Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-21-05, 02:47 PM	I don't know if this was already covered, but in another thread, but... Last game, we were exploring the caves bellow a "haunted" (read: Gypsie-inhabited) castle. We found ourselves face-to face with an angry troll. We're only level 3-4, never seen a troll in our life, basically just started adventuring. Half the group (myself included) shouted Oh crap, we're dead. the rest of the group smiled and prepared their torches (the thief even asked the Dm if he could sneak attack with a torch). I still think it was metagaming, as we had no ways to know he was vulnerable to fire (the ranger missed his roll of knowledge: monsters). We attacked it and, after a grueling combat, finaly managed to kill him when we put a stake though his heart (no, we didn't KNOW it would kill him. We merely tried to pin him to the ground for us to dismember the bastard after the 5th time when downed him.). The flames wielding-Pcs got the worst of it, as fire was utterly useless against this troll. The DM decided that a troll's weakness was his heart, not fire. Most of the group erupted in protests, accusing the DM of cheating. One player is still pretty ****** about this and is seriously considering quitting the game if the DM "persist in his cheating". My question is, is it cheating? Way I see it, we had NO WAY to even suspect the vulnerabilities of this monster. any knowledge of his vulnerabilities comes from metagaming (wich I'm strongly against). How can they say what the DM did is wrong? More than that, I feel a DM SHOULD modify the monsters to prevent a player who read the monster manual back to cover from having an unfair advantage. It also make us fear monsters more. A troll is a scary foe for the PCs, but just a common baddie for us players. Caveat: Having spoken with the DM, I know he intend to make his world coherent, meaning that if a troll's weak point is his heart, all trolls will have this weakness. What do you think? Was the DM cheating? Was he wrong? Or are the party wrong?
cobaltstarfire 01-21-05, 02:55 PM	I don't think the Dm was cheating at all, now if the next troll you encounter has an entirely different weakness, well that might be cheating. But technicaly the group was cheating too cause they meta gamed. Dm's word is law, and it's not really unfair for him to change the monster where he sees fit. I personaly have warned my group ahead of time though that monster stats may be different from what they find in the monster manual, or the monster may not be in it at all.
scott644 01-21-05, 02:58 PM	The question isn't really *if* so much as *when* the DM should cheat. For starters, the DM is encouraged to created different versions of monsters that don't observe the generic write-up. Then of course, when players metagame and push in a direction they shouldn't know, spot adjustments are entirely appropriate to compensate. It's roleplaying, after all.
Beamup 01-21-05, 02:58 PM	In this case, it was not DM cheating, as it was in response to blatant and unjustifiable metagaming. However, as a general rule, yes. A DM can cheat.
The Shaman 01-21-05, 03:12 PM	The GM by definition cannot cheat, since it is the GM who decides what the rules are in the first place. Bless you, Rule 0.
Vharuck 01-21-05, 03:16 PM	Please give your DM a hearty pat on the back for me. I appluad this act of metagamer smack down.
Palin the Wizard 01-21-05, 03:17 PM	Of course a DM can cheat. Many DMs do it a lot. Ever heard of fudging? That's cheating. But in this instance... no. The DM didn't cheat. Well, he cheated (read: tricked) the players, but he didn't cheat in-game.
Thoronmir 01-21-05, 03:33 PM	Maybe I’ve mellowed in my old age, but I don’t think I would have responded to the metagaming in the same manner. Ordinarily, I leave the encounter as is and adjust the XP award for the encounter. After all, if the PCs relied on a tainted advantage to win, then the encounter wasn’t really as challenging was it? I don’t want to reward metagaming, but neither am I too keen on revamping my world’s ecology. On the other hand, I have no problems with a DM who decides prospectively to tweak monsters. Had your DM decided earlier that all Trolls should be staked and not burned, the players have no reason to complain. But the DM needs to make sure that PCs with appropriate skills and/or experience are told of the change. For example had your Ranger made his Knowledge check. A DM ought not to act contrary to the PCs’ legitimate expectations. Having lived in the world for however long they have, the PCs are entitled to some level of comfort in knowing how the world works. Of course, the PCs’ expectations may not be the same as the players’ expectations. Before any of your group gets too bent out of shape, they need to slip back into character and answer the question, “Gee Rogue, what in the Nine Hells made you think fire would do anything to that beast?”
Gnomish Zombie 01-21-05, 03:42 PM	1. The players cheated. If they don't know fire will hurt a troll, they shoudn't pull out the torches and oil. DM should normally have not permitted that. 2. Monsters are always setting dependant. Sounds like your DM making his own world, so in those cases he can define the monsters that are in there. I'm planning to do something like this myself for some legendary monsters if I go back to DMing. Unlike most rule changes, there is no need to tell the players the details because they are not supposed to know the monsters. 3. Even with all this, the DM would have been polite to tell y'all that he changed some of his monsters (with no details of course). I woudn't blame him if he didn't though, he's only human.
alecthemad 01-21-05, 03:51 PM	I've taken to modifying creatures here and there, just to keep my players off balance. If they ask what their characters know I usually couch it in terms of "the old stories say" and remind them that the stories can be wrong. I sometimes also purposely mislead my players with statements such as "it looks like a troll." Oops, turns out it is a demon. My players really enjoy the game as I challenge their expectations. As Thoronmir said, the characters should have legimitate expectations based upon living in the world for a long time. As cobaltstar touched upon I think the most important point for the players is consistency in a game world. All future trolls should have the same weaknesses (but there may be exceptions). To prevent future problems your DM should set ground rules that things will be different than than the core books. In this way players are less likely to get upset as they have some expectation of oddness and danger.
screwtape 01-21-05, 03:55 PM	Would the encounter have been as gratifying had it been a regular, by the book troll? Would it have been as exciting? Would there have been the same element of fear and danger? Absolutely not. So by changing the troll’s vulnerability he made the game much better. Your DM did his job well and the whole group should be grateful.
eudas 01-21-05, 03:56 PM	1. it is possible for the DM to cheat if he does not faithfully stand by the rules. 2. it is valid for the DM to change the rules. those two things being said, 1. your players were metagaming; and 2. the dm did what i gauge to be an appropriate thing: he changed the creature to punish their metagaming. there are numerous examples of this all over these boards, especially using trolls as the example, such as changing their vulnerabilities from acid/fire to lightning/cold. all of those players who immediately whip out their torches despite the fact that their character doesn't know jack about trolls are the ones who get ****** off. players who actually think about their characters roll with the punches and *find* the vulnerabilities. eudas
Talon Blackhart 01-21-05, 03:58 PM	No, the DM didn't "cheat". The DM really can't cheat, as she decides the rules and the world's setting. I think that this was an excellent way to deal with metagaming (yes, readying fire to deal with a troll when your char has never seen a troll before is metagaming). Very imaginative on the part of the DM, and I applaude. :cheer: :bow: :clap: It is well within the DM's rights to change monsters (and other rules) to suit the world that they have built. Heck, they can even change the rules to a pre-written world (Faerun, etc) if they so desire. While for the most part they should warn the PCs when such rules change, in this case it wasn't necessary. In fact, it was best that the DM didn't. That caused all of you to approach the fight as a "real person" woud have: confused and afraid.
Shurdus 01-21-05, 04:01 PM	of course this isn't cheating. If the dm would create his own monster, would that be cheating as well? I mean, the monster does not even exist! :rolleyes: The monsters in the mm arejust for the dm to use to save him huge amounts of time. By no means should they be seen as if they are 'supposed to be that way' and cannot be altered. Your dm was perfectly in his right to change it and your group are just immature imo.
Board_Rider 01-21-05, 04:09 PM	The DM, as many here have written already, did not cheat....he beat the cheaters (metagamers). Whats funny, to me anyways, is when metagamers blast the DM for "changing the rules" on them instead of just stopping the metagaming. Truth be told...I feel there is always a little metagaming that leaks into the game. It is up to the each DM to figure what he/she will do about it. In this case...I applaud your DM. Having said that though, I would say that the DM was wrong if he changed the troll on the spot...right there. It's one thing to discourage metagaming but another to totally screw over the PC's. I like Thoronmir's suggestion to let the PC's win the day (or the encounter anyway) and then doc XP as the DM sees fit. If asked why the XP was so low the DM can say because of their metagiming.
Mousse 01-21-05, 04:10 PM	*shrugs* I think this was a perfectly justifiable action as long as: It was not common knowledge (note, knowledge. Not belief) in the game world that trolls are weak to fire, the characters did not have any reason to know they are weak to fire and their new weakness is consistent.
Tiddles 01-21-05, 04:13 PM	DM's can cheat, its their game. However, I believe that good DM's will believe in consistency above everything else. Future trolls should all have the heart weakness. Assuming you're playing in new world none of your PC's have encountered before, and they've never seen or heard of a troll and its weaknesses, its definite metagaming and should be discouraged. How the DM chooses to discourage is up to their discretion. Yours took the approach of changing the weakness. Other options that I've experienced include: Never name the monsters you fight. Did the DM say "You're walking through the dungeon and suddenly a troll jumps out and attacks you" ? Instead say "You're walking through the dungeion and suddenly a <insert description of troll> jumps out at you". When metagamers start to get wise to this action you can change the descriptions in the monster manual or change the monsters stats themselves. If it still continues and people are getting upset its time to have the 'its a roleplaying game/you are your character' discussion. Use this oppurtunity to teach the players a lesson very difficult to learn. Admittably, the more the players play the more they are going to recognize. This makes the game more fun when you begin to learn all the rules of the universe. However, the character you are playing (assuming they aren't knowledgable about the world) shouldn't act on this knowledge. The game is a lot more fun when you know whats going on but your character is played well.
Phrennzy 01-21-05, 04:18 PM	Is it possible for a DM to cheat? Yes. Did this DM cheat? Well, it depends on when he made the troll weakness modification. If he did it before the game began, no foul. If he did it in response to the player's metagaming, then yes, that's cheating. However, since the players were cheating by metagaming, I have no problem with this troll having no fire weakness, only a stake in the heart. Perhaps he was a vampire troll. And there is another good point. The PCs don't know everything. One poster made a comment about maybe it's a demon. Well, maybe it is. Maybe it was an immortal/highlander type troll who would only die if a stake was driven through it's heart. I applaud the DM as well. And the player who is still ****** needs to unclench, removes the panties, and roll with it.
clarkvalentine 01-21-05, 04:24 PM	Where is it written that the GM must use monsters as written in the MM? Ye gods, I never do that. Player: "But trolls are vulnerable to fire!" GM: "What makes you so certain that was a troll?"
