PDA

View Full Version : Players that grip about home brew monsters



scurv
2012-12-16, 02:49 PM
Players that grip about home brew monsters. I got one...the special one "W" who is upset that my monsters are not the same as whats in the book. Now on the off chance that my sister does not handle this for me. Can I get some advice on how to approach this.
Keep in mind that my own social skills are....as smooth as 40 grit sandpaper

Water_Bear
2012-12-16, 03:09 PM
Is the issue that you're using homebrew monsters, or that you're using bad homebrew monsters?

My D&D players can't really tell the difference between any weird MM3 critter and something I made up; I've had cases where they thought real monsters were homebrewed and others where they thought something I threw together was real. And in games like nWoD, where the difference between a Ghost Mage an Unbound Giest a Demon and a Death Spirit are nearly impossible to make out, homebrew is going to fly under the radar unless you really make it obvious.

My guess is that "W" is not a fan of the monster on it's own merits, and is using the fact that it's homebrew to justify getting rid of it. Either that or they're an even bigger rules stickler than me, which would be surprising.

scurv
2012-12-16, 03:50 PM
...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

hymer
2012-12-16, 04:33 PM
If you question your ability to homebrew within reason, there's plenty of other ways to make him trip himself up with metagaming. Put illusions on the owlbear skeleton, so it looks like the real deal. Give the harpy class levels in warlock. Have the drow bard use disguise to look like a human. Surprise him by having the apparently unarmed guy be a fighter with invisible weapons and armour. Etc.
Don't do it too much, just enough to make him doubt his metagaming.

Edit: Or just refluff something. If you want to make a humanoid toad, say, use duergar stats.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-16, 07:41 PM
Can you give an example of monsters you homebrewed, the encounters, and the player's reaction? Basically, an account of what happened will give us an idea of how to help you with it.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

So I wound up completely ineffective for half the fight, and Dominated for the other.

Togath
2012-12-16, 07:59 PM
Can you give an example of monsters you homebrewed, the encounters, and the player's reaction? Basically, an account of what happened will give us an idea of how to help you with it.

Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

So I wound up completely ineffective for half the fight, and Dominated for the other.

That reminds me of an somewhat ironic near tpk I once had;
The party was fighting a Golem(it was crafted construct, so describing it as "some sort of golem" seemed appropriate) with manifesting in place of having any real melee ability and instead of any immunity to magic normally possessed by golems...it was also vulnerable to mind effecting effects, due to being fairly intelligent...
The problem came when the party--assuming because I called it a "golem" that it was immune to magic--started trying to melee it to death(the two casters anyway, the archer tried shooting it with a bow[which was somewhat effective, since it also lacked DR, though the casters kept missing]). It even used only debuff/crowd-control spells...and still nearly wiped out the party

TuggyNE
2012-12-16, 08:11 PM
Personally, I have a lot of trouble with homebrew which is unbalanced or unfun. One of my DMs threw a "MissingNo" (eldritch horror named after a glitch in one of the early Pokemon games) at us. It appeared in a Magnificent Mansion, even though "only creatures you designate may enter". No one knew what it was, it had great spell resistance and immunity to just about every SR: No spell my Wizard had (Core only, plus the DMs terrible homebrew classes. Those are another story entirely). And every round it spammed a Dominate SLA, which my DM claimed bypassed Mind Blank because "it's weird".

In that example, I can buy it being mysteriously able to enter magnificent mansion, but the other two major abilities (bypasses mind blank, immune to random SR: No) are not so great, especially when all combined.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-16, 08:23 PM
Here's something which may help: Give your PCs a Knowledge check against the monster, even if it's homebrew, to see if they know anything important about it, like it's strengths or weaknesses in combat.

