I think the problem here really IS "whiny player syndrome" because it's not that the character can't go on, it's that the character can't go on at the same maximum level of effectiveness he was functioning at before the equipment was lost. To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.
I had written a rather long explanation of why some people play D&D in the first place, but I think it would somehow be pointless to post it because apparently, according to the above quote, investing your fun in your equipment is badwrongfun that D&D, in it's infinite wisdom, should aspire to be better than.
I know people who play D&D in part because they like the idea of getting magical trinkets and ancient doodads and mystical mcguffins to help them overcome their adversaries. Anything that walks around destroying them would mean that these people would not have fun. Now, if that same thing walked around *threatening* them, that's a lot of fun. The original rust monster's RUST ability walks around destroying stuff. The new one fights characters for it.
If posters want to continue to insult anyone who has fun like that as stupid and whiny, I'm affraid I don't share the condescension, nor do I see such an attitude as healthy for the growth of D&D, which, in order to compete in a crowded gaming marketplace, MUST provide as much fun to as many people as it possibly can. Including people who thought that the coolest part of the Lord of the Rings was the magical doodads.
It's not an attitude problem, as fun as it is to judge those who do things different. It is merely that playing D&D and enjoying your ancestral +1 axe is FUN. Which makes MM rust monsters a BUZZKILL. What do you do to a buzzkill at a party? You either kick him out or tell him to shape up. Mearls did a very nice job making the monsters shape up. It has some issues (maybe it seems a bit forced), but at least it's not making a scene. It gets an invite to my party now (with some reservations....like, it can't have 10-minute-auto-heal).
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that its a game breaker,
If you want to disregard, for example, my scenarios above as not realistic, that would fall under disagreeing with the evidence (contradiction). To which I can only say, if you'd like to prove it, come into town and run a rust monster encounter with my friends and see how well you fare. People have better things to do than suffer through a D&D session where they're not enjoying themselves. And my group will (it's not about what we do, it's about who we're with). I assume my group is not entirely unique in this regard, as it's happened in every group I've ever been a part of since 2e. D&D is not some sort of special unique snowflake we're going to play because we feel obligated to suffer through it's presence. It has a job to do. If watching the game on TV or playing videogames would do the job better, we do that.
I have no reason to believe anyone else would sit through a session in which they're not having fun. And for a large chunk of players, getting your stuff (the stuff they have so much fun getting) eradicated on one die roll is so not fun that it would affect book sales.
Don't believe some people have fun with stuff? Don't believe people have better things to do than a non-fun session of D&D? Fine. But that's dismissing the evidence.
You can bend to the gospel of Mearls all you want. That's fine. But please don't just dismiss all the criticism because others of us don't agree. Your characterization of us is about as insulting as me calling you a whiny git who can't play a character who isn't surgically attached to his equipment and stomps off when the DM tells you you've run out of arrows. It's inaccurate and irritating.
I don't hear anyone bending to the gospel of mearls, nor do I hear criticism dismissed (unless you count the idea that having fun with stuff is badwrongfun). I'm merely making a case from the facts available to me. Which include the fact that some of my players have a lot of fun with their stuff and would effectively mutiny if I ran the core MM rust monster, but won't if I run the revised version. So it is factually inaccurate to say that the rust monster is not a game-stopper. Maybe not for you. Maybe not even for most people. But certainly for my current group. Assuming that my group is not some sort of mutant anomoly and that there are other people out there who have fun with their stuff, my case is not unique.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but the fact that WotC design seems to share my concerns would indicate that I'm not (they have the best market research in the industry, after all). But hey, maybe they got their facts wrong, or maybe they wouldn't care about my gaming dollar because they get enough from other sources.
But that doesn't make the "rust monster is a game-stopper" inaccurate. It's not. It's the truth. Saying "no it isn't!" and claiming that I'm insulting you by saying it is strikes me as over-reactionary.
Look at the evidence. Feel free to dismiss any part of it, but at least get the facts straight before assuming I'm talking out of my rump.
1. People play D&D to have fun.
2. I know what helps my friends have fun in D&D, like any DM should.
3. Given that, I can say with some reliability that my friends have fun with their stuff. This may or may not be unique to my friends, but the fact that every edition of D&D has had cool stuff is certainly a point to say that it may not be.
4. Given that, I can reliably predict that making them roll a die to see if their stuff is destroyed would be something that wouldn't be fun for them.
5. If my group doesn't have fun, it does something else. Like #3, this may not be typical. But the general wisdom that people do what they want would indicate that it's at least somewhat typical.
6. WotC wants to keep people playing D&D. Presumably, as much people, as often as possible, because that would maximize their profits.
7. The re-design of the rust monster to do damage rather than completely eradicate means that if I use it, I don't have a problem of rolling once and then destroying items. Which means I can use it in my game. Which means the game is that much more fun for me, that my investment in the MM is worth that much more, and that I am likely, happy as I am, to continue buying D&D books, making everyone happy.
8. Thus, the re-design was a good one.
Counter to that seem to be people who either don't have as much fun with stuff as my players, or who would play D&D even if they're not having much fun doing it. If either segement is bigger than my little subset, then the re-deisgn wasn't good for the game.
The fact that WotC has crack market research (a "listen to the players" philosophy that mearls demonstrated even in this thread!), and apparently hires people who think similar to the way I do in order to keep their market and grow it, is evidence that my view is not an exceptional one.
Now, can you disagree? Sure, why not. Does that make your dismissal of my position as coddling and insulting accurate? I don't think so.