Kyaran 01-21-05, 04:37 PM	Please give your DM a hearty pat on the back for me. I appluad this act of metagamer smack down.Second! :cheer:
was_fired 01-21-05, 04:40 PM	As both a DM and a player I believe a DM can cheat. However cheating involves faking dice results (ie no BBEG ever fails against a save or die). This DM did not cheat. Trolls more than any monster in the entire game are famous for having their weaknesses played around with to discourage this sort of metagaming. The players relied on their ASSumption that because D&D is a game and the DM was using a creature from the monster manual that this creature would respond in the same way and to the same things as what they read.
philosofool 01-21-05, 04:40 PM	I actually think that what the DM did was totally appropriate. It isn't cheating to make your monsters differ from the monster manual. Nothing requires that DMs use MM creatures. The players shouldn't metagame like that. Indeed, the game is more fun if you don't know how to deal with the challenges. However, the DM does have an obligation to reveal to the players that the fire isn't especially working. You can see trolls heal normal damage. You can see that they don't heal fire damage. It's not hard to discover if you do the right things. The DM shouldn't have hidden the fact that fire wasn't going to work for the sake of revenge. If a creature has DR, you can tell after a few hits (either they see some instant healing or they can tell that their sword is basically bounce off the thing. In my group we use a wisdom check for missle weapons.) Regenerating should also be apparent if it is at all quick. DMs aren't exactly cheating when he doesn't say "You've noticed that the troll has regenerated that Battle axe wound. To your surprise, the burns on his face seem to be healing as well." to players, but the DM isn't being good DM either.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-21-05, 05:42 PM	philosofool: So, during combat, you can spot exactly WICH wounds are healing? we were 5 hitting him with magic and blades (and quite a few torches). He didn't tell us wich wounds were regenarating, but I don't fault him for that. We didn't ask for a spot roll to see if fire had any effect. Since nobody has said anything against the DM, I gather this board has cleared him of any suspicions of cheating. Thank you all for your posts!
sulthon 01-21-05, 05:43 PM	unless he did it as a response to the metagaming, its not cheating... I tweak creatures all the time, and rarely use a monster straight out of the book in my world - this is mainly so the characters cannot metagame and don't know what to expect, and every creature they encounter is new to them... its what being a Dm is all about - absolute power to change anything he or she sees fit. but to be consistent is the key to fairness
olshanski_home 01-21-05, 05:56 PM	I live in America. There are no native Cheetas, sloths, or cobras where I live. I have no particular interest in wildlife. I fully expect that I will never see those creatures. I have heard enough about each of those animals to understand some basic concepts of thier strengths, weaknesses and how dangerous they are. Cheeta=fast & carnivore, probably dangerous. Sloth=slow and unlikely to be a threat Cobra=highly venomous, but unlikely to attack unless harassed. If, however, I were an adventurer, like all characters are, and I lived on a continent that sported dangerous flora and fauna... I would certainly know what to expect from a troll, rust monster, dragon, etc. In the world of D&D, people don't have the luxury of watching the discovery channel to learn about creatures, but they DO get to hang out at taverns and listen to tales of people who've encountered these creatures. The DM was cheating, unless he specifically said that in his world, there is no such thing as trolls, and nobody has ever seen one before. Then, when he introduces a troll-like creature, it is a bona-fide unknown, and the players will not be expected to know what they do. The world of D&D seems exotic to us, because we do not live in the world and we are probably just being introduced to the creatures and magic and whatnot. To the people who live there, they have heard about the creatures thier entire life, thier parents have known about the creatures, thier grandparents, and possibly everyone they ever meet should know about most of the creatures that inhabit the world.
FriendoftheDork 01-21-05, 05:58 PM	Did he cheat? Of course not. Part of me agrees with the ones patting the DM's back. But that's not the way I like to do it. It seems to me that the DM changed his monster on the spot just to punish the metagaming. Now does that make the players stop metagaming? No. Does it makes them believe more in the DM's world? No, quite the opposite, they feel the DM's just making arbitrary decisions concerning his critters. I would talk to the players, stop the game if necessary, and tell them their characters have no idea what they have read in the MM, and that they should not metagame. If they refuse, simply stop the game entirely and tell them to come pack when they want to roleplay instead of metagame. If, however the DM changed this monster beforehand with different vulnerability, he should let the PCs discover this in game. Perhaps they find the journal of a demented wizard experimenting on Trolls and Vampires, creating some sort of abomination. Then they'll probably believe more of the fantasy world, which in turn should limit metagaming. Alot of metagaming comes from the fact that the DM fails to convince the players that they're in a "real" world. At least when I play in some hack'nslash campaign were everything that happens is at the whim of the DM, I don't feel that bad about metagaming, especially when it save my characters arse. It's just a game anyway so why shouldn't I metagame if that makes me have more fun?
Aeromus 01-21-05, 06:01 PM	If you are playing in Forgotten Realms then YES he cheated. If it was his homebrew world then NO he didn't. I'll explain. FR has common kowledge all people "can" know due to Volo, Elminster ect, writings. Waterdeep as well as Luskan have printing presses this knowledge is well known. Trolls in that setting are a common enemy. Hence wow, fire kills trolls, that's why MOBs all carry torches. The thing is did the players know that Trolls regenerate? Fire is typicially the thing needed to kill things normal weapons don't.
Aluroon 01-21-05, 06:16 PM	I'm going to play devils advicate here for a while, so bare with me. Had the dm warned the players that some things in his world would be different, I would have no problum. If he made the changes before the game, only a slight problum (not telling the players he would change around the world). On the other hand, Trolls are a rather common menice, and I could see some of the players arguing that they would have heard atleast one story about how uncle Paul had fought the troll, and fought, but was unable to beat it until he threw his torch at it. Or remember some town guards talking about tatics for varius common monsters. As such, I can see the players lighting torchs when they see a "troll". Aluroon
Arkonth 01-21-05, 06:29 PM	Everyone's talk of knowing about monsters makes some sense to me. But unless I'm mistaken the ranger failed a knowledge check to know this. I would say knowledge represents the stories and research and patterns and sessions with the Discovery Channel the ranger's had so I would agree that the change was perfectly reasonable.
Guy Humual 01-21-05, 06:32 PM	Can a DM cheat? :angel: No, never! Hehehe, seriously some nights the only reason I roll the dice is to allow the players a sense of randomness. Now as to the other situation in your post: I'm a firm believer that certain Monsters weakness are common knowledge. I may never have seen or met a vampire but I do know a vampire's vulnerabilities. You'd think that in a world were such creatures exist people would be far more knowledgeable about how to harm such creatures. IMO a troll's vulnerability to fire should be common knowledge (no roll necessary). Now, do I think that a DM can tweak the monster's stats and not tell the PCs? Sure, why not? In a world of magic, Gods, and psionics I'm sure that creatures get altered all the time (well maybe not all the time, but certainly enough to keep the PC guessing). The players have no right to get mad if things don’t work the way they expect them. To take a line from Lucy Lawless’ appearance on the Simpsons “anytime something odd happens, a wizard did it.” :D
ManinDarkness 01-21-05, 07:49 PM	If, however, I were an adventurer, like all characters are, and I lived on a continent that sported dangerous flora and fauna... I would certainly know what to expect from a troll, rust monster, dragon, etc. In the world of D&D, people don't have the luxury of watching the discovery channel to learn about creatures, but they DO get to hang out at taverns and listen to tales of people who've encountered these creatures. The DM was cheating, unless he specifically said that in his world, there is no such thing as trolls, and nobody has ever seen one before. Then, when he introduces a troll-like creature, it is a bona-fide unknown, and the players will not be expected to know what they do. The world of D&D seems exotic to us, because we do not live in the world and we are probably just being introduced to the creatures and magic and whatnot. To the people who live there, they have heard about the creatures thier entire life, thier parents have known about the creatures, thier grandparents, and possibly everyone they ever meet should know about most of the creatures that inhabit the world. During my childhood, I knew for certain that the bigger the spider, the more poisonous its bite. But some of the most poisonous spiders are actualy very small. My father firmly believes there are no blue flowers. I know for certain they exist. I thought the tasmanian devil to be a myth. They actually exist. What I mean is: you can't take for granted what you know about the world. And no-one can possibly know everything about their world. And what they know could possibly be hearsay. If the players wanted to know the troll's vulnerabilities, there are knowledge checks for that effect.
mercurial67 01-21-05, 08:05 PM	If, however, I were an adventurer, like all characters are, and I lived on a continent that sported dangerous flora and fauna... I would certainly know what to expect from a troll, rust monster, dragon, etc.No you wouldnt, not unless you had encountered one before or made the correct knowledge roll. That is the reason to have knowledge skills in the first place, to have a guage on what you know about the world.