"This fearsome beast is able to rip ordinary adults in half with its bare claws" is not useful information, half the Monster Manual can do that. "This creature terrorized villages and slowly tortures its victims" is not useful. "This creature is known to be especially vulnerable/immune to [type] damage" is useful. "This creature is highly resistant to magic" is useful. "This creature is not subject to dominations or charms" is useful. "This type of construct is apparently vulnerable to enchantment effects, unlike its mindless counterparts" is useful".

Also, you need to give an appropriate amount of useful detail. Rambling for three sentences about a Dwarves' hairstyle or the story told by the runes on his armor is not useful, and will probably bore your players to tears. The guy's race, weapon, general appearance, clothes/equipment, and notable identifying symbols/features, however, are useful.

I once had a DM who would give the bare minimum description, and often less. Even for major, plot-centric NPCs, it would be something along the lines "her clothes are skimpy and she has pleasing curves" or "He's wearing a breastplate and a holy symbol". Half our encounters were us blundering through a completely nondescript town of indeterminate size and composition, then suddenly "You encounter a man". DM didn't even mention what kind of weapon our "man" was holding, no mention of spell component pouches, or holy symbols, or armor type. Just a man, and ordinary man. Who then starts pounding us with 7th level spells, Touch AC in the high 20s, and skill checks in the 30s. :smallmad:

EDIT: So it seems like your objective is to apply the Law of Conservation of Detail to NPCs. Players will usually think "The more details it has, the more important it is. The DM went out of his way to describe it, after all", which can lead them to do very odd things, latching onto random items, set-pieces, and unimportant NPCS, convinced there's something they can do with it.

Just give enough description so your PCs know what the monster is, but not too much (or else they risk falling asleep halfway through). More description is appropriate when it's especially good description or the item described is especially important. Also grant Knowledge checks for more than what meets the eye.

Doorhandle
2012-12-16, 10:27 PM
...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

I would suggest stealing some things from pathfinder's bestiary then. Bestiary 3 in particular has a whole boatload of stats on legendary creatures from our world.

BRC
2012-12-16, 11:13 PM
A simple test could be a re-fluff.

Take a 100% MM-approved monster, maybe with a template. Let's say a Fiendish Owlbear.

Then, have the party fight "A hulking Fiend that looks like a red-skinned ogre, it's arms end in a pair of terrifying claws and two burning eyes sit above a mouth full of vicious teeth." This description is what their characters see, and theoretically tells them everything they need to know about the monster. It's Fiendish (and so is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities), it's strong, it has two claw attacks and a bite attack. It's a rules-legal monster, so you can't be accused of sending them against an unbalanced homebrew, and the description tells them all the salient tactical points.
If he complains about this monster then you know he's only complaining because he likes fighting monsters he recognizes, not because of any legitimate concern.

Jay R
2012-12-17, 11:09 AM
A simple test could be a re-fluff.

Take a 100% MM-approved monster, maybe with a template. Let's say a Fiendish Owlbear.

Then, have the party fight "A hulking Fiend that looks like a red-skinned ogre, it's arms end in a pair of terrifying claws and two burning eyes sit above a mouth full of vicious teeth." This description is what their characters see, and theoretically tells them everything they need to know about the monster. It's Fiendish (and so is vulnerable to certain spells and abilities), it's strong, it has two claw attacks and a bite attack. It's a rules-legal monster, so you can't be accused of sending them against an unbalanced homebrew, and the description tells them all the salient tactical points.
If he complains about this monster then you know he's only complaining because he likes fighting monsters he recognizes, not because of any legitimate concern.

Perfect. It sounds like he's memorized most of the monsters and wants to use player knowledge rather than character knowledge. This will determine if that is true.

I also recommend sending home-brewed monsters that are clearly weaker than the equivalent monster from the books.

You need to determine if:

a. He wants to use his knowledge of the books, or
b. He wants to play only with things in the books, or
c. He thinks your home-brew NPCs are too powerful.

awa
2012-12-17, 02:58 PM
I agree finding out why its a problem is important. although a reason i dont think was mentioned is particularly in premade settings (such as say dragon lance or world of darkness) home brew monsters can be seen as i suppose non-cannon for lack of a better word and for some people this kind of stuff is an instant deal breaker.

