GM/DM Question

>My husband abuses me in my family home for absurd reason, and talking with him about it didn't work
>Don't want to kick him out because we've been together for a few years now and it would inconvenient

I never say the name of the monster unless they roll ok inthe related knowledge, and if they know the monster by the name, well, they rolled ok in the related knowledge

Taking for granted that the player *is* trash, but:

>There is no 'rules' for how the DM runs the game. If you want to make a shadow creature that can get a strength score, then it can have a strength score. Who literally gives a shit if the rulebook says Ethereal creatures can't normally have one?

This is absolutely wrong. If the DM has no rules, why did you even buy a book?

Who fucking cares if they know what the monster is. Don't challenge them by withholding information. Challenge them with environmental effects, time limits, goals other than 'kill everything in this room', monster tactics etc etc

If he's angry about your homebrew monsters / setting, he can fuck right off mate.

If you're feeling really weak in the knees you could accomodate him, but if you're having fun the players probably wont have fun either.

>5000+ monsters
>Can identify them all just by calculating their AC, To Hit and special features
1. He should be doing something more meaningful with his life instead of wasting his eidetic memory on D&D
2. Describe, don't name. Never say "it has DR" just say your attack does less than what you expected, that couls be DR, fast healing, regeneration, etc
3. Use templates to change monsters while still being official

The book is a useful tool even if you don't use 100% of its content.

This, I hate the "DM doesn't have to follow any rule but players are constrained by them" shit

>>Can't kick him out because he's my ride and the group would be to small to play

Invest in a pair of running shoes and social skills you slack-jawed faggot.

Make them fight npcs with pc classes instead. Multiclassed depending on edition (assuming dnd here)

Not using 100% is different from "DM don't need no rules".

They don't need rules though. They're the capital "G" diety of the game.

>capital "G" diety
In Christian mythology, capital G God punished his son (instead of humanity), so that the Law would be served. And even he had to obey it.

You can repeat it as many times as you wish, but you're still wrong.

When you join a DM's game they get to decide on what happens and ultimately what the rules will be like. Rule #1 exists for a reason. Everyone sort of agrees to follow the guidelines of the system. If you couldn't break that system when you wanted in order to enhance the experience, (As long as you aren't going full DM vs Players) then why are you playing TTRPG at all? Go play a fucking vidya if you want an ironbound system. If the players are really so autistic they can't handle some rule changes when they know every monster under the sun they need to grow up or find a new group. It would also mean their characters may be abusing meta level knowledge.

How would you shake up the monsters in a group where the players know literally every single one? You need to throw a curveball at them - and that means going against the ordinary conventions set by the manuals authors.

Imagine you're a tour boat captain and you've been everywhere in the world just about, would you take your audience to see something new or go back to somewhere you've already been a thousand times?

You could of course make an original monster that's similar but has a completely different stat block to another monster, but at that point why bother?

The DM did nothing wrong.

...no. there isn't a cure for retarded people.

Just kick them out dude.

It's time to find a new ride, user.

In the meantime maybe you should try putting your group against usual monsters in unusual situations?

>Who cares if you know how much damage a Flame Elemental can take, THE ROOM IS FILLING WITH EXPLOSIVE GAS AND ALSO THE CEILING IS CRUMBLING

You should try something that was published after 2000, you know. Or maybe just not play D&D.

Making custom monsters is not "DM doesn't have to follow any rule".

No where in the rules does it say they have to use the MM.

Rule 0- what the GM says, goes

Have him DM a one-shot and see how he likes that faggot player attitude. Some players are the fucking worst and have no idea what it's like to DM. He sounds like a piece of shit, but I understand it's difficult if he's also your friend.

You're well within your rights to homebrew monsters if that fat autist knows the entire MM by heart.

Have you tried not playing DND?

law that he established

I would suggest first asking the other players how they feel about your homebrew monsters. if more people dislike them then like, then it's time to find new challenges to throw at them (time constraints, traps, craftier enemy actions ECT). if the other players like or are indifferent to your homebrews then ignore it. he may bitch but that's a reflection on his character, not yours, so long as you aren't insufferable about it. either way though you should find a way to engage that power gamer in ways that aren't as simple as making things up. if he knows the monsters you're throwing at him, then stop throwing monsters at him and start throwing other things, like PC characters maybe.

>This is absolutely wrong. If the DM has no rules, why did you even buy a book?
They're really more like guidelines.

Read this on modifying monsters within the rules giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?207928-Urpriest-s-Monstrous-Monster-Handbook

Tweak monsters and then use Boon traps (From Dungeonscape) to buff them. Boon traps are essentially traps that actually have beneficial effects and are used to buff monsters. Also take into account terrain, traps and tactics

1. No metagaming
2. Man up and don't get pushed around by your players

>law that he established
Yea, sure. DM established certain rules when he said we will play DnD and is expected to conform to them just as well.
Perfect analogy, if you ask me.