RunningWilder 01-21-05, 08:20 PM	I live in America. There are no native Cheetas, sloths, or cobras where I live. I have no particular interest in wildlife. I fully expect that I will never see those creatures. I have heard enough about each of those animals to understand some basic concepts of thier strengths, weaknesses and how dangerous they are. Cheeta=fast & carnivore, probably dangerous. Sloth=slow and unlikely to be a threat Cobra=highly venomous, but unlikely to attack unless harassed. If, however, I were an adventurer, like all characters are, and I lived on a continent that sported dangerous flora and fauna... I would certainly know what to expect from a troll, rust monster, dragon, etc. In the world of D&D, people don't have the luxury of watching the discovery channel to learn about creatures, but they DO get to hang out at taverns and listen to tales of people who've encountered these creatures. The DM was cheating, unless he specifically said that in his world, there is no such thing as trolls, and nobody has ever seen one before. Then, when he introduces a troll-like creature, it is a bona-fide unknown, and the players will not be expected to know what they do. The world of D&D seems exotic to us, because we do not live in the world and we are probably just being introduced to the creatures and magic and whatnot. To the people who live there, they have heard about the creatures thier entire life, thier parents have known about the creatures, thier grandparents, and possibly everyone they ever meet should know about most of the creatures that inhabit the world. You're forgetting that we live in a world with a fairly free spread of information. In a fantasy world like DnD, not everyone is going to know about the different types of monsters out there. Also, to use a real world analogy, a finch is a finch, but what type of finch is it. There are subspecies in existance for all kinds of animals, so why not in a fantasy world. And if it is in a fantasy world, why couldn't each subspecies have different abilities and weaknesses. If you can't identify the different finch types on sight, perhaps the characters who have only heard of trolls (but never seen one) were unable to see the distinctive wart pattern on their foe's nose. The only cheaters were the players. There's nothing in the books that a DM is required to stay with, least of all the monsters.
switt1313 01-21-05, 09:02 PM	"... what I say goes. And I don't want to hear anything about your interpretations of the rules unless I ask you. If you don't like it find another group or DM your own game." I usually warn any new group with these or similar words. First let me ask a counter question. How can you cheat in a RPG? It's not a competition and it's not (or should not be) a fight between players and the DM. It's an interactive story narreted by the DM and played by the characters. As a DM I always try and keep the PCs alive unless they do something really stupid. But as I also warn my players from the beginning: That doesn't mean that I intend them to win every encounter. The smart thing to do may be to run away. If you try and fight a dragon with 3rd level characters and you get fried I'd call that doing something really stupid ;) So unless the DM changed the vulnerability of the troll specifically to try and kill the PCs I see nothing wrong with it. And anyone accusing me of cheating in such an instance would not be in my group for long.
FriendoftheDork 01-21-05, 09:12 PM	I agree with ManinDarkness and the rest, if the Dm has told you you fail your knowledge check there is no excuse to say "my uncle bob told me Trolls can regenerate". C'mon! The only reason they do it is because the players have read the Monsters Manual too much. It doesen't matter if it is creatures well known among players (trolls, vampires) or it is some obsucre creature wiith a name you can't pronounce. Either you know something about the creature or you don't. If in doubt, ask the DM. And that thing about cheating if playing in Faerun: That's all wrong. You probably haven't read the FRCS where it says that if your DM is entitled to change whatever he wants in the world, since it is HIS version of FR. Of course, this should be obvious, but unfortunatly it isn't. Now, if the ranger had made his knowledge check, and the DM told him he knows all basic stuff about Trolls, then the DM should have informed him that they're hearts are vulnerable. Someone said that vampire weaknesses are common knowledge... well that's fine in your game but not universal. Which weaknesses are common knowledge? The ones in buffy the vampire slayer? The ones in Bram Stoker's Dracula? (what he walks in the sun?!) or perhaps the ones in Dusk till Dawn... My point is, there are myriads of myths about vampires, and D&D have each own that is very different from others. It's probably the same in the game world, alot of vampire stories and most of it rubbish. So what do you know? Anything the DM OKs with a DC 10 untrianed knowledge check. Or get some ranks in knowledge skills! In my game, if the PCs encounter a troll for the first time I describe it and even calls it a giant. Then they have to do knowledge check for seperatig one big-ugly-creature from another. The DC is usually 10+HD of creature. For every 5 you beat the DC you know about some vulnerability or ability the creature posesses.
Tevandel Surefacet 01-21-05, 09:12 PM	I'll chime in with agreement, changing the vunerablilities of monsters is not cheating, just part of the game. The players that figured they knew exactly what they were fighting and what it's vunerabilities and weaknesses were, were if not cheating then walking that very fine line called metagaming - if the ranger had made his knowledge roll and the DM had not told them what the monsters weaknesses were then that could be considered cheating. Tev
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-21-05, 09:32 PM	a lot of people have said they thought it was ok, but specifically stated that the DM should have warned them before the game that he was changing the monsters. Why? As a group or as individuals, we NEVER saw a troll. We were low-level enough (3-4) that encountering a troll was not something we could have reasonnably done "in our youth" (and survived...). I agree that the knowledge monster roll represent all the discovery channel stuff and rumors we might have heards.
switt1313 01-21-05, 09:54 PM	a lot of people have said they thought it was ok, but specifically stated that the DM should have warned them before the game that he was changing the monsters. Why? As a group or as individuals, we NEVER saw a troll. We were low-level enough (3-4) that encountering a troll was not something we could have reasonnably done "in our youth" (and survived...). I agree that the knowledge monster roll represent all the discovery channel stuff and rumors we might have heards. Well the only reason to warn players beforehand is to avoid scenes like the one you described of players getting obnoxious when it happens because they thought they knew everything there is to know about D&D. If you establish at the beginning of a campaign that you may change some rules then players get the chance to decide whether or not they want to stay in the group uder these circumstances and such unfortunate scenes can hopefully be avoided.
scott644 01-21-05, 10:06 PM	As cobaltstar touched upon I think the most important point for the players is consistency in a game world. All future trolls should have the same weaknesses (but there may be exceptions). Unless of course, this was a unique troll that had been magically altered sometime prior to the encounter, or was perhaps a freak mutation of its kind. Given the metagaming we saw, that would be entirely reasonable and fair. PC's don't always know what's going on, therefore how can their players? If, however, I were an adventurer, like all characters are, and I lived on a continent that sported dangerous flora and fauna... I would certainly know what to expect from a troll, rust monster, dragon, etc. That's why we have knowledge skills and intelligence bonuses. Arkonth summed it up nicely in his post above.
DarkMaster 01-21-05, 10:18 PM	The GM by definition cannot cheat, since it is the GM who decides what the rules are in the first place. Bless you, Rule 0. And you know what? The first rule I changed when I started DMing is the rule that I can't cheat. And I, as a DM, dock XP for metagaming.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-21-05, 10:25 PM	I don't feel you should have to warn your players not to metagame. They should know not to do it. Do you tell your players it's not OK to cheat in your game? I don't. I expect them to know such basic things.
Guy Humual 01-21-05, 10:48 PM	I think people are also forgetting that we live in a modern world. Let's face it, we're not as connected to the land as those living in medieval times were. I don't think that I can identify poison ivy, I don't think that I could milk a cow, I don't really know my way around the woods behind my house. But if there was a 9 ft, 500lb monster that ate anything it could catch living in those woods, well chances are that I'd know something about it. Bards and minstrels know what people want to hear, and if there were trolls roaming about eating villagers, do you think that they might have a couple songs in their books about heros killing trolls? I'd never let my PCs get away with knowing everything about a given monster, and heck I’ll concede the point that if the PCs have never seen a troll before, then there's a possibility that they might mistake this 9ft 500lb monster for another 9ft 500lb monster . . . till it starts regenerating anyways. Point is people seem to assume that we know more then our characters do. That we know more then people from medieval times did, these assumptions just aren’t true, people didn’t get stupider the further back in time you go. Technology has changed, people haven’t.
Guy Humual 01-21-05, 11:12 PM	Someone said that vampire weaknesses are common knowledge... well that's fine in your game but not universal. Which weaknesses are common knowledge? The ones in buffy the vampire slayer? The ones in Bram Stoker's Dracula? (what he walks in the sun?!) or perhaps the ones in Dusk till Dawn... My point is, there are myriads of myths about vampires, and D&D have each own that is very different from others. It's probably the same in the game world, alot of vampire stories and most of it rubbish. So what do you know? Anything the DM OKs with a DC 10 untrianed knowledge check. Or get some ranks in knowledge skills! In my game, if the PCs encounter a troll for the first time I describe it and even calls it a giant. Then they have to do knowledge check for seperatig one big-ugly-creature from another. The DC is usually 10+HD of creature. For every 5 you beat the DC you know about some vulnerability or ability the creature posesses. I think that was me :P I agree with you, too each their own, what I do in my campaign has no barring on anyone else’s. The reason that I don't agree with you about the vulnerabilities thing is, that to my knowledge, vampires don't exist. Pandas do, I know that pandas eat bamboo, not the exact type it turns out, but I know that basic bit of information. Luckily everything in our world has a vulnerability to bullets.
Aeromus 01-22-05, 02:12 AM	If the DM said "We are playing Dragonlance." and later we encounter a Draconion and I say in character, "Be careful the can explode, turn to stone, or even pool into acid when killed." And, then the DM changes that.... It is cheating. If the DM on the otherhand said "We are playing DRAGONLANCE, "BUT", I will be making small adjustments..." Then it's not cheating. Basicially if you are changing things from the RaW, then you need to let the players know from the beginning. Not when they try and pull upon what "most" people consider common knowledge. And, you cant say "Well in his FR that's not common knowledge.." because if he didn't specify what was differant, then nothing should be. Period. If he said, "Hey this hing looks like a troll..." great he did fine. If he said..."This is a troll you know without a doubt." Then he did wrong.
Guy Humual 01-22-05, 02:32 AM	And, then the DM changes that.... It is cheating. Wizard did it! :D
R-man 01-22-05, 03:45 AM	I would have handled the encounter as a previous poster stated, describing the creature as a giant. Then after the Pc's became aware of its regeneration, I would have had no problem with them using tactics such as fire or acid (standard methods of dealing with regeneration). My players are extremely experienced and knowledgable about the creatures, so I regularly just make a point of perhaps not grabbing the correct Miniture to use for the enemy creature if it is something that they have never met before. (also because I frequently don't have the proper mini for the beasty).
danielinthewolvesden 01-22-05, 04:49 AM	Well, the PC's all failed their knowledge roll. I might have allowed "troll= not good with fire" as an untrained INT check DC10. But your DM didn't. Thus, you guys had no business with fire. And, the DM can change monsters. (But he shouldn't make "knowledge skills" useless- if in his world trolls have as their weakness their heart- then it needs to stay that way amoung all of a given type of trolls.) Thus, no- the DM didn't 'cheat". In a way- you guys did. Not very seriously mind you, and understandable, but still.... In a larger aspect, outside this specific question: No, in general- a DM cannot cheat. Now, there are certain meta-rules and DM guidelines that a DM should never break* . I suppose that when/if he does so- that can be considered cheating. *(or if he's going to, he needs to give VERY clear advance warning!)
