Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Narcicistic, egomaniacal and solipsistic

You come to bring anoyance and a few laughs at your expense since you're a deranged lunatic.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Holy mother fucking move the goal post, Batman.  Are you fucking serious?

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

But you know this and you don't care.  You're willing to make any argument that lets your side win.  This level of dishonesty is beyond the pale.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So you don't deny what DM Grognard said?

Good.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword you self-righteous fucker.

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Holy mother fucking move the goal post, Batman.  Are you fucking serious?

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

But you know this and you don't care.  You're willing to make any argument that lets your side win.  This level of dishonesty is beyond the pale.

He's dishonest and a hypocrite. 'nuff said.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

You're sword is flaccid and your trolling is freakin' lame.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

Regardless of what was "intended", it works best if the GM is consistent within the setting (as much as possible) and different across settings (at least to some extent) for variety, surprise, mystery, etc.  Using an existing setting comes with a lot of built-in consistency and also a lot of built-in baggage.  The more information on the setting available to the players, the more of both consistency and baggage. 

In other words, there is no free lunch.  Using the Forgotten Realms means that the GM needs to be careful of what they change, and the changes need to be communicated, broadly, to the players before the game begins.  It doesn't need to be detailed, because you'd like there to be some surprise when "making the setting your own".  However, it does need to be enough to not play bait and switch with the players.  It would have been sufficient in this case, for example, for the GM to have said something like:  "The gods work radically different in my campaign. If you are playing a character that cares about that, let's talk." 

Just because there's been a lot of stupid things said by the usual suspects in this topic, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to good GM advice. 

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AMthe player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon

Perhaps your community was wealthier than mine; in my circles generally only the DM could afford the Monster Manual (and everyone in the group pitching in so the DM could buy the Monster Manual was common).  The BECMI sets were different, but even the BECMI sets put the monster stats in the DM-only book.  I think that "the players are not expected to have detailed knowledge of the monsters except through experience" was a pretty common assumption in those days.  Also, I don't think there was as much separation of player and character knowledge assumed back then either.  A player starting a new 1st level character wasn't expected to wipe the slate clean and forget everything he'd learned while leveling up his 10th level Fighter Lord.

If "I've been playing for years and know what most of the mid-level monsters can do" wasn't a common thing, why do lookalike monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast, and Nilbog exist?  They are clearly there to subvert players' expectations of what a specific monster can and can't do.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

I hate to admit but I love doing this. I got the idea from Professor Dungeonmaster back when I used to watch his Caves of Carnage videos. Taking stuff like kobolds and reskinning them to something else. Statistically functional monster, just looks different. I wouldn't do that for something like a Beholder, but if I need a creature that can paralyze without dealing damage, I'd reskin a carrion crawler.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AMI did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I thought you want to trade your sword for a sheath?

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 06, 2024, 10:47:28 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AMI did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I thought you want to trade your sword for a sheath?

Greetings!

The DM in this campaign group is really fucking retarded. "I'm changing the Forgotten Realms and how Lathander operates!"

Really, now? Like Paladins are not trained for fucking YEARS in monasteries, learning, studying, and practicing prayer, philosophy, theology, and doctrine?

A Paladin or Cleric is not somehow in strong spiritual communion with the supernatural realm?

Sorry, as I said before, fuck this DM and his group of fucking Woke players. This is why you don't play with Woke morons.

Woke fucking morons have no true concept of what a righteous fucking Paladin or Cleric is. They lovee bulldozing you with moralizing BS though. Fuck them.

KILL THEM ALL!

Remember, DEUS VULT!

That is the answer. When someone doesn't like that answer, you fucking run them through with your broadsword, or drag them to the stake and burn them alive for their heresy and lack of faith.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

When you are using a specific game setting, players will expect the setting to adhere to available material. If the DM wished to alter it, significantly in this case, the onus is on the DM to communicate those changes.

If I joined a pick up basketball game and made a layup and everyone cried out, "no layups allowed!" I'd be upset and confused.

All that being said, the OP made it quite clear he didn't like the direction of the game and politely excused himself. Where's the problem? And then the DM and the other players had the audacity to call him a bigot? It's stupid.

OP handled the situation like a normal adult. Sadly when you are an abnormal immature adult, that is an affront to them. I really don't see a grey area in this matter from the information provided and the information seems reliable and authentic.