I'm gonna invoke what is called "Rule 0" these days, and what was called "I'm the one running the game" back in the old days. Using a set of rules like whatever edition of D&D as the basis of your game does not constrain you to abide by them. The GM isn't a president who is limited by the laws of the land; he's god emperor and "the rules" are more like a nonbinding statement of intent. Seriously, the GM is the one who's running the entire world. If he wants to fuck you over, he can just drop 12 destructor dragons in your lap. You're already having to trust in his good judgment, so I don't know what good you think can come of trying to bind his hands in certain areas (trusting that some group of people you've never met--who don't know anything about your group or the way it plays--is going to set parameters better for your game than your GM's judgment).

Let's go over this once again because you guys are dense:

1. "Rule 0" is already a dated concept, more and more games are coming out that dispense from it, and in general, it does not mean "the GM does whatever the fuck he wants",

2. If you want to be the power-wanking GM, why did you bring a book in the first place. Just make your friends sit at your table and keep jerking off to your absolute authority as they beg you for an ounce of fun.

>I'm the one running the game
And i am the one playing it.
You told us we are going to play DnD. There is implied way to play it. If you play it any different way without telling us before, i will be rightfully discontent.

>"the rules" are more like a nonbinding statement of intent
I somewhat agree, but every time you do something that's outside of that statement, you risk hurting players trust. And without players trust, no game can take place.
You can break the rules in way it actually makes the game better, no doubt about that.

I guess my main quarrel with that is:
1. DM breaking the rules is still breaking the rules. It is rude and i feel cheated if he does so.
2. If the DM is allowed to break rules, it suggest that the world rules describe is not as real. He should operate withing rules framework to make it work, or be transparent about rules changes.

>Can't kick him out
Yes you can.

>he's my ride
You can find another way.

>and the group would be to small to play
Literally not a thing.

Well, as you don't want to kick him, beat him with his own tricks:
His character knows these things only if he succeeds on rolls for it and can only share one piece of information per turn with the group.
I'd do something like a DC (10+CR) Knowledge (Dungeoneering) as a baseline, with an increase in difficulty if the enemy is particularly out of the ordinary (For example an Ogre with Barbarian class levels would be just the CR, but if he had Sorcerer levels you could count them double or 3-for-2)
Enforce this so theres no further meta-gaming, and maybe you both can be non-miserable.

>No where in the rules does it say they have to use the MM.
Not only that but the books explicitly say the DM should feel free to make custom monsters, and almost every edition's MM gives advice for making your own.

That's a shit solution.

To be fair, it's a shit problem, but as OP obviously isn't willing to actually do anything about the situation he might as well go with plan F

You guys realise the thread's not about a GM making up rules and ditching others, but a GM not using monsters from the monster manual, or moving around stats for existing ones, right?

So that everyone has a common core as to how things are played. The GM has prerogative to change things up as necessary to keep the experience fun. Captain autismo is making the game less fun by using his encyclopedic knowledge of monsters to deny that something exists outside his realm of expectation.

Yes, and that's perfectly fine. But there are folks here who keep banging on "RULE 0! GEE-EM AUTHORITY" and we're trying to make them see the error of their ways.

Let's look at it like this. D&D 3.5 has clear rules for making mosters (a bit wonky on how to calculate CRs, but still.). I could spend some time using those rules to make a new monster, or I can just take a post it and write "1000 hp, always hits, 20 dmg": Would that still be okay?

You should try explaining what you are trying to accomplish, and perhaps also the concept of metagaming and why it is generally frowned upon. However this problem is likely deeper than role-playing games if it is difficult enough to resolve that you must resort to asking complete strangers on a laotian soapmaking forum for advice.

>"Rule 0" is already a dated concept.
It's a game of imagination. Color-inside-the-lines-or-I'll-spaz-out is a little kiddie response.

>If you want to be the power-wanking GM, why did you bring a book in the first place. Just make your friends sit at your table and keep jerking off to your absolute authority as they beg you for an ounce of fun.
Again, the GM can completely fuck you over in an instant using the rules-as-written, so I don't understand why you think restricting the game to the letter of the book is somehow a bulwark against him taking advantage of the players somehow. The very fact that you are seeing this as some kind of power struggle indicates to me that you have a juvenile mindset. You're trusting the GM to run the fucking universe, so let him do it.

As to why he should even bring the book in the first place, it's because it's a tool. There's lots of stuff in there he can use, and that doesn't change just because he doesn't feel bound to obey everything like some sort of law code.

>I somewhat agree, but every time you do something that's outside of that statement, you risk hurting players trust. And without players trust, no game can take place.
I think that's overstating it a bit, but I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying. Basically, the GM shouldn't jerk the players around. They shouldn't be led to believe that there's a hard-and-fast rule only to have it yanked out from underneath them at an inopportune time. But a lot of this comes down to the expectations the GM sets, by the way he runs the game from the beginning, if not from informing you outright what his intentions are. That's just a matter of having a consistent enough approach that the players don't feel like they're getting screwed over (even if the only consistency is a well-understood policy of being completely arbitrary). Rigidly obeying the book is one way of doing this, but it isn't the only way, and it certainly doesn't suggest that the GM is an asshole who is taking advantage of the players if he does otherwise.