Lina_Inverse 01-22-05, 06:03 AM	did the dm give you a knowledge check to know trolls are weak to fire?trolls are pretty common alot of the time,shouldnt be too hard. if he didnt yes,if he did,and you failed.no.blatent metagameing.
Winter's requiem 01-22-05, 07:07 AM	I don't think the Dm was cheating at all, now if the next troll you encounter has an entirely different weakness, well that might be cheating. But technicaly the group was cheating too cause they meta gamed. Dm's word is law, and it's not really unfair for him to change the monster where he sees fit. I personaly have warned my group ahead of time though that monster stats may be different from what they find in the monster manual, or the monster may not be in it at all. You are right, the Dm was not cheating but he wouldn't be cheating if he changed the troll's weakness next time. It is written in the DMG somewhere that DMS CANT CHEAT they controle everything. Of course it would be bad DMing to change the troll's vounerabilities all the time for no reason.
Reinhardt_Wyrd 01-22-05, 11:08 AM	I think people are also forgetting that we live in a modern world. Let's face it, we're not as connected to the land as those living in medieval times were. I don't think that I can identify poison ivy, I don't think that I could milk a cow, I don't really know my way around the woods behind my house. But if there was a 9 ft, 500lb monster that ate anything it could catch living in those woods, well chances are that I'd know something about it. Bards and minstrels know what people want to hear, and if there were trolls roaming about eating villagers, do you think that they might have a couple songs in their books about heros killing trolls? And this is what 'knowledge: monsters' skill means. If your PCs have no rank in it , that simply means that they were not intrested in bards songs, or uncle's gossip, but were riding their father's horse in the fields, or learning mysteries of magic (improving spelcraft skill) simple as that. Coming back to original question: 1. No DM shouldn't cheat, fudge rolls and the like, at least not on the regular basis but only if he *really* has to (and I think that there is always another way around) 2. No, it wasn't cheating. The players were cheating (using skill as if they succeded while they failed) 3. Yes, it's good to say that things PCs might encounter doesn't have to be exactly like in the books. It saves a lot of grief later (like in the beginning of the thread) 4. Yes, players shouldn't metagame, but we shouldn't assume that this is obvious to them. Especially since different DMs have different dstyles.
clarkvalentine 01-22-05, 02:46 PM	And, you cant say "Well in his FR that's not common knowledge.." because if he didn't specify what was differant, then nothing should be. Period. That's ridiculous, to be honest. A GM can't specify at campaign start every last setting detail that will be different from the RAW. A simple reminder to the players that, like most folklore, things they've heard about monsters might be right and might not be should be sufficient.
CycloneRanger 01-22-05, 03:36 PM	As for this thread's title question... In my opinion, a DM can cheat, and far more easily than any player can. If he breaks a rule, he cheated. Period. That said, there is the issue of houserules. I support houserules. They help the game (well, the good ones do). I believe the players should be told about all mechanics-related houserules long before they apply, and a rule should never be changed or made during a battle. In this case, the DM did not cheat. He effectively made a houserule (or made a new monster, if you want to think of it that way). Clearly, in his campaign, the players are not assumed to know basic facts about trolls. Therefore, they should play as if they do not (as much as possible). It was not something that the PCs should know, and it was not something that the impacts the game system, so there was no reason the players should know. In my campaigns, I assume that even first level adventurers will have some knowledge of the more famous monsters in D&D. That is, they know that red dragons breath fire and can be fought with cold, they know that beholders have many eyes and can kill with a blast from one, they know vampires drink blood must be staked, and they know that trolls eat people and need fire to be killed. Note, however, that I would require a check for something more detailed than this (at least for first level adventurers), such as a troll's vulnerability to acid. In general, I use this to avoid the issue of having to stop minor metagaming, as this is a nearly impossible task anyway.
mcnoo 01-22-05, 04:26 PM	who says it was a troll in the conventionalo sense? Perhaps it was some big scary beast that was very similar to a troll, but was entirely different in some areas. The DM can do whatever he bloody well likes, including creating monsters on the fly if they're not having the desired effect, or automatically suceed on rolls for story purposes. The DM is there to give you a story to play in, not to play the game himself.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-22-05, 05:16 PM	If the DM said "We are playing Dragonlance." and later we encounter a Draconion and I say in character, "Be careful the can explode, turn to stone, or even pool into acid when killed." And, then the DM changes that.... It is cheating. If the DM on the otherhand said "We are playing DRAGONLANCE, "BUT", I will be making small adjustments..." Then it's not cheating. . So, basicaly, your point is that a DM must warn his players BEFORE changing anything in setting books. Basicaly, if I made a Ravenloft game and made elminster an avatar of Vecna (in disguise...) pretending to do good for the people, but secretly working to corrupt the Realms, it would be cheating, as everybody KNOW Elminster's a good guy? we started the game at level 1 and had never ever adventured before. we never saw a troll. Since it's common D&D knowledge that a Tarrasque can only be trully killed by a wish, do your first-level adventurer know it?
mcnoo 01-22-05, 05:31 PM	nah, none of that. "It looks like *description of a troll*" Doesn't neccicrily mean it's a troll, and schrodinger's cat throry tells us that until the party find out the difference, it is both a troll and something else that looks like a troll at the same time, ergo the DM can change it back and forth until the party definately know that it either is or isn't a troll QED.
charred 01-22-05, 05:42 PM	I would say that a DM can cheat, but, that is more limited to them doing something dishonest, like lying about dice rolls or the like. DMs don't have a free pass to do whatever they want. After a while, they can lost their credibility and get kicked out of the group just like anyone else. But, in this situation, if anyone there cheated, it was the party. There is a reason that the MM is meant only for the DM, and not PCs, although I believe that this has been relaxed a bit. But even still, the secret vulnerabilities and attacks are all part of their strengths as monsters. Using out of game knowledge to bypass it is clearly cheating. A simpler solution than changing the world's ecology may have sufficed, such as not letting the torches light, but, I won't second guess a DM that was put on the spot to make a quick decision. Your DM did his job right. Given how your group reacted to his proper management of the game, if I were him, I would never DM for you guys again.
Guy Humual 01-22-05, 06:09 PM	And this is what 'knowledge: monsters' skill means. If your PCs have no rank in it , that simply means that they were not intrested in bards songs, or uncle's gossip, but were riding their father's horse in the fields, or learning mysteries of magic (improving spelcraft skill) I agree with you to a point. I do believe that if the PCs have never seen a troll before then they probably shouldn't automatically know that they are fighting a troll. However there is such thing as common knowledge (i.e. something any character should know with an untrained knowledge check). I'd allow a check when they first saw it (in the case of a troll because of it's distinctive description, but not necessarily a vampire) and again after it began to regenerate. Now in the original post Ze_Mighty_Vegetable said "the ranger missed his roll of knowledge: monsters" which leads me to believe that this was not a common knowledge check. I am of the opinion that it should have been . . . everyone in the party could have made a check (DC:10) to identify it as a troll and realize that, in this case, his vulnerability was a stake through the heart. knowing that it tracks by scent, that it speaks giant, and that it sees in the dark would still be strictly a Knowledge check. My reasoning is that, even if you've never seen a dragon before, there is still a pretty good chance that you'd know what one looks like. Sure, I guess you might mistake it for a Wyvern, that's why they have a common knowledge check (dc:10). To not know (and to not allow an untrained check to identify) what one of these legendary creature is seems kinda silly to me. If you know it’s a troll, then you should know what it’s weaknesses are. Now if the troll was a rare, seldom encountered creature, then obviously don’t allow the PCs a common knowledge check. But this is simply DM preference. What you do in your game is completely up to you. The point that I was trying to make is that certain things shouldn’t require a skill to know . . . I mean do you need one rank in use rope to tie your shoe? PCs coming to our world wouldn’t automatically know how to turn on and use a computer, but most children in North America know how to do this.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-22-05, 06:29 PM	The ranger was the only one who had the knowledge:monster skill. Since we were all low-levels, we didn't have a lot of skill points to burn, and knowledge skills got shafted by most of the party. Reinhardt_Wyrd said And this is what 'knowledge: monsters' skill means. If your PCs have no rank in it , that simply means that they were not intrested in bards songs, or uncle's gossip, but were riding their father's horse in the fields, or learning mysteries of magic (improving spelcraft skill). you basically sum it up.
Reinhardt_Wyrd 01-22-05, 07:16 PM	I agree with you to a point. I do believe that if the PCs have never seen a troll before then they probably shouldn't automatically know that they are fighting a troll. However there is such thing as common knowledge (i.e. something any character should know with an untrained knowledge check). I'd allow a check when they first saw it (in the case of a troll because of it's distinctive description, but not necessarily a vampire) and again after it began to regenerate. Now in the original post Ze_Mighty_Vegetable said "the ranger missed his roll of knowledge: monsters" which leads me to believe that this was not a common knowledge check. I am of the opinion that it should have been . . . everyone in the party could have made a check (DC:10) to identify it as a troll and realize that, in this case, his vulnerability was a stake through the heart. knowing that it tracks by scent, that it speaks giant, and that it sees in the dark would still be strictly a Knowledge check. My reasoning is that, even if you've never seen a dragon before, there is still a pretty good chance that you'd know what one looks like. Sure, I guess you might mistake it for a Wyvern, that's why they have a common knowledge check (dc:10). To not know (and to not allow an untrained check to identify) what one of these legendary creature is seems kinda silly to me. If you know it’s a troll, then you should know what it’s weaknesses are. Now if the troll was a rare, seldom encountered creature, then obviously don’t allow the PCs a common knowledge check. But this is simply DM preference. What you do in your game is completely up to you. The point that I was trying to make is that certain things shouldn’t require a skill to know . . . I mean do you need one rank in use rope to tie your shoe? PCs coming to our world wouldn’t automatically know how to turn on and use a computer, but most children in North America know how to do this. Your reasoning is good but I (personally) would add some points to it. " I am of the opinion that it should have been . . . everyone in the party could have made a check (DC:10) to identify it as a troll and realize that, in this case, his vulnerability was a stake through the heart." I would probably also allow an untrained roll, but only if the monster was particullary common in the area, or something like that, (i mean when it will be really a *common* knowledge). Another thing is that common knowledge may often be unreliable or even wrong and harmfull. Bards can sing songs about defeating mighty monsters? You, know these are the same bards who are prone to changing a quick fight with orc ambush into an epic saga involving trolls and armies. Would You really believe in any word they say? If you were just a young adventruer maybe you would, but this might not be a good idea. Or maybe a priest have told you and all farmers in the village that they should use garlic to fend of vampires? All the people in the village will believe him and this would be a common knowledge for them... and in truth local vampires are prone to silver not garlic, and the priest was just making it up to gain more authority... All in all if something is really common or really basic, then of course... but an average young man (or woman) starting adventuring probably has tied a lot more shoes than killed trolls, and even tieing shoes is not something that all the people get right on the first try....