(personally ive only encountered this with people who often dm in this setting themselves so you mileage may vary)

Man on Fire
2012-12-17, 05:06 PM
...based on tactics he takes i could say that he is not a fan of monsters he has not read about. At this point I am trying (and considering W's situation I am trying harder then i normally would) To not make a connection that he may be using out of char knowledge to advance his chars benefit.
( I know it happens, thus is why the occasional tweek or homebrew adds fun to it )

But as far as monsters go, I tend to research a mythical creature and fit it into the system. Sometimes it blows chunks, But most often it makes a fun encounter for all.

Although I do tend to play test it with a clone of the group in question to tune in the to hit, damage and ac.

Then you are doing good job, guy who tries to metagame like this deserves no comfort from you.

Tavar
2012-12-17, 05:23 PM
There can be IC reasons to not enjoy that, though. If the character/party has high knowledges all around, then they could be legitimately miffed if they aren't getting any useful info. Nothing stings quite as much as rescources that end up being negated for no reason.

hymer
2012-12-17, 05:25 PM
@ awa: I can definitely see that sort of thing happening. It could be like introducing an android in a carefully researched Cold War campaign, or a horse in an Aztec campaign pre-Columbus.

Darius Kane
2012-12-17, 05:34 PM
Just use NPCs instead of monsters. Or monsters with class levels.

lunar2
2012-12-17, 05:35 PM
homebrew monsters get knowledge checks just like regular monsters, remember that. the only exception is if it is a new or secret species. for example in my first campaign i had a homebrew dragon (not true), that a successful knowledge: arcana check told only that it was not any creature you had heard of before, but that it looked vaguely like a green dragon. it was, in fact, bred from green dragon stock, among other things, and was immune to acid, so even this was still somewhat useful information.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-12-17, 05:43 PM
There can be IC reasons to not enjoy that, though. If the character/party has high knowledges all around, then they could be legitimately miffed if they aren't getting any useful info. Nothing stings quite as much as rescources that end up being negated for no reason.That's not a problem with homebrew so much as it is with how a DM uses homebrew. A successful knowledge check should get you information about a monster whether that monster is from the Monster Manual or the DM's notbook. Not giving them that information would be the problem, the source wouldn't be.

If there are storyline reasons they wouldn't get anything from knowledge checks, that still isn't a problem with homebrew as it can be applied to official creatures just as well. I'm running a campaign where dark elves (I don't like the word "drow" so it isn't used in my homebrew setting) were thought to be a story to scare children until the players encountered them. As such, knowledge checks get scattered or conflicting information that was as much superstition as anything. (A little time at a library and some search checks get the PCs an old journal from an explorer who encountered dark elves and some more useful information, but the PCs had to go looking for it.)

Slipperychicken
2012-12-17, 07:03 PM
for example in my first campaign i had a homebrew dragon (not true), that a successful knowledge: arcana check told only that it was not any creature you had heard of before, but that it looked vaguely like a green dragon.

That's not a successful Knowledge check. That's a successful Spot check.


A successful Knowledge check would look more like "It strongly resembles a Green dragon's offspring, so it looks like it should share some of its properties. For example, it's green scaly skin ought to provide a strong resistance to Acid..."

Dimers
2012-12-17, 08:32 PM
Griping about homebrew? Hell, I gripe about DMs who DON'T homebrew monsters. C'mon, friend, it's YOU I'm sitting down to play with, not a WotC representative! Make the gameworld your own!

Deophaun
2012-12-17, 08:50 PM
That's not a successful Knowledge check. That's a successful Spot check.
I hate those. I had a DM that would only give us the color of the slaad we were facing on a successful Knowledge: The Planes check. Yeah, very useful, especially when it's the first time you've ever encountered a slaad. Frankly, I'm surprised the experience didn't scare me off knowledge skills all together.

awa
2012-12-17, 09:04 PM
that's always bugged me like dms who act like your cheating when you ask what kind of armor the target is wearing.

