the first solution looks more practical.
But since there are NO rules, how to lower a monster by 6 or more CR's (or lower its CR period) and at Level 1 (where CR 3 Enemies should be possible to defeat) I would see an fucking CR 9 critter (assuming I would OOC know its that high) coming to fight (without out of game warning) the party. I would think a few not very nice things think about either the adventure* or the MC.

• OK, where is the MC-Penis extension NPC, who will rescue us.*
• Are you under drugs?
• If you did'nt want to fucking MC an campaing you should have said, before we made PC's
• etc.

* Thinking about an SR campaing here, where we got rescued every fucking time by an (different) Dragon.

And I would think those thinks, regardless of my Char. having the necessary Knowledge skills or not.
You ask, you dont trust your MC? Yes, I dont trust anybody to not fuck up on occations (me included)!

Kaelik and Co are arguing

Am I include in that & Co? Thats not my point and I dont think its even Kaeliks.

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.

I think, Kaeliks argument goes like this (and if its not Kaeliks argument its mine):
If you include Homebrew things, not covered by the rules, the players deserve a warning. So they know your wont missuse them and their time for some brain mastubation/power trip. Or if they know you allready better, so they know you did'nt fuck up. Since that happens to everybody from time to time. Or do you claim to be perfect and such a thing cant happen to you?
Looks like we are actually on the same page, looking a little further down.

For example: D&D does not cover reproduction.

Actually in the case of Devils and Demons, thats not true. You want some quotes from Fiendish Codex?

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.

Well the reason there are no Babys officially in the game is, might be for political correctness purposes. You Baby-Killer you

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.

Hey, I agree with you!
I think thats K's doing, his accusation of Metagaming halted at least in my case the argumentation with player expectations first. But after thinking a little about it, I stand to it.

There are no stats for baby _____, and D&D doesn't tell you how to make stats for them, but the assertion that the campaign setting contains sexual reproduction and creates baby ____'s is not rule zero.

Yes there are Babies in D&D.
Officially there are no Baby Demons. Seriously Demons and Devils have no Babies, thats really explicit written down in the books about Demons and Devils.
But the stats for the babies (of species who do have them, like humans) are rule zero.
Or if you like this better: Stats for Babies are Homebrewed.
Actually, I think in Heros of Horror is a Template for an Half-Fiendish Baby. Dont remember much about it. So lets rephrase, most stats for babies are homebrewed.

Again.
If lowering the CR of monsters is not Rule 0, where are THE FUCKING rules how to Lower an Balor by one CR?

In 3.5, on Page 295-302 in the Monster Manual under Creating a Monster.

The CR calculations basically devolve down to "once you've created a similar monster to one that exists, compare them and eyeball a CR." That's a terrible set of rules, but they fucking exist.

Don't have the MM at hand. Looking at the SRD, I'm only able to find text about "Improving Monsters", is it hidden somewhere there or do I need to search for my MM?

[Korwin]

First thing, this is the method to reduce the CR?
Page number?

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

end of story. the DM can change to CR up or down on a whim.

Shit I red your post.
Yes, the MC can change everything, thats rule 0. End of Story.

Need to still look at the MM, if there are actually rules for creating new monsters from scratch. Somehow my trust into K isnt was it once was. (I blame his lawyer education.)

[sabs]

I still don't understand why people would be offended by a cr 1/2 orc, but not a cr5 orc.

[Kaelik]

Don't have the MM at hand. Looking at the SRD, I'm only able to find text about "Improving Monsters", is it hidden somewhere there or do I need to search for my MM?

He's talking about the rules for assigning CR to a monster you literally just created from scratch.

So in other words, there is a guideline called "Compare it to other monsters" that allows you to compare a monster you just made up, like Av's Kcorv, to other monsters and pick a CR. It also suggests your SGT test your monsters against PCs.

But that tells you nothing about how to actual make a CR 3 Vrock in the first place, because all it tells you is that you should change the CR 9 Vrock to be about as strong as CR 3 creatures by changing its abilities.

Obviously no help is provided in the form of "having these SLAs would be worth this much CR" or anything like that.

[shadzar]

Don't have the MM at hand. Looking at the SRD, I'm only able to find text about "Improving Monsters", is it hidden somewhere there or do I need to search for my MM?

the SRD or Source Reference Document, references the source materials DMG, PHB, MM. its like an index with built in glossary of common things. you still need to sources to play D&D, the SRD was never meant to allow you to play or fully understand D&D. it was a set of tool to help people create accessories that still "require the source books" to play D&D.

TL;DR

yes, you need your MM.

[Fuchs]

Eyeballing is probably the best way to get a CR, same as reducing AC, hitpoint, attack and damage until it looks comparable to other monsters you know are as tough as you want the thing to be. That way at least you have some comparison to stuff you already tested against the party.

