Rust Monster Lovin'

[buzz]

For one, I think that the "DM-as-rules-computer" approach encourages "rules creep" and the attendant "record-keeping creep," because there's a tendency to want to supply a rule for the computer so it "knows what to do."

I tend to disagree, as I have a bunch of RPGs on my shelf that were specifically designed to be run as-written, and they range from thin folios (Gods in the Vineyard) to thick volumes (Spycraft 2.0).

Building into an RPG the idea that, in order to run it, you already have to know how to run it, is fraught with peril. You don't build houses on quicksand and expect them to be there the next morning.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I tend to disagree, as I have a bunch of RPGs on my shelf that were specifically designed to be run as-written, and they range from thin folios (Gods in the Vineyard) to thick volumes (Spycraft 2.0).

Designed to be run as-written isn't the same as DM-assumed-to-be-a-computer. Rules are good -- we need them to play. And playing the rules-as-written is fine, too. However, some rules don't need to be written. I think the DM-as-a-computer approach encourages unnecessary rules.

Building into an RPG the idea that, in order to run it, you already have to know how to run it, is fraught with peril.

I'm not suggesting that approach. I'm suggesting that a better approach is to view the DM as a creative person with judgment, rather than a rules-computer. You need to provide the necessary rules, but also teach them why the rules exist (e.g. Behind the Curtain stuff), and give examples of how to bend (or even break) the rules. Again, nurture the DM's judgment, rather than assuming it doesn't exist.

Really, I don't think this is far off from what WotC is trying to do. It's just a change in emphasis and perspective. But it's a worthy change, IMO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

On the other hand, if I hit characters with a magic-eating monster (like the CR4 Thrullg of Iron Kingdoms fame) that devours charges from magical items, spell slots from magic-users' brains, I don't feel I have to offer a "quick" way to replenish those lost magics either beside the standard methods of regaining them.

Draining charges isn't so bad, because if they don't come back (if they're a finite number rather than x/dy), it's still a small portion of the character's overall power. Being able to use a want of CLW 30 times rather than 50 isn't going to stop the adventure. Similarly, though spell-slots are harsher, they aren't as harsh as equipment destruction because those all come back the next morning -- it usually wouldn't end the adventure, just force a rest earlier than normal.

In all cases, it's damage (which can build to death or destruction) rather than instant death (or destruction). And that means that there can be interesting tactics without a binary system -- rather than being about what you CAN'T do, it's about which option is better.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

That's why I was a bit surprised at the 3E rust monster, as I said. I prefer the old version for the simple reason that it can make short work of normal metal stuff, if you let it, but magical metal has chances of resisting the effect, and if it doesn't, it first loses all its magic bit by bit. A +2 weapon had to be hit thrice to be utterly destroyed. With 3E, it might even take 4 successful hits if you count masterwork as another level to be taken away before destruction. And if it's just about giving a masterwork blade a +1 back during a fight, a Magic Weapon or two should see the group through its CR 3 dungeon until they can return to town and either reenchant the old blade, or sell it because a better one was found in the local dungeon (maybe put there by the DM after he saw that the loss of the magical weapon really hurt the group, or simply because D&D adventures have the habit of overequipping people with magical gear anyway since its first days ).

 

[buzz]

Designed to be run as-written isn't the same as DM-assumed-to-be-a-computer. Rules are good -- we need them to play. And playing the rules-as-written is fine, too. However, some rules don't need to be written. I think the DM-as-a-computer approach encourages unnecessary rules.

I'm not sure I understand the difference you're making between "as computer" and "as written." I thought Mearls' point was that a ruleset shouldn't require you to be creative; it should encourage.

I'm not suggesting that approach. I'm suggesting that a better approach is to view the DM as a creative person with judgment, rather than a rules-computer. You need to provide the necessary rules, but also teach them why the rules exist (e.g. Behind the Curtain stuff), and give examples of how to bend (or even break) the rules. Again, nurture the DM's judgment, rather than assuming it doesn't exist.