Mike_G
2012-12-17, 09:44 PM
I started using homebrew monsters when the players just kept using OOC knowledge of monsters the characters had never heard of.

Me:You see a huge humanoid--

Bob: Is it an Ogre or a troll or a bugbear?

M:It's a huge humanoid with a club.

B:Is it a troll? They have regeneration! We should use fire.

M: Bob, you are playing a 1st level barbarian with an 8 Int and Wis and no knowledge skills. You see a big freaking humanoid with a club. I know you've read every page of all versions of the MM, but Grondash the Orphan Maker does not know the special abilities of Trolls, or how to tell one from an Ogre. What do you do?

B: Guys, trolls usually use their claws, so this is probably an Ogre. But ready some fire attacks in case it starts to regenerate.


So I just started making stuff up. Once they'd faced a creature, they knew it's weaknesses for next time, but no level 1 hick from the sticks should have memorized the fine print in the MM.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-17, 09:55 PM
So I just started making stuff up. Once they'd faced a creature, they knew it's weaknesses for next time, but no level 1 hick from the sticks should have memorized the fine print in the MM.

A Troll's Regeneration is the kind of thing which would definitely make it into legends or at least campfire stories (The brave hero hacked and slashed, but the big ugly Troll kept growing its limbs back!). I could see him knowing if Bob's character was from a region which experienced occasional Troll problems (someone would have told him). Because come on, if a Troll clan rampages in an area, that news is going to spread fast.

Deophaun
2012-12-17, 11:34 PM
There are some things that are going to be iconic and no knowledge check should be needed: trolls regenerate, dragons have breath weapons, medusae turn you to stone with a glance. Requiring a knowledge check for this kind of stuff is along the lines of requiring a knowledge check to tell if the barmaid you're hitting on is a human, an elf, or a gelatinous cube (it was a crazy bar, and I had way too much mead).

awa
2012-12-17, 11:43 PM
depends on the setting and the rarity of the monsters
I feel if you don't have the knowledge skill bare minimum 75% of everything you "know" about monsters should be wrong. okay you know trolls regenerate you also "know" they all live under bridges and are terrified of large goats and turn to stone by sunlight (now if your people fight off trolls on a regular basis that's different but that should be the exception to the rule)

Slipperychicken
2012-12-18, 01:13 AM
depends on the setting and the rarity of the monsters
I feel if you don't have the knowledge skill bare minimum 75% of everything you "know" about monsters should be wrong. okay you know trolls regenerate you also "know" they all live under bridges and are terrified of large goats and turn to stone by sunlight (now if your people fight off trolls on a regular basis that's different but that should be the exception to the rule)

I wonder how awesome it would be for there to be a rule where for every 5 or 10 by which you fail a Knowledge check, you receive a piece of completely useless, misleading, or untrue information which your character is utterly convinced of.

EDIT: I also feel like a successful Knowledge check against something you've never seen/studied should still grant useful information, although through educated guess rather than previous study (and would likely be limited to broader observations). Like a monster's gait and hide indicating what environment it usually lives in, or movement patterns/tool use/vocalizations indicating general intelligence level, or dragon-type scales possibly implying spell resistance.

Or you just get general information for beings of its kind (It appears to be some kind of Devil. You know Devils usually have X, Y, and Z, and usually rely on their X and Y in combat, and their Z makes them highly potent against spellcasters. The creature's limb structure and light body type implies very quick movement and feline/pouncing attack patterns...)

Admiral Squish
2012-12-18, 02:37 AM
I wonder how awesome it would be for there to be a rule where for every 5 or 10 by which you fail a Knowledge check, you receive a piece of completely useless, misleading, or untrue information which your character is utterly convinced of.