[Korwin]

I still don't understand why people would be offended by a cr 1/2 orc, but not a cr5 orc.

This sounds like an strawman, the difference between an CR 1/2 and an CR 1 Orc at Level 1 is what?

The difference between CR 3 and CR 9 at Level 1 is a little more pronounced, dont you think?

[Grek]

I still don't understand why people would be offended by a cr 1/2 orc, but not a cr5 orc.

This sounds like an strawman, the difference between an CR 1/2 and an CR 1 Orc at Level 1 is what?

In theory, CR 1/2 means you're supposed to use twice as many

[sabs]

who uses CR9 anything at level 1? Is this some weird, if you can't defeat gods at level 1 you suck at D&D Fetish?

And if you throw 3 CR3 vrock at a level 1 party, you're still being a dick. The party dies not as quickly as against a CR9, but really the outcome is pretty much the same.

But it's not a straw man. What about dragons.
Is it just because there's a chart ranging dragons from 3 to 20? that people are okay with it? Cause that chart is pretty fucking arbitrary.

Noone's going to flip out about a CR3 Dragon, or a CR9 Dragon. So why are you flipping out about a CR3 vrock vs a CR9 Vrock?

[Red Archon]

Could Fence Builder start selling T-Shirts that had relevant prints, like an Obama's "Hope"-campaign colored vrock with the text "CR 3" OR "CR 9." Other ideas include a John Travolta from Grease with zippers for eyes and a Giant Fucking Crab.

I'm just saying, with fair prices and a handy way of moving the money and merchandise globally, I'd pay actual money for this stuff.

[Falgund]

Noone's going to flip out about a CR3 Dragon, or a CR9 Dragon. So why are you flipping out about a CR3 vrock vs a CR9 Vrock?

Because a CR3 Black Dragon is a size T wyrmling and a CR9 Black Dragon is a size L young adult, and that characters that know about Dragons know the differences between them.
And if you try to pass a size T wyrmling as a young adult Dragon, you are going to break the suspension of disbelief of people that did not agree to this.

[Korwin]

who uses CR9 anything at level 1?

Whats your point?
If they PC's hear about an Ancient Dragon, hear about destroyed towns, in an Tavern, only intended as backround/ploot hook for later in the campaign and the PC's decide to go after the Dragon.

If they then see destroyed towns, really big claw marks, etc. and still decide to go after the Ancient one...

What CR will they face, if you MC?

Is this some weird, if you can't defeat gods at level 1 you suck at D&D Fetish?

That seems to be what K's side want:
Defeat gods, demons, etc. at an Level when you normally would not be able to.

[Fuchs]

who uses CR9 anything at level 1?

Whats your point?
If they PC's hear about an Ancient Dragon, hear about destroyed towns, in an Tavern, only intended as backround/ploot hook for later in the campaign and the PC's decide to go after the Dragon.

If they then see destroyed towns, really big claw marks, etc. and still decide to go after the Ancient one...

What CR will they face, if you MC?

There's a difference between the level 1 PCs going after something, and the GM having something going after them. If' I'd DM that I'd simply tell the players beforehand: Are you really going to attack an ancient dragon, with some explanation of stats and dice odds for those who don't know the numbers. If the answer is still yes, well, there's the ancient dragon in the MM. I might ask though if anyone is attached to their character beforehand as well, having some taken prisoner might be an option there.

Is this some weird, if you can't defeat gods at level 1 you suck at D&D Fetish?

That seems to be what K's side want:
Defeat gods, demons, etc. at an Level when you normally would not be able to.

And of course that's a-ok, since only complete fanatics would take offense at other people not respecting the holy Monster Manual, right?

[Wrathzog]

Could Fence Builder start selling T-Shirts that had relevant prints, like an Obama's "Hope"-campaign colored vrock with the text "CR 3" OR "CR 9." Other ideas include a John Travolta from Grease with zippers for eyes and a Giant Fucking Crab.

I'm just saying, with fair prices and a handy way of moving the money and merchandise globally, I'd pay actual money for this stuff.

I want a Shadzar t-shirt. It's actual Shadzar quotes, walls of text on both sides, no two shirts are the same.

[Fuchs]

Well head shaking or not, it is "drivel", but it is popular consensus among RPG fans that GM role is basically equated to that of God, and gets a more or less, totalitarian bend of how the game goes. At least, in my experience something that's continued still, and it's got some harmful assumptions that go with that (though true DM's work should be more appreciated than its implied it gives, when deserved of course).

That's basic human nature. If the GM is doing most of the work of getting and keeping a game going, then he has usually more of a say about it. And it's not too stupid either - if the GM doesn't like the game or playstyle, odds are he won't do a good job at it. I sometimes wonder how many of those posters here who seem to think they can actually force a GM to play a game he doesn't want to "because the rules say so".