>1. DM breaking the rules is still breaking the rules. It is rude and i feel cheated if he does so.
I think that the adaptive ability of the human mind to be able to intuitively react to complex situations and improvise according to a constantly changing set of parameters is going to yield better, more believably immersive results than a rigid adherence to a necessarily simplistic framework of unchanging rules. You'd need a very complex system, indeed, to try to match the ability of a flexible approach to GMing to address countless different situations, and at that point, it would probably be very clunky and unwieldy. And my experience with rules-heavy system is that the GM often needs to step in and at least tweak things when the rules give results that don't work very well for a given situation. Rulings over rules.

>I hit for 16 damage!
>[Creature] is still alive.
>WHAT THE FUCK I KNOW [CREATURE] HAS 40 HP HE SHOULD BE DEAD
>Does your character know that?
>HE HAS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
>Your character plays D&D?
>FUCK YOU, ON PAGE 342 OF THE RULES...
>I don't have time for a full legal briefing cycle. [Creature] lunges at Elandrin...
>

Here's what I would say:

"Sorry, but having an encyclopedic knowledge of the monsters leads to an unfair metagame that ruins both gameplay and story value. If you're uncomfortable with adding imagination to (insert tabletop game), then I think you're missing the most fundamental part of what makes this game so compelling. It's about the wonder, discovery and adventuring to complete tasks. If you remove the wonder of 'what could be' by limiting your imagination, then there's nothing to discover. If there's nothing to discover, there's no real adventure. If there's no adventure, then what the fuck is the point?"

I fucking hate metagaming rules lawyer players

Fuck off mate

That doesn't exist.

The GM is in complete charge of the rules and has final word on them. As long as what the monster does is consistent and clear it's basically anything goes.

> and we're trying to make them see the error of their ways.
go make a thread about it, and fuck off with your strawman while you're at it too

>"making a gamebreakingly strong monster would be bad!"
>"that goblin had 1 more ac, and used slime monster abilities! that isn't fair!"
>"and he had the nerve of calling it a gooblin!"
>"fuck these DMs and their god complex! I'm the one who actually knows everything. they should listen to me!"
>"after all, only a scumfuck degenerate would bring imagination to a tabletop game."

you must be a real fun person to have around

>1000 hp, always hits, 20 dmg

If this monster is say The God of War. I have no issue with that.

>I think that's overstating it a bit,
I know, it bothers me greatly.

I mostly agree with what you say.

Rules i was talking to included unwritten rules, customary rules, interpretation of grey areas and so. Mechanics described in the book are one important part or Rules, but certainly not only one. If you establish rules (in any way), you should adhere to them.

For example:
Our group decided to stop using optional rule that gives advantage on attacks if you flank the target. In next encounter, wizard was swarmed and flanked by three enemies in narrow passage. DM decided to give one attacker advantage, because the wizard was in such a difficult situation.
We all felt this is violation of newly updated flanking rules.*

*Even though i personally admit he should use dis/advantage more often to reflect changing situation, it felt like cheating.

At my tabletop that'd be called a CF bonus.

(Being swarmed means not being able to react to everything in an appropriate manner. AKA the clusterfuck bonus.)

If you're being swarmed by gremlins, it seems obvious that a dodge/block would be exponentially more difficult.

Flanking is a mechanic that (about half the time) encourages metagame for a small bonus. Sometimes people use it in a healthy way, like with stealth or apprehending someone. Or anything actually justified beyond the bonus itself. The other way is:
>"well i get a bonus if i go behind, so that's what my character would do."

Trust me. I get it. People don't have eyes on the back of their head. It'd be a fucking no-brainer if you asked me: "Would you rather start a fight from behind someone or in front of them?"
But if you see your friend getting stabbed in the face, why would you take the time to tiptoe behind the enemy for a flank bonus instead of... saving your friend's life?
I'm sure that your enraged barbarian took the time to think "gee, i'd get a +69 if i nestle up between his butcheeks before i swing."

I'm aware of how stupid this sentence is, but people need to stop playing "the game" and actually play the fucking game.

>people need to stop playing "the game" and actually play the fucking game.
Look, man, i lost two characters in the campaign, already. If i can do something like moving 20ft. before attacking to get bonus and have higher chance to kill the fucker before he will kill me, i will do it.

>look man, if i need to metagame to succeed then that's what i'll do
ftfy

I guess. Dying and loosing gets old quickly.
I also don't think metagaming is automatically evil, especially when we do play DnD.

>goblin with slime abilities
>gooblin

fuck you I kek'd

>see i can break somethig so you shouldn't do it at all