That's how my DM does natural ones on knowledge checks. You remember some totally untrue factoid you're convinced is the truth. One character almost cracked open an ancient nonmagical relic because he was convinced it held an ancient spellbook-gem.

Jay R
2012-12-18, 10:31 AM
A Troll's Regeneration is the kind of thing which would definitely make it into legends or at least campfire stories (The brave hero hacked and slashed, but the big ugly Troll kept growing its limbs back!).

Oh, absolutely. In fact, it would make it into legends and campfire stories whether it is true or not. It makes too good a story.

You seem to believe that legends and campfire stories are sources of good hard information. They aren't.


I could see him knowing if Bob's character was from a region which experienced occasional Troll problems (someone would have told him). Because come on, if a Troll clan rampages in an area, that news is going to spread fast.

It's going to spread like wildfire, and grow with the telling. When Bob was a child, he heard stories about the village's hero who defended the village against the Trolls in days gone by. He knows all about the Troll's regeneration, about their use of fire spells, about the armor they wear, about their three heads and four arms, ....

This is why I routinely re-write monsters. I once wrote the following for the introduction of a fantasy game:


You have heard many mutually conflicting tales of all kinds of marvelous beasts. If you want any knowledge of which stories are real, you will need to buy a knowledge skill.

Lord Il Palazzo
2012-12-18, 10:49 AM
Griping about homebrew? Hell, I gripe about DMs who DON'T homebrew monsters. C'mon, friend, it's YOU I'm sitting down to play with, not a WotC representative! Make the gameworld your own!I don't homebrew monsters very often just because I don't have the time and my group is new enough (myself included) that I can still catch everyone off guard with things right out of the Monster Manual.

That said, most NPC monsters the players encounter end up with at least a few class levels if they're even remotely humanoid. You really expect a djinni to advance by just adding hit dice? This guy's been travelling the planes for thousands of years! He's picked up a few things in that time! (Like levels in factotum and chameleon.)

awa
2012-12-18, 12:10 PM
add in the fact that people would get monsters confused thus combining or splitting powers.

their are like a dozen different types of trolls bob the commoners not going to know the difference particularly when he encounters a regular troll in the hills and a hill troll running around the plains.

Not to mention stuff like hill giants and half ogres depending on your edition there appearance is nearly interchangeable.

That’s even ignoring things like bargasts and gas spores that pretend to be other monsters
I could easily see villagers thinking goblins can turn into worgs under the right condtions after hearing about a run in with a bargast

Slipperychicken
2012-12-18, 03:23 PM
You seem to believe that legends and campfire stories are sources of good hard information. They aren't.


It's in the genre. Old Legends are rarely wrong in fantasy.


How many times do protagonists in fantasy adventure stories hear ancient legends (or ramblings from some mysterious old/drunk guy, or children's tales) about their opponents weaknesses, which turn out to be 100% false, resulting in their unceremonious slaughter?

Mike_G
2012-12-18, 04:05 PM
The point is that a player who has been reading the MM since the old AD&D days probably knows the vulnerabilities and immunities and special attacks of most standard RAW creatures.

A character, especially low level, or not knowledge focused, will not.

Yes, your character can see that the Slaad is blue. That doesn't mean he knows the stat block under "Blue Slaad."

I homebrew because the only way you can simulate fear of the unknown is to throw some unknown at them every once in a while.

Bacon Elemental
2012-12-18, 04:37 PM
Our DM used to use his own descriptions, tailored to our characters knowledge, for everything. He only used the MM descriptions for homebrews that looked similar to MM creatures, and we all Metagamed terribly. One day, however, he started to switch it up a little, resulting in a near TPK because we blithely kept doing the Meta. We wasted half our resources on a group of perfectly normal critters, then tried to kerbstomp an Anciient Wyrm with dwarfism...




No, not beardy dwarfism. Stupid multiple meanings of medical conditions.