[shadzar]

Whats your point?
If they PC's hear about an Ancient Dragon, hear about destroyed towns, in an Tavern, only intended as backround/ploot hook for later in the campaign and the PC's decide to go after the Dragon.

If they then see destroyed towns, really big claw marks, etc. and still decide to go after the Ancient one...

What CR will they face, if you MC?

ahh, the disconnect between D&D and the stuff WotC made...

if an ancient dragon is on the map/in the cave and the PCs go looking for the rumored dragon at level 1, then they will face EXACTLY what is there. not something tailored to the party.

if it was planned to be a baby/hatchling/young/wyvern/drake etc then it will be. if it really is an ancient that they have no chance to survive, then that is what they face.

this nonsense about monsters must be level appropriate has caused foolish ideas to enter the game, like:

-we must be able to beat it
-it was placed there for us to fight it NOW

and a whole slew of other crap. it diminishes the players ability to choose the risk they wish to take, and really does become just a railroad.

the information the players get from NPCs isnt always absolutely correct/ maybe the actual dragon the legend is based on has died off or moved on long ago and the scars of it remain, but something else has taken its place, even a band of goblins using the fear of the populace to stay safe, or just a band of human bandits.

the players have to choose if they are ready to face the risk and lethality when they take on an adventure/plot hook.

they might get lucky an win against this "later" encounter, but i also dont think of things as "made for later", unless it is an event. this is part of the living world, not the player interaction based world. the world is what it is and the PCs exist in it. they find what they find and have a choice how to react to it, the game doesnt have Monster X in Position D only when the PCs are ready for it.

there is ZERO animosity towards players when placing an ancient red dragon and letting them face it. the PCs/players choose where to go and how to respond to what they find there. if they succeed and kill it/win the encounter somehow at level 1, then FUCK. got to come up with something challenging later, or figure out where i screwed up letting them be too powerful, or get new dice cause the ones i used must all have 1s on them. the game continues, congrats, you smote the hell out of this thing. if they all die.. it was their choice to take on the encounter rather than flee from it and search for something else.

plot hooks are just that, hooks. whether the players take the bait or not is up to them. forcing them to take a plot hook that will surely result in TPK, is a bad DM.

if they hear of the vrock, then what is to say it doesnt describe a weaker one? the rewards will equal the risk either way. players must decide which information to trust, and how valid it is. that is how small little quests turn to epic adventures. they thought it was one thing, and did that one thing, but choose to seek further info on it which led to more and more.

[K]

Is this some weird, if you can't defeat gods at level 1 you suck at D&D Fetish?

That seems to be what K's side want:
Defeat gods, demons, etc. at an Level when you normally would not be able to.

And of course that's a-ok, since only complete fanatics would take offense at other people not respecting the holy Monster Manual, right?

Yeh, I'm not entirely sure why that was phrased like an accusation.

A lot of gamers don't want to fight giant rats and kobolds at low level and would instead like to play in epic adventures that don't involve all the hassles of high-level play. This is one of the many reasons why someone would make a CR 3 Vrock for an adventure or a CR 7 god for an adventure.

Since DnD has a long history of doing that kind of thing like in the Time of Troubles Forgotten Realms modules/novels, I'm not sure if "they want to beat monsters they ordinarily can't" is even a criticism. I mean, a lot of popular published adventures like Dungeon Magazine's Adventure Paths involve letting the PCs beat things they ordinarily can't because of any number of story-based reasons.

Am I the only one that likes to read published adventures and DnD novels?

[Foxwarrior]

Well, I read a D&D novel once (Dragons of Autumn Twilight), and I only don't regret it because it expanded the breadth of my experience. The only non-stupid characters had personality problems that were more frustrating than they were amusing.

[Voss]

ahh, the disconnect between D&D and the stuff WotC made...

if an ancient dragon is on the map/in the cave and the PCs go looking for the rumored dragon at level 1, then they will face EXACTLY what is there. not something tailored to the party.

if it was planned to be a baby/hatchling

Yeah, no one from the TSR era would have dared to not murder the party if the book told them to, because otherwise Gygax's hit squads would have totally come 'round to their house and beat the shit out of them.

And WotC era adventures were all cute and cuddly, with not a lick of challenge to be seen.


Oh, wait, that is pretty much the definition of wrong. DMs have always altered adventures on the fly, and WotC modules often contained poorly designed encounters, often hitting EL +5 or 6 without any mitigating factors at all. (Or in the case of the 1st 4e module, a heavily imbalanced level 9 encounter for a level 3 party, assuming the waterfall encounter back at the beginning of the module didn't TPK the whole lot).

[shadzar]

wotc has 4th with levels for monsters. PC level = party level in some encounter budget. 3rd has CR, ECL, and that other one made to make encounters JUST for the party to encounter.

