I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do

[billd91]

Say what you will about 4e's magic economy, but one thing I don't miss about the good ol' days was lugging around bags of holding filled to bursting with magic items nobody wanted---or needed.

If you didn't want to lug that sort of extra gear around, then why did you do it? It wasn't like you could have a home base to store it in.

 

[Wormwood]

If you didn't want to lug that sort of extra gear around, then why did you do it? It wasn't like you could have a home base to store it in.

Because that +1 Bohemian Ear-Spoon would look great above the fireplace in our stronghold.

Just as soon as we schlep up those eight levels to the surface.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You have to remember that Gary was a kinda jerk DM. Rust monsters, ethereal filchers and rot grubs are a way of attacking the player instead of the character. "Ah, this monster lets me reach across the table, take your character sheet and spit on it." It was also how you avoiding admitting responsibility for giving away magic items that didn't belong there.

I'm not familliar with your gaming history. How many games of Gary's did you play in to reach that conclusion?

There might be a place for a rust monster in an adventure, sure. But using it as a "gotcha" is the old DM-as-the-player's-enemy thing. If the characters have even just 2 rounds to know what's going to happen and get a little prepared, then maybe. Maybe.

The DM was never intended to be the players enemy. Some might have played that way but the content of the rulebooks had nothing to do with it.

Any monster or encounter that stands a good chance of a player standing up and saying, "eff this, I'm going home" is not productive for a game. Old-schoolers talk about not coddling players but at the end of the day, you can't MAKE players put up with a lousy game.

So a chance at suffering a setback or a loss in a game where random chance plays a part in determining an outcome is unacceptable?

What is the threshold for throwing a tantrum and leaving? Losing an encounter? Not getting the treasure you thought you were entitled to? A rust monster ate your chainmail undies?

 

[FireLance]

After giving it some thought, I think my approach to magic item loss is pretty much the same as my approach to character death: sacrifice is more meaningful than a random loss.

In one of the first campaigns I DMed (a solo campaign for my younger brother) his PC found a magical sword with some nifty light-related abilities. He later discovered that it was created to destroy an evil artifact, a gem of darkness and shadow, but it would lose its powers in the process. Nonetheless, his PC set off to destroy the gem and he managed it, although (as he was warned) his sword became non-magical as a result. He subsequently gained another magic weapon, of course, but I'm sure that given the choice between losing the sword by using it for its intended purpose of destroying an evil artifact and having it eaten by a rust monster, he would have preferred the former.

 

[Griego]

Players hate dying too. They hate losing. They hate becoming weaker. They hate their powers being thwarted. They hate their items disappearing. They hate missing the enemy in combat. They hate failing saving throws. They hate running out of hit points.

But most of them love overcoming those adversities; scraping by, by the skin of their teeth. Saving another PC from bleeding out. Hitting an enemy in combat. Making a vital saving throw. Making the enemy run out of hit points!

I hope you get my point: the risk of all these things makes the game tenser, more nervous, more fraught with peril. These perils should enhance a game, make it more exciting, not detract from it, if the players trust the GM and the GM uses them appropriately and skillfully.

There are sound arguments against these things, but there are many sound arguments for them, too. You've never heard a room sigh with as much relief as when someone makes their save versus Slay Living.

Maybe your campaign isn't dangerous enough, if you have to contrive swingy situations to create tension. This reminds me of the healing surge thread, where a lone warrior in the woods with low hit points was offered as an example of a situation that created tension. In my campaign, the entire party, fully equipped and rested with spells prepared, alone in the woods, is a situation that is already highly tense. No need for rust monsters, save or die, or anything like that to create tension.

 

[Blackwind]

While I agree with the old-school attitude expressed by the OP, I think this thread brings up larger issues that have to do with the social contract of the gaming group and what the players (including the DM) want and expect from the game.