Knaight
2012-12-19, 06:10 PM
How many times do protagonists in fantasy adventure stories hear ancient legends (or ramblings from some mysterious old/drunk guy, or children's tales) about their opponents weaknesses, which turn out to be 100% false, resulting in their unceremonious slaughter?

Not nearly enough. False information, conflicting accounts, so on and so forth are woefully underused, and when they are used they tend to make things better. Consider the better aspects of Brandon Sanderson or George R. R. Martin's work.

awa
2012-12-19, 06:33 PM
actually it comes up more often then you think the protagonists (or at least one of them) just happen to know the real deal and fill their companions and or reader in on the actual traits.

all those random guys relying on campfire tales and then being eaten fall into the large category of no one returns from the forest of fear

Jay R
2012-12-19, 09:07 PM
It's in the genre. Old Legends are rarely wrong in fantasy.


How many times do protagonists in fantasy adventure stories hear ancient legends (or ramblings from some mysterious old/drunk guy, or children's tales) about their opponents weaknesses, which turn out to be 100% false, resulting in their unceremonious slaughter?

Well, usually it results in difficulties along the way before the climax, rather than their ignominious slaughter.

Many times characters don't know what they need to know at the start of the story. Bilbo and the dwarves don't know how to defeat trolls, only the wizard who's been around for thousands of years did.

Indiana Jones doesn't know that the best way to defeat the Nazis is to let them open the Ark of the Covenant, so he spends an entire movie getting beaten up, dragged along a road, locked in with snakes, all trying to prevent it. Wouldn't it have been easier to just say, "Hey, guys! It's over here!"

The Dufferpuds don't know that the wizard won't hurt them, and neither does Lucy when she walks in. That's where the tension of the episode comes from. Eustace doesn't know that lying on a dragon hoard having dragonish thoughts could transform him.

When the British sailors first fight the Pirates of the Caribbean, they don't know that to beat them requires returning all the gold, with Will Turner's blood. So they are fighting a fight that they cannot win, until somebody else does what's necessary.

The White Witch doesn't know what effect killing Aslan on the Stone Table will have.

Dorothy doesn't know that the Wicked Witch of the West will melt. What a lame story if she'd shown up with a bucket of water.

Similarly, the D&D PCs shouldn't know that you can defeat the Clickclicks* by shouting out "November!"*

*Dragon Magazine #10, October 1977, page 9, in the Article "Random Monsters", by Paul Montgomery Crabaugh, dealing with this exact problem.

Deophaun
2012-12-19, 09:29 PM
Many times characters don't know what they need to know at the start of the story.
Pretty much everything that you mentioned is a unique person or event, and so would be outside the scope of a simple knowledge check. Those that aren't could just as easily been cast rolling poorly on a Knowledge check (these things do happen, quite frequently, after all). No one here has argued for a Knowledge: The Plot check to determine the bad guys' plans for their newly acquired artifact. But the fact is Indiana Jones only knew not to look at the opened ark because he succeeded at his Knowledge: Religion check.

I can't speak to the trolls, as I honestly don't know The Hobbit well enough to comment with any accuracy, though I might suspect it has something to do with sunlight being hard for non-magical beings to create out of thin air.

White_Drake
2012-12-20, 04:25 PM
I'm sorry, I held out as long as I could, but please change the "grip" to "gripe" in the thread title.

Dr Bwaa
2012-12-20, 05:48 PM
Players that grip about home brew monsters

Are your players really so strong that that's an issue? Are they accidentally choking the life out of the monsters before they hit the table, or what?
heyo (http://instantrimshot.com/)

E: ...that 1-hour ninja... You're probably a time traveler.

awa
2012-12-20, 08:06 PM
No leave it incorrect don’t let the grammar people force you to conform. Resist, freedom from grammatical oppression. Freedom!

Dimers
2012-12-20, 08:37 PM
No leave it incorrect don’t let the grammar people force you to conform. Resist, freedom from grammatical oppression. Freedom!