Crossover-Chronicler 01-22-05, 07:19 PM	First off, I don't think there's such a thing as DM-cheating; there's only abusing one's priveliges. That being said, changing weaknesses to punish metagaming is, IMO, close to abusive. Not because metagaming is a good thing (though I have a hard time believing it's all that bad), but because he's changing them for the wrong reason. A change to the rules should usually be to distinguish and fill out the setting, or to make things either easier or more sensible (if not both). Simply put, there is a lot of assumed knowledge in the world. For example, I assume that when someone says "ogre," he's speaking of a form of generally humanoid Giant, rather than some breed of warthog. Orcs are vaguely piglike humanoids that are brutal and usually evil. If, in my campaign, orcs are a Lawful Good descendant of the crocodile, I should probably tell my players that rather than speing it on them the first time they encounter orcs. Likewise, trolls are an iconic monster in D&D; just about everyone knows what a troll is and what its weaknesses are. When people say "troll," fire and acid tends to spring to mind (which is why, here on the boards, we often "flame" trolls. :mage: ) in the same way that spiders and (regrettably) scimitars spring to mind with the mention of Drow. Changing things without warning in a way that violates expectations (especially to the players' disadvantage and disappointment) can place a real drag on the players' enjoyment. IMO, the better solution is to make it obvious to the players what their characters know and what they do not. But it's not cheating. Especially since the DM went on to give the PCs the appropriate means to defeat the creature - he didn't allow a "lesson" to turn in to a TPK. If this happens often then the DM will need to re-evaluate the response, since it's apparently not having an impact. Also, if the players are quite upset, it should be avoided: after all, we play to have fun. Another fun thing to do in such situations is to include additional "well-known" weaknesses ("vampires are repelled by wild roses as well as garlic") only to have the information be inaccurate or partially accurate (wild roses instead of garlic). Then swapping around monster weaknesses becomes a little more common, and it clues the PCs in that their assumptions might be incorrect.
dungeonman3 01-22-05, 07:26 PM	well there was this guy who created a dragon specializing in grapple so I think the DM just made a new species of troll so I wouldn't call it cheating.
Guy Humual 01-22-05, 07:49 PM	The ranger was the only one who had the knowledge:monster skill. Since we were all low-levels, we didn't have a lot of skill points to burn, and knowledge skills got shafted by most of the party. With a common knowledge check you don't need ranks in a field of knowledge to attempt a check. If your DM believes that identifying a troll isn't a common knowledge check, then yes indeed, the ranger is the only one in the party who could make the attempt. The only thing I was stressing in my posts is that I believe that identifying (and therefor knowing the common weaknesses of a troll) should be a common knowledge check. The only reason I bring up common knowledge checks is that I believe that part of the frustration on the part of the players is that they feel that their PCs should have known something crutial like Trolls are vulnerable to stakes through the heart . . . and I tend to agree with them. I do not, however, believe that the PCs should know the properties of every single creature they encounter (even if the players know those stats), to act otherwise is metagaming and one of the worst (yet sometimes unavoidable) forms cheating the players can be guilty of. And again I'll state that the DM can change anything he wants. Big things, like that fly spell no longer working, he needs to tell his/her players, but small things like changing the stats on some monsters he/she need not disclose. If you come across a monster that is different from the MM you have no right to mad at the DM, not everything need be as printed. :D
Aeromus 01-22-05, 09:21 PM	The DM doesn't tell you "each thing" he changes. He simply needs to let you know that "common" things are a bit aloof. The ravenloft / Elminster / Vecna thing isn't the same type of deal. Because, who someone appears to be, is not the same as who they really are. A Troll is a troll. Guards put own trolls at least once a week. Waterdeep has a specific branch of thier guard that handles trolls. Yet all the guards on the wall know trolls need fire to kill. Bobby the newspaper caller out on the street here's that trolls where killed by a fire weilding mob... he runs to the presses.. "EXTRA EXTRA Trolls attack town, put down by fire weilding MOB..read all about it." Two veteran soldies of the Chaos War talk about thier last fight with an army of Draconians in a bar. Sarah the barmaid over hears thier stories, while "checking" one of them out. After all he's quite cute. Later as she explains to her girlfriend, and her boyfriend about it, Young Thomas the blacksmith's son pipes up.."What war story? Draconians turn to stone? WOW" Basicially some things DO NOT need a kowledge roll. Your party is first level.. and they have no cleric... How do they know thier are Gods? How do they know going to the temple of Pelor might help them heal faster? How do they know barbarians are powerful melee fighters? How do they know the rogue can sneak quietly? No wizard in the party? OMG what was that colored ball that the robe wearing guy created to kill Joe my best friend? I've never adventured before now.. How did I know to take a spiked chain as a weapon? I don't own a greatsword.. must now know they exist since I never saw one before. I've never seen the color purple... doesn't exist. I don't know trolls are killed by fire. Dragons can fly, castles have draw bridges (some), goblins are evil, and taxes need to be paid. Gt over yourself.. the party assumed they knew fire killed trolls and rightly so... the DM changed it mid game with no warning. Had the DM said.. well trolls aren't common in my world... then fine great way to go. But, if he didn't then the players have the right to assume some things are true. Dwarves are short, like ale, and have beards. Halfling are small, nimble, and fast. Elves are frail, and highly nimble, and Half-Orcs are ugly, stupid, strong barbarian type people. But, no you can't assume any of this until you meet them in game. Your character is his brother? Nope you just met him, can't happen. Dif you meet your dad in my game? Then you don't know about him. The DM cheated the players... period.
Obiwho? 01-22-05, 09:36 PM	If you come across a monster that is different from the MM you have no right to mad at the DM, not everything need be as printed. :DAmen to that. In my current campaign, I've created some Fiendish Trolls (Troll + Half-Fiend template). To throw the players (all of whom are experienced and would find it next to impossible not to remember that Trolls regenerate unless you use fire or acid), I decided to make the Trolls vulnerable to electricity instead. Combined with the Half-Fiend's DR for fire, they were pretty shocked when they hit the trolls with Burning Hands and torches to little effect. It's good to keep your players guessing about the capabilities of their opponents; I honestly believe it makes it more fun for them (and I know it makes it more fun for me).
The Shaman 01-22-05, 09:40 PM	*snip* The DM cheated the players... period. There's making a point, belaboring a point, and shooting yourself in the foot by going to extremes. I agree with you that there is certain knowledge that could be considered common, but the point that I think you're missing is that what is considered common knowledge is, and should be, campaign-specific. In the OP's example, he required them to make a Knowledge check, which is straight from the RAW, and the character failed. In this instance, the GM ruled that this was in fact not common knowledge, as befits the style of game he chose to run - this is an entirely reasonable argument. In my campaigns I usually decide in advance what sorts of humanoid and critter knowledge is commonplace, often giving it a regional twist. I also decide what common knowledge is in fact wholly or in part inaccurate - "old wife's tales," folklore, and so on. For info that is not commonplace, or to get the straight story out of the myths and folktales, a Knowledge check is required, again from the RAW. For you to tell me that as a GM I'm "cheating" my players by adding depth and complexity to my campaign is inappropriate, IMHO. The OP and most of the GMs on this board concur that the players were in the wrong. If you disagree with that, that's cool - run your games as you and your players see fit to do so. But you might want to rethink declaring that all GMs who don't play the way you do are wrong, period.
RunningWilder 01-22-05, 09:45 PM	Gt over yourself.. the party assumed they knew fire killed trolls and rightly so... the DM changed it mid game with no warning. Had the DM said.. well trolls aren't common in my world... then fine great way to go. But, if he didn't then the players have the right to assume some things are true. The DM cheated the players... period. :noway: :uh-huh: How many spokes are on the average bicycle tire? What colour does the person across the street from you most often wear? How many different breeds of dog live on your street? :waits: These are thing you should have seen on a fairly constant basis. But chances are it takes a large amount of thinking to answer these, unless you have specifically trained in them. There is a type of genie that posessess a woman and makes her demand expensive gifts. How do you get rid of it? Is it a wizard or a vampire that will turn into vermin and try to escape its funeral pyre (and must be burned). Name the last three Prime Ministers of Canada. :waits: My last three examples are real world things you should have heard about. You know about Genies, so why not that subtype? You know about vampires and wizards, so why not that real world danger of their life force living on? Surely you've heard about Canada! You never hear everything about everything. At low levels, you learn. That's why you're low level! There is no reason that the DM has to warn you about the intricacies of his world. If you can't list the number of spokes in a bicycle wheel, why would you know the dietary habits of a rare subspecies of penguin? Same with fantasy characters and monsters. The DM didn't cheat. He just gave them a lesson they will never forget, and will serve them well in the future. Prepare for the unexpected, and you will live long.