TSR had, put monsters where you want and let the players choose if they want to fight them including but not limited to the hypothetical CR3 vrock. thus the problem with the CR3 vrock, and why it still is being argued about.. people dont think it should happen. TSR monsters didnt have levels. loose relation to HD and levels existed, but it couldnt be calculated. the world was about making sense, not making the numbers match.

the point was if a red ancient dragon was in Lair A and the party of level 1s went to Lair A, they would find a red ancient dragon if it was home. if false rumor said that is what was there and it was really just bandits, then they would find bandits.

the book doesnt say do anything. the DM creates the world, not the book.

[Voss]

the point was if a red ancient dragon was in Lair A and the party of level 1s went to Lair A, they would find a red ancient dragon if it was home. if false rumor said that is what was there and it was really just bandits, then they would find bandits.

The point you missed is that even when the TSR modules said 'Red Dragon in lair, level 1s will die', most DMs would have spontaneously had the dragon not be there. It wouldn't have been a false rumour originally, it would have just suddenly 'become' false, rather than have the campaign come to an abrupt and stupid end.

CR and all that came about because people honestly complained that they couldn't spontaneously generate reasonable encounters in older editions, especially without a lot of experience. They either fed the party softballs, TPKed them, or fudged shit so they'd didn't TPK them. CR was a pretty shitty system, but it was a direct result of demands from players and DMs to have a functional encounter building system, rather than constantly winging it and fudging crap to keep the game interesting.

[shadzar]

the point was if a red ancient dragon was in Lair A and the party of level 1s went to Lair A, they would find a red ancient dragon if it was home. if false rumor said that is what was there and it was really just bandits, then they would find bandits.

The point you missed is that even when the TSR modules said 'Red Dragon in lair, level 1s will die', most DMs would have spontaneously had the dragon not be there. It wouldn't have been a false rumour originally, it would have just suddenly 'become' false, rather than have the campaign come to an abrupt and stupid end.

CR and all that came about because people honestly complained that they couldn't spontaneously generate reasonable encounters in older editions, especially without a lot of experience. They either fed the party softballs, TPKed them, or fudged shit so they'd didn't TPK them. CR was a pretty shitty system, but it was a direct result of demands from players and DMs to have a functional encounter building system, rather than constantly winging it and fudging crap to keep the game interesting.

except nobody is talking about modules, and i really dont know what people would do. i rarely used them or played them. have tons, but seemed pointless because everyone was buying them.

the game is the 3 books: PHB, MM, DMG. they dont tell you where to place any monster except allude to SoD. also TSR modules were for groups of 4-8 of X levels. you just didnt find a dragon in every module.

Hamlet was an exception to every rule and where it went. hell groups of level 8s almost died to kobolds many times against Tucker's.

the bolded is funny. if ANYONE used an older edition and couldnt figure out how to make a reasonable encounter with how easy it was, they werent going to be able to use the DM nightmare that was 3.x CR or otherwise.

you cant do what 3rd or 4th did and expect it to work, because any time you add any new magic to the player party, you cannot balance something against it. be that a magic item or 3, or a spell. the idea of CR failed when you want to play with more than the estimated players, i think it was 6 for 3rd? and 4th fails for the same reason even with its tight calculations. remember the white dragon in that one early 4th module people were saying was a deathtrap or a cake walk depending no the groups that played it? and 4th was the tightest numbers to make things "fair", and failed badly to estimate player use.

ONYL a DM can make an encouter for the party of players he has, and in older editions it wa easy to do. you ignore the party of PCs and make the world and let the PCs decide if they were ready for it. like a kid on a tall waterslide, it looks fun, he gets up there and changes his mind and walks back down. you can always make it stronger, throw wandering monsters, or weaker, have some escape if the encounter isnt going the way you want/expect it.

[Aryxbez]

That's basic human nature. If the GM is doing most of the work of getting and keeping a game going, then he has usually more of a say about it. And it's not too stupid either - if the GM doesn't like the game or playstyle, odds are he won't do a good job at it. I sometimes wonder how many of those posters here who seem to think they can actually force a GM to play a game he doesn't want to "because the rules say so".

It's less so "bullying the DM with rules" bit, than moreso ensuring he's being a fair arbiter. Since that is one of his roles as DM, if he' not following a mode of fairness, then the pretense of a "game" is lost, and isn't much point to using 3rd edition D&D rules, if they're gonna go ignored. As well that it's the players game too, and shouldn't be forced to play simply to the DM's fantasy, pending on what was agreed beforehand of course. Though if a DM isn't running a game he wants to run, then its at ends why hes running it in the first place (though I know a DM that runs a game doesn't seem to want to anymore).

Even Gygaxian DM's follow the rules, liking to use actual existing material to challenge and destroy their PCs, otherwise fiat would make it too "easy" (thusly not a real exercise in challenge) for them.