I agree; one indeed ought to resist freedom from grammatical oppression.

John Campbell
2012-12-21, 05:11 AM
depends on the setting and the rarity of the monsters
I feel if you don't have the knowledge skill bare minimum 75% of everything you "know" about monsters should be wrong. okay you know trolls regenerate you also "know" they all live under bridges and are terrified of large goats and turn to stone by sunlight (now if your people fight off trolls on a regular basis that's different but that should be the exception to the rule)
I've tossed my mostly-3.x-era players and their characters from Faerûn into a homebrew AD&D 2E world. I keep throwing monsters at them that look a lot like the 3.5-canon stuff they're familiar with from back home, but don't act quite like them. It's fun watching them mislead themselves with assumptions.

Among the critters I've thrown at them were cave trolls that did turn to stone in sunlight (1d6 non-regeneratable damage every round exposed), but were completely immune to fire, and regenerated anything else except acid damage. Watching the fighter/cleric try to spit-roast the immune-to-fire troll with her flaming sword so that it wouldn't get back up, just because the player knew that that was what you were supposed to do to trolls was hilarious.

TuggyNE
2012-12-21, 06:32 AM
Among the critters I've thrown at them were cave trolls that did turn to stone in sunlight (1d6 non-regeneratable damage every round exposed), but were completely immune to fire, and regenerated anything else except acid damage. Watching the fighter/cleric try to spit-roast the immune-to-fire troll with her flaming sword so that it wouldn't get back up, just because the player knew that that was what you were supposed to do to trolls was hilarious.

What I find even more amusing, of course, is that I long ago internalized "trolls' regeneration is always bypassed by acid, even when DMs try funny stunts to stop metagaming", so that would not have worked on me, since I wouldn't have bothered with fire in the first place. (I will never quite understand why a certain section of powergamers loves fire damage so much.)Yes, I would presumably have tried rolling a Knowledge check before using my OOC knowledge, I try not to be a jerk. :P

ReaderAt2046
2012-12-21, 08:03 AM
(I will never quite understand why a certain section of powergamers loves fire damage so much)

Mostly this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IncendiaryExponent

John Campbell
2012-12-21, 01:56 PM
What I find even more amusing, of course, is that I long ago internalized "trolls' regeneration is always bypassed by acid, even when DMs try funny stunts to stop metagaming", so that would not have worked on me, since I wouldn't have bothered with fire in the first place. (I will never quite understand why a certain section of powergamers loves fire damage so much.)
Well, acid is harder to come by than fire for mundanes, and acid-dealing spells, particularly in a system where there is no metamagic to transform energy types, are fewer and farther between than fire spells, and usually not as good. The mage did bust out a Melf's on the troll, but that was the only acid spell she had prepped. Fortunately, having discovered earlier what fireballs do in AD&D, she elected not to fire one of those off against a troll in melee with the party in a tight mine corridor...

The cleric is a cleric of Haela Brightaxe, anyway... the flaming sword is actually her holy symbol, and her default course of action in almost any situation is to whack something with it. The spit-roasting came after they dropped it, and she had botched (not just failed, botched) two Perception checks in a row to notice that the fire from the sword wasn't actually affecting it.


Yes, I would presumably have tried rolling a Knowledge check before using my OOC knowledge, I try not to be a jerk. :P
Knowledge checks actually wouldn't have helped them, except to tell them that it wasn't quite like the kind of trolls they were familiar with (which I told them straight out as soon as they saw it). All their knowledge is from Faerûn, and is misleading at least as often as it's helpful in the new world they've found themselves in. Both the cleric and the mage insist on leaping to conclusions, though, despite the number of times their assumptions have proven wrong.

Ironically, it's the rogue's player, who's younger than the rest of the group and had never before played in a setting that wasn't published by a gaming company, who's doing the best job of keeping in mind that things aren't necessarily like WotC wrote hereabouts.