danielinthewolvesden 01-22-05, 09:49 PM	And this is what 'knowledge: monsters' skill means. If your PCs have no rank in it There is no such skill. Each Knowledge skill has one or more Monster types associated with it- for example- Knowledge Religion gets Undead. Some knowledge is so common that the PC's would be allowed to make an untrained check DC10. In my world- that's what I'd rule about trolls and fire- and from posts by Rich Baker & Andy Collins I am pretty sure it works that way in Faerun. But- this world may be just slightly different than Faerun (which is totally legit) in which case the DM can certainly rule that trolls are more rare, and you need a DC 15 check in the right KS. So "the Shaman" is totally correct in this. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why Wizards are powerful- they have all the Knowledge skills, and scads of skill points)
Tevandel Surefacet 01-22-05, 10:03 PM	The DM doesn't tell you "each thing" he changes. He simply needs to let you know that "common" things are a bit aloof. <snip long rant> The DM cheated the players... period. :rolleyes: Wow dude relax, each and every thing you say might be true - but we don't know that this was not a different type of troll or even a completely new monster that just happens to look like a troll. It it the DM's role to build the world, if he wants a different type of troll that is fine - that's called world building. Maybe people know that trolls are suseptable to fire, maybe not, it is not the average town has trolls ripping the walls down every day. Also, lots of "war stories" are just that stories, they may or may not be true. Is it true that old Uncle Bob killed 45 orcs in one combat? Is it true that old Aunt Trudy once turned 200 undead in one wave of her holy book? Maybe, and maybe fire does not work as well on trolls as everyone said. The DM should let the players know that things are changing yes, but it strikes me that he did that - they had a knowledge check to see if they recognized the critter and they missed it, then he let them "just happen" to drive a spear through it's heart and recognize that that was what killed it. He was trying to recreate the suspence of not knowing exactly what that big green thing is and how to kill it - and it sounds like he succeeded.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-22-05, 10:23 PM	I've never adventured before now.. How did I know to take a spiked chain as a weapon? I don't own a greatsword.. must now know they exist since I never saw one before.. Good point. Before opening the PHB, I had NO idea what a spiked chain was. And I'm a real-life weapon fanatic. I've never seen the color purple... doesn't exist.. You're right. It's all a big conspiration... :D I Your character is his brother? Nope you just met him, can't happen. Dif you meet your dad in my game? Then you don't know about him.. Take the random D&D player. Ask his PC: What do your mother look like? Vague description. Ask him again a month later. Vague description diffrent from the first. Right again, there must be an evil force at work... From now on, I won't allow my players to have parents, as I never saw them. The DM cheated the players... period. I don't believe a DM can cheat. Basicaly, the guy is the Supreme God of his universe. Please, let's keep the discussion civil and inteligent. For the knowledge: monsters, it's a house rule. It represent (as a lot of people have posted) war stories you heard, legends and a bit of experience in dealing with creatures. Knowledge: religion might give you undead knowledge, but if my fighter never cared about gods but came from a family of adventurer, he need knowledge: monsters :D
sandgriffin 01-22-05, 10:29 PM	having an odd critter vairant is ok, DM's do it all the time some have vampairs that have Regeneration instead of Fast healing some have hydras that regrow heads in only one round Heck, just yesterday i threw a few zerglings at my players based on the megarapter just because the game was getting too serious and i wanted a change of pace, that very same session one of my players asked another for a loan so he could get a nice item he needed and the other said "when pigs fly!". So i had a half-Celetial swine flutter on by! He wants to tweak the monsters is his world its fully within his rights, expesally when metagaming is involved
clarkvalentine 01-22-05, 10:31 PM	...but the point that I think you're missing is that what is considered common knowledge is, and should be, campaign-specific. We have a winner.
Guy Humual 01-23-05, 01:15 AM	There is a type of genie that posessess a woman and makes her demand expensive gifts. How do you get rid of it? This is a good example of something that shouldn't be common knowledge . . . unless your living in a middle east setting and they're as common as trolls :) Is it a wizard or a vampire that will turn into vermin and try to escape its funeral pyre (and must be burned). Again I'm guessing that outside of their cultural setting these creatures are quite rare. Only someone who comes from that culture/setting would be able to claim this as common knowledge Name the last three Prime Ministers of Canada. Martin, Chretien, Cambell, Mulroney, Turner, Trudeau, “Joe Who”, Trudeau again . . . but I'm Canadian and I'm familiar with these monsters :P I don't think anyone here is arguing that PCs should be able to know and identify every monster they come across, nor should they be familiar with sub species that they have no reasonable right to be familiar with . . . like, say, ice trolls!!!! All I'm saying is that there are plenty of things that a character should know without needing ranks in knowledge skills. Again I'll ask, do you need use rope to tie your shoes? There are some things that should be common knowledge, and lots of things that aren’t, it's up to each individual DM to decide what these things are. And Aeromus, I feel that a DM can tweak his monsters as he feels fit without telling the players before hand, it's not cheating. Do I feel he should do this for every encounter without some story (like "a wizard did it!") to go along with it? Well I wouldn't, and most DMs shouldn't, not unless they want to be concidered a bad DM. But that's bad story telling, not cheating IMO.
Guy Humual 01-23-05, 01:19 AM	...but the point that I think you're missing is that what is considered common knowledge is, and should be, campaign-specific. We have a winner.We have a winner. I second that :D
Crossover-Chronicler 01-23-05, 02:21 AM	How many spokes are on the average bicycle tire?Tires don't have spokes; wheels do.What colour does the person across the street from you most often wear?GreenHow many different breeds of dog live on your street?One: mutt.
aaron3579 01-23-05, 02:29 AM	We attacked it and, after a grueling combat, finaly managed to kill him when we put a stake though his heart (no, we didn't KNOW it would kill him. We merely tried to pin him to the ground for us to dismember the bastard after the 5th time when downed him.). The flames wielding-Pcs got the worst of it, as fire was utterly useless against this troll. The DM decided that a troll's weakness was his heart, not fire. :clap: I applaud your DM These players need to take their heads out from [somewhere they don't belong]. The DM cannot cheat because nothing that the DM does can be against the rules. Man, how can you stand to play with metagaming-crybabies???
FriendoftheDork 01-23-05, 04:57 AM	Trolls are not that common. Perhaps waterdeep gets attacked by trolls every sunday, but that's something special about that place. In most civilized areas in for example FR you might have heard about Trolls but that's it. Perhaps most people don't even believe them. WHo in real life haven't heard about Ghost stories? But tell me, what are the weaknesses of Ghosts? Trolls are on contrary fairly common knowledge among players of D&D and many players just can't comprehend that there is a difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. There is nothing in the MM, DMG or PHB that says that Trolls are very common in most settings. So the only reason why it is "common" is because alot of DMs use them frequently. In my game, set in Cormyr the PCs have heard that there are goblinkinds, giantkind and orcs in the Stonelands area, but so far haven't seen much of them within the civilized parts of Cormyr. But now the Goblins are attacking Cormyr in organized armies, something that hasn't happened in Cormyr for quite some time. In any case, only those that go to the stonelands area might meet Trolls, and most people how no idea what their weaknesses are. Thus it is not common knowledge. Rangers however, with their knowledge:nature skill will probably know about them.
FreeTheSlaves 01-23-05, 08:31 AM	DM's "cheat" by ignoring the rules that they are expected to adhere to. However, DM's are at the same time supposed to make ad-hoc rulings and react to surprise player decisions that they could have realistically have anticipated. In this case, the DM sounds as if he was taken by surprise by out of character knowledge - the player mentioned that their characters had dumped on knowledge skills. The characters were ignorant and the players metagamed rampantly. The DM took it upon himself to deliver a little immediate justice to these wreckers but to do so he moved the goal posts, so to speak. He cheated. This particular campaign is doomed already. Some players were out to "win" and now the DM has sacrificed the moral highground to win a skirmish. No doubt there is now an antagonistic relationship and kiss goodbye any trust. I guess this highlights the danger of cheating as a DM, it needs to be done is a considered manner. Oh yeah, obviously I believe in good and bad types of cheating. As a final note: If I was the DM involved I would have looked hard at the offending players and my visual descriptions. If either were found lacking I would have made changes next session.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-23-05, 02:54 PM	Man, how can you stand to play with metagaming-crybabies??? Pretty easily. They are usually nice guys, but after 12 hours of straight play, things can get... tense. for no reason, argument can happen. Personnaliy, I blame the color of my DM's funton pillows (they are fushia).
aaron3579 01-23-05, 03:13 PM	I live in America. There are no native Cheetas, sloths, or cobras where I live. I have no particular interest in wildlife. I fully expect that I will never see those creatures. I have heard enough about each of those animals to understand some basic concepts of thier strengths, weaknesses and how dangerous they are. Your reasoning is horribly flawed; D&D characters do NOT have the discovery channel. They DON'T learn about trolls in school (usually) and the adventurer that had a run-in with a troll is supposed to be extremely rare. **EDIT** Sorry, I just caught this and had to add my $0.02
olshanski_home 01-24-05, 10:34 AM	A lot of people have a problem with my examples about things that adventurers should know about. People have cited the lack of mass-communication in D&D world and the relative ignorance of the masses about the creatures that inhabit the world. Our modern world has a roughly 26% illiteracy rate. (according to UNESCO). The D&D world has a 0% illeteracy rate among common people. People in D&D world are more literate than we are. In places where there is not TV, there is typically a very strong oral tradition. You don't need TV to learn about the world. People who do not have access to television and radio are not ignorant or stupid. I'll bet that there is a direct correlation between IQ or advanced education and a LACK of television or radio. I do not believe that things you see on TV are more "true" than things told in a society based on oral tradition. I can cite endless examples of BS on television that is passed along as fact. Advertising is the tip of the iceberg. You can find many examples of pharmaceutical companies marketing diseases as much as they market thier own drug to cure them. Does anyone engage in any sort of real-life adventures? Since our real world doesn't have dragons and unicorns, I'll use the next closest example I can think of: Mountain Climbers. These guys rarely learn how to do mountain rescues from reading textbooks... they learn from talking with other more experienced climbers. If you take the average person off the street, there is no way they could figure out how to carry a companion off of a 500 foot cliff with only 100 feet of rope. If you let the person study textbooks for a few hours, you'd also be pushing your luck to see them do it successfully. Yet mountain climbers, who have had years of conversations with other climbers are certainly prepared for it to happen, and able to rig up rescue harnesses and pully systems when an accident happens. Let me put things in a very geeky way: How many books does a player need to read to become familiar with EVERY monster in the monster manual... the strengths and weaknesses? Along with the possible permutations of fiendish, celestial, half-dragon, etc. only one. I'll bet most people on this board read the book in a matter of days. It is not that hard of a stretch to believe that somewhere along the lines the CHARACTERS have come across books, stories, fireside tales, songs, ballads, epics, etc... that have talked about the monsters in the Monster Manual. I stand by my statement that a DM who changes creatures in the MM without advanced warning or reason is cheating. If the DM says "There are no such things as trolls in the world, don't worry about it". And then for whatever reason trolls have been transported to the world via a planar gate, and they've only arrived in the past 6 months... then it is fair for a DM to do whatever he wants with the rules and the creatures. Likewise, if the players travel to alternate universes or planes, they should count on the unexpected. In the common world of D&D... most things should be as they are. Knowledge checks should apply for those creatures that are extremely uncommon, or likely to have gone unnoticed by 99.99% of the population.