A couple of years ago, after our group realized that 4E wasn't for us, I ran Keep on the Borderlands using the original Red Box rules. The results were enlightening. For one thing, the players were quite literally at the edges of their seats the entire time. Why? Because it was fantasy ****ing Vietnam, and their characters could die at any moment. One stray goblin arrow was enough to end a 1st level character's life, and that was with max HP at first level. This is the kind of game where rust monsters are appropriate: it's the "step on up" attitude of Gamism at it's best! If I throw a rust monster at you, deal with it! If you lose your sword, it's your fault, or bad dice, but don't be a cry-baby about it.

On the other hand, our group experienced some problems with that style of play. No matter how explicit you make the social contract--like "Okay guys, this is old-school D&D, it is hard and your character will probably die so don't get too attached"--no one wants their character to die, or lose his father's sword, for some trivial reason that has no importance within the story. My friend Jacob was playing an awesome dwarf, truly a great character, and he was knifed to death by a bunch of female hobgoblins. Despite being a mature player, he was upset. He wasn't upset that his character had died, he was upset that his character died in a way that wasn't even a cool or meaningful part of the story.

As humans, I think we all want our characters to at least die in a meaningful way, no matter how hard we try to embrace a hardcore, old-school Gamist agenda. It is only natural to get upset when your father's sword is eaten by a rust monster. But if you lose that sword after plunging it into the fiery heart of the demon that ate your father, well... that's a different story. So the way I see it, this is about when the nature of the game comes into conflict with the players' entirely natural desire to have some meaningful influence in the co-creation of story, and it's part of the reason that players and DMs have drifted D&D from its original form in the first place. It's also a big part of the reason why, as much as I love Red Box, I choose to run different systems when I want to co-create good fantasy stories.

 

[ferratus]

While I agree with the old-school attitude expressed by the OP, I think this thread brings up larger issues that have to do with the social contract of the gaming group and what the players (including the DM) want and expect from the game.

This. Some people want to have a character arc, invest in a character and complete a story. Other people find the narrative in the world/dungeon that they create, and characters are just the people passing through.

If 5e creates modular rules for "campaign" and "dungeoneering" modes I think that will be to the good. A lot of it can be handled simply with good DM advice.

After all, the reason rust monsters have a bad name is not because they eat magic items per se, but because we all remember the games we played with a DM that never gave out any magic items, and the magic items he gave out were promptly eaten by rust monsters. This was just part of an overall hellish experience of frustration with the DM as he equated "gritty" with never letting the players have any forward momentum, but just game after game of tedious frustration.

4e put residium in the belly of rust monsters to enforce the social contract to reintroduce a replacement magical item after a session or two. Good old school DM's replace those magical weapons so that you have a chance of fighting creatures immune to normal weapons. Good old school DM's use save-or-die causing monsters properly and spareingly.

But brothers, there are a lot of bad DM's out there, and just because you are part of the OSR doesn't mean you aren't a bad DM. I can tell by reading the posts of this thread (and others) which are the good old school DM's (such as the OP) and which are the People I'd rather not play with. I can tell you I'd rather have the latter DMing a balanced game with the social contract enforced in the rules, if I'm stuck with him as my DM.

[MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION], please avoid using offensive language about other people please. Thanks - Plane Sailing

 

[Quickleaf]

4e put residium in the belly of rust monsters to enforce the social contract to reintroduce a replacement magical item after a session or two. Good old school DM's replace those magical weapons so that you have a chance of fighting creatures immune to normal weapons. Good old school DM's use save-or-die causing monsters properly and spareingly.

Coming from you [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] I'm going to consider that the iron word on rust monsters.


As an aside, we all know that real old school DMs laugh at save or die. Back in the day it was just "The cavern collapses on your head, you die. Roll up a new character Bobby."

 

[FireLance]

As an aside, we all know that real old school DMs laugh at save or die. Back in the day it was just "The cavern collapses on your head, you die. Roll up a new character Bobby."

"Just because I gave you a club of earthquakes doesn't mean you should use it recklessly, in particular, in an underground environment without first checking that the ceiling is safe. Don't they teach you anything about handling dangerous magic items during cave exploration in your first grade classes?"

 

[ferratus]

Well, just having the ceiling collapse with no warning or no save was common enough that the 2e DMG felt a need to specifically point it out as an example of bad DMing.