Cerlis
2012-12-24, 07:19 AM
There are some things that are going to be iconic and no knowledge check should be needed: trolls regenerate, dragons have breath weapons, medusae turn you to stone with a glance. Requiring a knowledge check for this kind of stuff is along the lines of requiring a knowledge check to tell if the barmaid you're hitting on is a human, an elf, or a gelatinous cube (it was a crazy bar, and I had way too much mead).

I REALLY think you are underestimating the basic education you got. Why would someone who grew up in the plains or on a farm know that there are giant lizards that breath the elements. or strange snake demon women who turn men into the earth? Or that there are creatures out there which cannot be harmed.

I mean, there are two ICONIC( and iconic for a reason) monsters that regenerate. The Troll, and the Hydra. One of which was a legendary creature from a legendary story prominent in greek lore, the society that heavily influenced every European born nation.

I guarantee you that you dont have to go back many decades to reach the point in which "common" creatures such as those were not known by anyone except people who graduated from Ivy league colleges or whos job it was to translate and hand copy books.

Cerlis
2012-12-24, 07:30 AM
Not nearly enough. False information, conflicting accounts, so on and so forth are woefully underused, and when they are used they tend to make things better. Consider the better aspects of Brandon Sanderson or George R. R. Martin's work.

Even when they are true, its because the creature is directly out of the lore (its not -a- dragon. Its THE dragon) or because the old man or whoever actually saw it.

The gaming world has only become lamp-shadey recently. You weren't going to find a story that directly subverted the trope of the Rambling Old Truth Teller , because back then there where only a few stories that used that.

A fine example is in Heroes. The great legend of Takeno Kensai was right and wrong. He didn't Literally do something as fantasy as cut out his own heart to give it to the dragon. He "ripped out his own heart and presented it to the dragon" in the sense that he sacrificed his love for a woman in order to keep the space time continuum intact.

Another example is the barbarian rage class features. Norsemen where just so battle crazyed and drunk they didn't feel death till it took em down. Ergo the stories of berserkers.

Essentially that class feature exists because people told and retold stories until it became a impossible falsehood.

So there isn't any reason (unless you are a superstitious idiot) to believe those stories.

-------------

forgot this. Another prime example is in almost any book written in modern times, the people who know stuff spend a great deal of time reeducating people, since they think all the fantasy is real.

In the old classic dracula, no one knows about vampires so Van Hellsing (or whoever) has to explain their weaknesses.

In twilight, true blood, Dresden files, all have both played straight and directly subverted instances of the vampire abilities.

Jay R
2012-12-24, 11:02 AM
The main reason not to let a party on their first adventure know the secrets of all the monsters is that discovering secrets is a large part of the game.


The second reason is this: of course everybody knows about trolls, just like everybody who lives in the country today knows about poisonous snakes.

But I've seen too many hog-nosed snaked called copperheads, and too many water snakes called water moccasins, to believe that everybody is correct about trolls.

The New Bruceski
2012-12-24, 05:02 PM
The main reason not to let a party on their first adventure know the secrets of all the monsters is that discovering secrets is a large part of the game.


The second reason is this: of course everybody knows about trolls, just like everybody who lives in the country today knows about poisonous snakes.

But I've seen too many hog-nosed snaked called copperheads, and too many water snakes called water moccasins, to believe that everybody is correct about trolls.

I can tell the difference between a rattlesnake and a gopher snake (not venomous, main defense is making predators think it's a rattlesnake, biology is awesome) but that's only because we had one in our backyard for a few years. Great for our gopher problem.

Which brings up an idea for a bit of an adventure; the party finds a nest of "dragons" and kills them. A year later they return to find that the actually benign (doesn't mean harmless, a gopher snake will still bite as a last resort, the bite just won't kill a person) creatures were keeping some other nuisance in check, land-sharks or something. Play it as a bit of an "unexpected consequences" adventure rather than "you're monsters for doing this."