RunningWilder 01-24-05, 10:53 AM	I stand by my statement that a DM who changes creatures in the MM without advanced warning or reason is cheating. If the DM says "There are no such things as trolls in the world, don't worry about it". And then for whatever reason trolls have been transported to the world via a planar gate, and they've only arrived in the past 6 months... then it is fair for a DM to do whatever he wants with the rules and the creatures. Likewise, if the players travel to alternate universes or planes, they should count on the unexpected. In the common world of D&D... most things should be as they are. Knowledge checks should apply for those creatures that are extremely uncommon, or likely to have gone unnoticed by 99.99% of the population. At what point are DM's allowed to introduce new monsters then? Do they have to sit the players down with the monster manual before each campagin begins and go page by page? " We have these, but not these, or these, or these, these are really bad for farmers in the north..." What about if they want to introduce a new monster? Do they have to sit the players down and explain the monsters strength and weaknesses before hand? Do they have to explain that they've added x levels of whatever to this monster, because that was a change as well. I don't seem to remember the players getting veto power over how the game works. If they feel they have to know exactly what is going on with everything they face, they should be DMing, not playing.
clarkvalentine 01-24-05, 10:56 AM	I do not believe that things you see on TV are more "true" than things told in a society based on oral tradition. I can cite endless examples of BS on television that is passed along as fact. Advertising is the tip of the iceberg. You can find many examples of pharmaceutical companies marketing diseases as much as they market thier own drug to cure them. And I can cite endless examples of folklore having its facts mixed up, or of being ignorant of something alltogether. Not the least of which is an entire hemisphere slipping the notice of most in Europe for five thousand years.
StormKnight 01-24-05, 11:16 AM	While a DM can't quite "cheat" and should certainly be entitled to change the monsters however the heck she wants - definetly including changing major vulnerabilities and weaknesses - I think there should be some consideration for the difficulty of seperating player/character knowledge. I mean, its not unreasonable to assume that if trolls exist and are only hurt by fire, your character has heard that trolls are hurt by fire. If you go off that assumption, its a bit odd to pull out torches if there's no reason your character would think it would work well on a troll. (Though that is a good default attack for things that grow back). At some point either the player should have asked "Does my character know if fire hurts trolls?" and the GM should have called for (or better yet, rolled secretly) a knowledge check, OR the GM should have called for (or better yet, rolled secretly) a knowledge check to see if the players realized this. Of course, maybe the DM DID secretly roll knowledge checks and the players failed. We've had something like this in a current game - the Healer has been getting a Knowledge: Religion check every time they fight undead to figure out that positive energy could disrupt and injure the creatures. The PLAYER certainly knows this, but until the check gets made (or he hears about it from a cleric) he's not using it. Amusingly, he's got a high skill and the DC hasn't been all that high, but he keeps rolling very badly. For a cleric, I would probably assume they know this automatically; they have been specifically trained on how to deal with the undead.
Alynn 01-24-05, 11:22 AM	metagaming is the oldest trick in the book... but back in my day it was called player knowlage... and its something I can't stand... DM's can't cheat... I have cheated many times... in both directions... for and against the players... just depending on what was going on (I believe things must be earned... but when you have a player that has rolled 5 1's in a row on attack rolls, and has done more damage to themselves than whatever they are fighting has, I tend to give them a break.) The main thing to me is he failed his knowlage check... so how did they even know it was a troll? Sure they have heard stories, but stories are usually something passed down from geration to generation, and things change... fangs are added, whatever, just to make the monster seem more menicing and the story that much greater. If I had never seen a rattle snake on TV, and just had someone tell me, it's a snake, but it has a rattling thing on its tail, and its poison can kill you, and I happen to be walking somewhere and heard a rattling and saw the snake, even if it was far away, I'd probably run, because thats probably a rattle snake, and its poison will kill me... I know nothing about its aggression (like it probably wouldn't bother me if I just gave it wide berth). They have HEARD of a troll, but they never saw one for real, they had no reason to know that it WAS a troll. This is where I believe good roll playing comes in, yes as a player you know but as a character you do not, find a way to figure it out in a realistic manner as the character. For instance, it goes after your semi cowardly wizard, who happens to be holding a torch, the wizard screams and out of fight or flight response throws the torch at the thing... realistic responce, but you helped the characters learn something that you already knew as a player... Also, just as an addition, one thing I do, if they have knowlage monster in their ranks (or knowlage nature for natual, and large natural beasts) if they have a large enough town with a decent repository of scrolls, or someone they can ask question of, I give them the oppertunity to check when they get back to town for all those monsters, so next time they encounter them, they will know it is a troll (as that becomes DC 0 to know what kind of monster it is) but they still have to make a DC if they happen to remmber any weakness (Remember, this seems to happen right before a combat sequence, this is just something you will have to remember off the top of your head, while under stress, if you were viewing it from a distance, you would have an easier time to remember because your mind isn't preocupied with killing it before it kills you.) Now this is for monsters that I don't consider common... I don't consider a troll common, goblins, kobolds, those are common, ghosts are common (although an untrained person would consider any non corpral floaty spirit thing as a ghost when they could be a number of things). Also, your ranger could use 1sa per round to do another knowlage check... It depends on how they play it (during battle I'd give at least 3 chances, but if you have time to think, I'd give one chance to see if you know what it is, if not then you had to figure it out on other means)... Anyway... I talk too much... Alynn
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-24-05, 12:30 PM	Martin, Chretien, Cambell, Mulroney, Turner, Trudeau, “Joe Who”, Trudeau again . . . but I'm Canadian and I'm familiar with these monsters :P Hey, mister know-it-all, he just asked the last 3 :D Seriously, a lot of you say a troll should be common knowledge, but consider this... To know how to kill a monster (or even hurt it), you need a someone who: 1): Encountered a troll 2):Thought to burn it. 3): Survived the troll attack. Combining the 3 is kinda hard for a commoner...
Guy Humual 01-24-05, 01:12 PM	Hey, mister know-it-all, he just asked the last 3 :D Seriously, a lot of you say a troll should be common knowledge, but consider this... To know how to kill a monster (or even hurt it), you need a someone who: 1): Encountered a troll 2):Thought to burn it. 3): Survived the troll attack. Combining the 3 is kinda hard for a commoner... Very true! Most commoners end their first encounter with a troll from the inside (of the troll). What I assume is that there are other adventures (past or present) that have encountered trolls and survived. Kinda like Herakles and the hydra. The knowledge that they gained was then shared. But again this is only my preference, your DM is perfectly justified in saying that it isn't common knowledge, but my feeling is that for common monsters, common information should be common knowledge. :D
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-24-05, 01:17 PM	... but my feeling is that for common monsters, common information should be common knowledge. :D Well, from the fight that troll put up, I sure hope they aren't common in my DM's world. It get kinda depressing to find only ghost towns, after all.
Thoronmir 01-24-05, 02:11 PM	I agree with you that there is certain knowledge that could be considered common, but the point that I think you're missing is that what is considered common knowledge is, and should be, campaign-specific.This really ought to settle the argument. Only the DM knows how "common" a specific monster might be in his campaign. I run a very low-magic world. When the campaign started, the PCs … actually, their entire known world … believed that stories of Elves and Orcs and Dragons were just fables … ancient myths conjured up to entertain. As far as the PCs knew, “monsters” and “magic” never truly existed. So, yes, they remained clueless until they confronted such things.
Guy Humual 01-24-05, 02:16 PM	Well, from the fight that troll put up, I sure hope they aren't common in my DM's world. It get kinda depressing to find only ghost towns, after all. Well yes! It's a lot harder to stake a troll then it is to burn it! ;) I should also amend my statement, I should have said that I included particularly fearsome or legendary monsters into the common knowledge category (legendary doesn’t include trolls, but would include dragons).
Guy Humual 01-24-05, 02:26 PM	This really ought to settle the argument. Only the DM knows how "common" a specific monster might be in his campaign. I run a very low-magic world. When the campaign started, the PCs … actually, their entire known world … believed that stories of Elves and Orcs and Dragons were just fables … ancient myths conjured up to entertain. As far as the PCs knew, “monsters” and “magic” never truly existed. So, yes, they remained clueless until they confronted such things. Absolutely! I don’t think anyone here would disagree, and I’m sorry if anyone got the impression that I was implying otherwise, I was merely giving my opinion on the subject. The DM always, always, always has final say over his/her campaign.