I don't think it's an issue of assuming the DM's judgement doesn't exist. It's trying to minimize its necessity. As a sapient creature, I can ignore/adapt/change rules willy-nilly when I GM. I tend to prefer it when the system doesn't force me to, though.

Monte Cook has self-described Arcana Unearthed as a game for expereinced players/GMs. Why? Because it does require (and encourage) more on-the-fly DM calls and interpretation. This is okay, because Monte can focus on selling to (comparatively) niche markets. D&D needs to worry about a much bigger fanbase.

Thing is, nothing that Mearls is suggesting prevents you, as an experienced DM, from flexing your creativity. He's just trying to make sure that all levels of player are being accomodated.

 

[BluSponge]

Well, you're known to quote the 1E MM on the rust monster, so you'll probably recognize that my suggestion is a rough 3E translation of the old 1E version of Rusty, sans the "rust upon being hit" ability...which makes it the old Basic D&D rust monster in 3E guise.

Yeah, I caught that part. The only reason for my disagreement here is that I don't see going backwards in this case is any different from going forwards. The fundamental argument behind this whole thing is, after all, why do you change established elements of the game? Given the differences between 3e and the other editions, I have no problems making changes and am a full advocate of dropping scared cows (which are now more window dressing than anything else). But the logic of Mike's hypothesis is what gave me pause. I don't agree that it's bad game design just because it gives the players some unexpected hardship or makes them think outside the box. If anything, I see the problem here as a failure of the CR system, and the folly of relying too heavily upon it.

I have to be honest here and admit that I never noticed AD&D granting its rust monster the ability to rust stuff that hits it, neither in 1E, 2E or in 3E, so I was a bit surprised to see that in my old MM1 as well as the new MM1. Hence I used the version I am used to, which is the same you are used to, without the ability to rust stuff it hasn't specifically targeted.

Right.

And to be totally frank, I admit that this ability to destroy equipment just by being touched by it is a bit over the top for me, too.

Bah. Not I. I've seen the amount of loot in 1st ed modules, and seen the lists of stuff players carry in their bags of holding. Not everyone plays that way, of course, but then no one has to include a rust monster in their adventures. I'm here advocating for old rusty and yet I don't think in 20 years of playing that I've ever used one in an adventure.

Tom

 

[Knight Otu]

Ok, thanks Otu, I'll try to keep an open mind. It's not so much the actual proposed changes (I'm actually in favory of Rust Monsters doing something like acid damage to weapons - the idea that Excalibur would dissolve from a rust monster seems strange to me).

It's the reasoning given to support the changes that I object to. For example:

What I got from the article was - and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong - Instant equipment destruction is generally fine, at a certain CR. It appears that the CR of 3 was an important issue - at that level, a 3.5 fighter might just have saved up for his brand new +1 weapon or armor, and not have the reserves to get even a non-masterwork replacement, whereas a higher level character may have spare equipment, the coin to buy spare equipment, or even enough coin to feed it to the rust monster.
And, being ~3rd level, the character may be more powerful than any of the commoners he encounters, but he doesn't have the assurance that he can take what still lurks around without the piece of equipment he lost. He cannot wrestle ogres into the ground with his bare hands yet (well, he might, but might not be willing to risk it). A 7th level character may easily have the guts to continue, where the 3rd level character is afraid to thread further.

 

[BluSponge]

the idea that Excalibur would dissolve from a rust monster seems strange to me.

Actually, one could make the argument that Excalibur was an artifact. Therefore, a rust monster wouldn't be able to effect it.

One would assume then that anything that "development" perceives to set back the power/abilities of the PCs would be treated in the same way as the rust monster. Yes, if you're a railroad DM and you have a problem with PCs going back to town to buy some weapons, get healed, raised, or whatever then I agree - there should be a warning next to everything in the game that could set PCs back from their power level or hamper their ability to charge forward and complete their goal.

I just don't see how the Rust Monster is uniquely in this situation other than: it's hard to fudge a player missing a rust monster with his sword - whereas DMs can fudge to keep the ogre from hitting/killing the party wizard. Maybe people have been fudging for so long that they've forgotten that a dead PC or two ALSO makes the next encounter prohibitively more difficult. (In fact, IME it's a LOT easier to find a weapon in a dungeon than a new cleric that will join your party.)

Word!

Tom

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Yeah, I caught that part. The only reason for my disagreement here is that I don't see going backwards in this case is any different from going forwards. The fundamental argument behind this whole thing is, after all, why do you change established elements of the game? Given the differences between 3e and the other editions, I have no problems making changes and am a full advocate of dropping scared cows (which are now more window dressing than anything else). But the logic of Mike's hypothesis is what gave me pause. I don't agree that it's bad game design just because it gives the players some unexpected hardship or makes them think outside the box. If anything, I see the problem here as a failure of the CR system, and the folly of relying too heavily upon it.

I guess I'll have to answer that with an "I look at where they took it, and wonder why they did". I might actually find myself arguing for the old version of Rusty, too, because it was less brutal to characters that encountered it than its 3E cousin, yet still had enough of a fear-factor for them to make it into stories told around a pub table like "remember when we met that rust monster family under Old Grimfang's lair, and Stubby the Dwarf had to throw them his handaxes in order to escape with his plate mail and his father's axe? The look on his face when we rounded that corner and the little critters were picking up the scent of his armor and happily pounced to greet him?"

I happen to have the same problems you have with the assumption that something that inconveniences characters for more than a few rounds or maybe hours game time is bad game design and should be smoothed out like a bad wrinkle in a pair of trousers. Adverse and inconvenient effects that cannot be pushed aside after a few minutes or an hour pose a challenge all by themselves, and are a part of D&D that should not be written out of the game in my opinion. As far as a "believable background" goes, a lot of the monsters in D&D are "utility monsters" that were presumably created by weird or mad wizards for some task that is as long forgotten as the creator of the monsters. Gelatinous Cube, the iconic dungeon cleaner, is a good example of that. Rusty, as the monster that robs heavily armed and armored intruders of their best advantages, is another...I always envisioned it as being created by a magic-user who kept heavily armed mercenaries and robbers out of his "lair" by disarming them enough for them to not want to go any further.

Bah. Not I. I've seen the amount of loot in 1st ed modules, and seen the lists of stuff players carry in their bags of holding. Not everyone plays that way, of course, but then no one has to include a rust monster in their adventures. I'm here advocating for old rusty and yet I don't think in 20 years of playing that I've ever used one in an adventure.
Tom

I've seen similar lists in Basic D&D, had some myself even...and rusty was still a terror, no matter what level. No other was reduced to ash and cinder so fast when it reared its antennae...or charmed, tamed and taken along. For some reason, it has a cuddle factor few others have, at least in my experience.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I thought Mearls' point was that a ruleset shouldn't require you to be creative; it should encourage.

I think a design approach which assumes a non-creative and judgment-challenged DM is probably not the best way to do that.

Thing is, nothing that Mearls is suggesting prevents you, as an experienced DM, from flexing your creativity. He's just trying to make sure that all levels of player are being accomodated.

Sure, I understand that. I agree with the goal. I just don't think the DM-as-computer assumption is a good one, for the reasons I listed, earlier. I think a different approach would serve better.

I'm not saying have so few rules that DM's whim is the only law. I'm saying that you need to know when enough-is-enough. You can't have everything pre-defined, and the more you head that direction, the more you weigh down your ruleset and the more you straightjacket expectations of "how to run this game." That's especially true if the rules (e.g. monsters built for the ruleset) are always lowest-common-denominator, and never step outside the formula. We need some monsters outside the forumla; if they're not "balanced" like the rest, then provide some instruction and suggestions on how to use them. Again, encourage judgment and creativity.

I think the DM-as-computer assumption encourages a heavy, homogenzied, lowest-common-denominator approach. I think D&D would be better served by a different approach.