Winter's requiem 01-24-05, 02:35 PM	I'm going to play devils advicate here for a while, so bare with me. Had the dm warned the players that some things in his world would be different, I would have no problum. If he made the changes before the game, only a slight problum (not telling the players he would change around the world). On the other hand, Trolls are a rather common menice, and I could see some of the players arguing that they would have heard atleast one story about how uncle Paul had fought the troll, and fought, but was unable to beat it until he threw his torch at it. Or remember some town guards talking about tatics for varius common monsters. As such, I can see the players lighting torchs when they see a "troll". Aluroon Not true, a DM can decide himself weither a troll is common or not, he chooses everything. Mabye this troll was special. And IT IS NOT CHEATING. The DM decide the players desteny HE CANT CHEAT!!!!!!! It is even written in DMG.
olshanski_home 01-24-05, 02:55 PM	Perhaps "cheating" is not a defined term. Anyone can say "Rule zero", therefore "not cheating" I define cheating as the understanding between the DM and the players. I've told the players that I will not fudge dice rolls, therefore I do not. I've told players that I will not arbitrarily add hit points to creatures in the middle of combat, therefore I do not. I tell players that I award experience at only 50% rate instead of following the guidelines in the DMG. If I suddenly started fudging dice rolls, adding hit points to creatures in the middle of combat, and awarding only 10% experience, then I would say that I am "cheating" according to my definition... regardless of "rule zero". I've told my players that EVERY monster in the MM is reasonably commonly known in my homebrew world. Also, any monster in the MM could be advanced or have class levels... these will be unique to the creature and not readily apparent (other than size for some advanced creatures). If the players encounter a creature and they are not able to figure out what it is based on my description, it could be from the MM or it could be made up or from another book, in which case I allow Knowledge skills to be applied at the appropriate level to see if they can identify the creature. My description of "a mean looking hyena-like creature" could easily be a Barghest, Krenshar, or fiendish hyena. If I tell my players that they are encountering a creature that looks like a large green cutworm, with 8 tentacles coming from its head, and that it is eating a pile of carrion... the players should assume that it is a carrion crawler. If the "carrion crawler" then shoots the party with a lightning bolt, then the players should assume that this is NOT an ordinary carrion crawler, but some modified creature of some sort, possibly even an illusion. If this is, in fact, an ordinary carrion crawler, then I have cheated by changing the rules without some advanced warning. If this is a modified creature that has a reason for its existance, then I have not cheated. If I want to introduce a new creature, there will be a reason that the knowledge of the creature is unknown in the general population... perhaps the creature is a recent import from another plane, perhaps it is the result of mad breeding experiments, perhaps it was buried or released from stasis from a long forgotton civilization. In any case, there will be a very good reason for the creature being new. If the creature is truly unique, then I have a really high Knowledge check to guess at the creature's abilities based on its look and demeanor. If it is not so unique, then the knowledge check is quite a bit lower (as per the PHB vs monster hit dice) to know things about the creature. If I decided that Etins in my world had the umber-hulk confusion gaze ability, then according to my definition I am cheating.... (unless these Etins were a new breed that only recently gained the confusion-gaze ability).
Slider33 01-24-05, 03:23 PM	Wow, how ironic is that, cheaters calling the DM a cheater. Priceless. No, imo, you did the right thing by modifying the base monsters characteristics. It's your world, stuff like that is completely fine to incorporate as long as you are consistent. If you want your trolls to be weak vs. <whatever> so be it, same goes for any monster as long as you keep it relatively consistent between similar types of monsters. For example, let's say you have an "ice" troll, and a "fire" troll, may not make sense to have them weak vs. the same thing, so essentially they are 2 different monsters, but you'd expect 2 "ice" trolls to be weak vs. the same stuff. That's an over-explanation but I think it gets the point across. Next time they *metagame* and accuse you of changing the rules you should point out that metagaming is BAD, and you'll do what it takes to restore game balance and uncertainty to the game. In my campaign, my players haven't fought many things that require any knowledge of weaknesses yet, but I will have to be sure to enforce those knowledge guidelines when the time comes. If they've never seen monster x, then they shouldn't know it's weaknesses/strengths. You did the right thing. edit: As a side note, if they want information on certain unknown creatures it is possible to give them access to certain bits of knowledge if they look in the right places. An old sage, or an old tome in a library, or an experienced adventurer etc. may know things they have encountered in the past. The players should be able to seek out this knowledge if they choose.
RunningWilder 01-24-05, 06:57 PM	If I tell my players that they are encountering a creature that looks like a large green cutworm, with 8 tentacles coming from its head, and that it is eating a pile of carrion... the players should assume that it is a carrion crawler. If the "carrion crawler" then shoots the party with a lightning bolt, then the players should assume that this is NOT an ordinary carrion crawler, but some modified creature of some sort, possibly even an illusion. If this is, in fact, an ordinary carrion crawler, then I have cheated by changing the rules without some advanced warning. If this is a modified creature that has a reason for its existance, then I have not cheated. You've undercut your own arguments. They fought a troll, it didn't react as usual, they should have assumed that it was something else. As they had never fought with trolls in that campagin, nothing had confirmed their beliefs as to how to deal with it. Low level adventurers are supposed to be learning the ropes of how their business works. Besides, where do you draw the line on changes being cheating. If I give an Ogre a death attack, I'm cheating (according to you). Am I cheating if I give him levels in assassin? No assassin worth his salt is going to telegraph his profession, so the players won't really be able to tell either way until he unleashes the ability on them. What if I add kobolds that aren't cowards, and instead grapple enmass? Do I have to define them as a different monster in order to keep my players from yelling cheat? The monster manual is a tool, but not a bible. Nothing in there is absolute, otherwise you wouldn't be able to add templates/classes/ advancement to the creatures. The whole reason most people adjust monsters is to make them different and keep players on their toes. How else are you supposed to keep a jaded veteran interested in combat?
aaron3579 01-24-05, 07:07 PM	Folks, we're arguing over a paradox here. A: Can the DM cheat? B: No, he can't because nothing he does can be considered against the rules. C. Yes, he can because rule zero says he is allowed to break the rules. B: But, by that rationale nothing he does can be considered against the rules. C: :banghead: Seriously, don't think too hard about this one, you'll get a headache. :doh:
aaron3579 01-24-05, 07:23 PM	What we SHOULD be arguing about is to what extent rule zero can be used within the realm of decency...
TheOrderofchaos 01-24-05, 08:01 PM	A dm can't cheat, and in his case that DM earned a big Yahoo. Now if he is a bad dm, find a new one.
Aeromus 01-24-05, 08:09 PM	And Aeromus, I feel that a DM can tweak his monsters as he feels fit without telling the players before hand, it's not cheating. Do I feel he should do this for every encounter without some story (like "a wizard did it!") to go along with it? Well I wouldn't, and most DMs shouldn't, not unless they want to be concidered a bad DM. But that's bad story telling, not cheating IMO. I never said a monster can't be tweaked, or that randomness and creatures not of the norm can't exist. I'm simply saying if the DM made that change right there, on the spot as a result of the players arming fire.... he cheated.
aaron3579 01-24-05, 08:53 PM	I never said a monster can't be tweaked, or that randomness and creatures not of the norm can't exist. I'm simply saying if the DM made that change right there, on the spot as a result of the players arming fire.... he cheated. No he didn't. He responded brilliantly to a case of metagaming. The point of a troll only being vulnerable to fire and acid is so that they are more difficult to kill. It is assumed that players should not use out of game knowledge to take advantage of their 'secret weakness,' so the DM just moved the weakness to something else, thus preserving the originally intended difficulty of the encounter.
Obiwho? 01-24-05, 09:32 PM	No he didn't. He responded brilliantly to a case of metagaming. The point of a troll only being vulnerable to fire and acid is so that they are more difficult to kill. It is assumed that players should not use out of game knowledge to take advantage of their 'secret weakness,' so the DM just moved the weakness to something else, thus preserving the originally intended difficulty of the encounter.Well said. I couldn't agree more. To the extent the post above complain about changes on the "spot", I agree the GM should not change a monster mid-stream (anymore than a GM should add hit points to an opponent during combat). IMO, a GM should create a consistent world and know what the monsters in his or her world can and cannot do. If the players need a fresh challenge, the GM should plan it out in advance. There's simply no need to ambush the players; I found that when I do it, it's invariably because I didn't put enough thought into how the monsters were going to fare against the PCs. That's me not doing my job, and I should short-cut the players and their characters by changing the rules in the midst of a fight. Now, to the extent we are talking about changes that the GM made in advance, that's easy: it's the GM's game.
Aeromus 01-25-05, 02:27 AM	No he didn't. He responded brilliantly to a case of metagaming. The point of a troll only being vulnerable to fire and acid is so that they are more difficult to kill. It is assumed that players should not use out of game knowledge to take advantage of their 'secret weakness,' so the DM just moved the weakness to something else, thus preserving the originally intended difficulty of the encounter. How much damage does a burning torch do? 1d6 on a good day? So a 40 HP troll taking 1d6 + (1-5str) from 1-4 members of the party is going to be hard. Re-read how regeneration works, this isn't second edition where you deal 38 normal then apply 2 fire and oops, it's unable to regenerate at all. And, you can kill a troll without fire or acid, just by putting it into negatives and saying.."I coup de grace"... welcome to 3.0/5 The DM cheated. Period.
Obiwho? 01-25-05, 09:29 AM	And, you can kill a troll without fire or acid, just by putting it into negatives and saying.."I coup de grace"... welcome to 3.0/5No, you can't. Re-read the rules. You can only perform a coup de grace with lethal damage; all damage that a troll can regenerate is considered non-lethal damage. You have to exceed the troll's hit points with lethal damage or perform a coup de grace (with lethal damage) and have the troll fall the save. Alternatively, you could drown, suffocate, etc. a troll. But you cannot kill a troll with non-lethal damage. If the GM wants to change what qualifies as lethal damage for a troll, a GM is free to do that. IMO, the GM should not do it mid-stream in a fight, but a GM is free to create a new troll that regenerates fire and acid damage but is vulnerable to electricity and throw it at the players. Nothing says a GM cannot create new creatures.
aaron3579 01-25-05, 06:16 PM	How much damage does a burning torch do? 1d6 on a good day? So a 40 HP troll taking 1d6 + (1-5str) from 1-4 members of the party is going to be hard. Re-read how regeneration works, this isn't second edition where you deal 38 normal then apply 2 fire and oops, it's unable to regenerate at all. And, you can kill a troll without fire or acid, just by putting it into negatives and saying.."I coup de grace"... welcome to 3.0/5 The DM cheated. Period. Um... (don't you hate when people say um? I do). Are you denying the fact that a troll is harder to kill because of his short list of vulnerabilities? You just spouted off a bunch of irrelevant rules (poorly, as Obi aptly pointed out) and ignored my argument. Then you finished up with a blind reassertion of your illogical conclusion.