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

[ExploderWizard]

Who is the "you" in that sentence? And what sort of "random danger" do you have in mind? In the 4e play environment, a rust monster is highly analogous to a level-draining monster in AD&D. There was a reason those monsters sucked back then, and it's the same reason I've got little interest in using a rust monster now. Even if the idea of a PC having his/her sword or armour eaten is kind of fun, the practical consequences - higher miss chances leading to grindier combats and a reduced likelihood of seeing the interesting consequences of the PCs' powers come into play - just don't sound like fun to me.

In light of the realities of 4E byzantine rules complexity I can see how it would be no fun.

However in lighter systems where combat isn't grindy in the first place, a rust monster is much more fun.

 

[pemerton]

However in lighter systems where combat isn't grindy in the first place, a rust monster is much more fun.

It's not to do with complexity. As I posted upthread, it's to do with certain mechanical features:

*increases in "+" of magic weapon needed to hit a creature (compare Basic D&D to AD&D);

*increased proficiency/specialisation mechanics;

*a wider range of "+" magic weapons available;

*scaling ACs.

Of these four considerations, only the first two go to complexity, and neither is all that complex. 4e is actually less baroque than AD&D in certain respects - it drops the requirement of magic to hit altogether, and just factors pluses of weapons into the scaling of bonuses vs defences.

A system like Burning Wheel is, arbuably at least, as baroque in its action resolution mechanics as 4e, but rust monsters wouldn't be a problem (except perhaps a bit too gonzo for the flavour of the game) because it has minimal scaling, minimal role of magic weapons, and broader proficiency/specialisation categories than any version of D&D since Basic.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Others like play in which the PC, and the PC's adventures, are a vehicle for shaping the story of the campaign, for exploring what it means to be a hero in a world beset by forces of darkness. In that sort of game, challenges that run the risk of degrading PC's mechanical capabilities may just be a distraction, and perhaps an irritating one. If the goal of play, for a player, is to find out what happens when his/her PC confronts an avatar of Orcus, losing the magic weapon that is essential to that confrontation to a random encounter with a rust monster isn't improving the game, or providing meaningful adversity - it's just a pointless roadblock on the way to the good stuff, the real point of playing, namely, confronting Orcus.

For that player, the GM has already done the wrong thing in running the rust monster encounter. It's too late to ask the player to trust his/her GM to play fair - the GM has already taken a step that undermines confidence in the ability to run a good game for the player in question.

So if it's only about shaping the story with paper challenges, challenges that the players are EXPECTED to get through unscathed, why even use mechanics at all? I bring up the point like this because you're saying these things like you cant have ONE without the OTHER. When in most cases I think most good players and GM's are trying to strike a balance between the two.

I dont think all players or even most of them are mewling pantywaists that are gonna cry at a challenge like a little kid with a skinned knee. Some of them, the mature players, when faced with a level draining creature or a rust monster are either going to try and take it out or they're going to look for an exit strategy. That's my experience both as a GM and a player. If they stay and fight? Then they take responsibility for everything that happens after that. If they run they have to deal with the consequences too. It's not about Gygaxian vs. new age or whatever you want to call it. You're acting as if you cant tell have a story with with character loss/infirmary/death and that's complete crap and I think you know that even as you were typing it. The stuff that happens to a player during a game isnt always by THIER CHOICE. If that's what you want then have your players get together script out your game, hand it to the GM and say "WE WANT THIS". It'll make everyones life easier.

The idea that the players get to have any say in what gets thrown at them during the course of an adventure is the height of arrogance and self-entitlement and has nothing to do with ANY edition past, present or future. This isn't about system. This is about self entitled players. I'll tell you what maybe you should try handing your DM a list of monsters that are off limits in the campaign and see how well that goes over.

Ugh. There's a middle ground to be attained here. What's the point of players dictating their own challenges? It's just as bad as a GM railroading the crap out of his players.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I just pulled my 4E gift set off of the shelf to look up the 4E version of the Rust Monster and I dont even think it's in the book.

The 3x/3.5 version of the monster is closer to it's AD&D incarnation and is pretty unforgiving. The Pathfinder version is almost a joke, one hit the metal item takes half its max HP damage and gains the broken condition, next hit turns the weapon to rust.

I'm guessing the 4E version is probably less of a threat than the PF version.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm guessing the 4E version is probably less of a threat than the PF version.

The standard Rust monster destroys any metal item with two attack rolls:

• If you hit it with a metal weapon or are bitten in heavy armor, your item gains the rusted condition (-1 effectiveness, cumulative, until end of encounter)
• It can then use the Devour Metal attack, destroying any rusting item on a hit.

But my favorite is the Rust Monster Nightmare (level 24):

• Same as above, but it teleports, has a ranged rusting attack 4 times a round, and it devours rusting items as a minor action.

 

[pemerton]

So if it's only about shaping the story with paper challenges, challenges that the players are EXPECTED to get through unscathed, why even use mechanics at all?

Are you talking about challenging the players, or their PCs? I was talking mostly about challenges that the player wants his/her PC to confront - I didn't say anything about whether or not they are challenges for the player, although in fact I prefer a game where they are.

Also, where does the idea of "getting through uncscathed" come from? My example was of a player who wants his/her PC to confront Orcus (or an avatar of Orcus). Why would you expect that the PC is going to come through that unscathed? Even if s/he defeats Orcus, it seems like the sort of confrontation that might have pretty big ramifications down the line (assuming it's not the culmination of the campaign).

I dont think all players or even most of them are mewling pantywaists that are gonna cry at a challenge like a little kid with a skinned knee. Some of them, the mature players, when faced with a level draining creature or a rust monster are either going to try and take it out or they're going to look for an exit strategy.

Yes. My preferred exit strategy is to find a GM who runs a game more in line with my preferences.

If they stay and fight? Then they take responsibility for everything that happens after that. If they run they have to deal with the consequences too. It's not about Gygaxian vs. new age or whatever you want to call it.

As far as I can see, it actually is exactly about that. You're positing a scenario where the most important decision for the players is whether or not their PCs stay and fight, or run away.

Here is one take on that playstyle (with some ellision and interpolation to correct for context):

The key assumption . . . is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent . . then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya . . . how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy."

It's not Illusionism - there's no illusion at all, just movement across the landscape and the willingness to fight as the baseline player things to do. At worst, the players are apparently slathering kill-counters . . . sometimes, they are encouraged to give characters "personality" like "hates fish" or "likes fancy clothes"; and most of the time, they're just absent [as contributors to the content of the fantasy]​

At least as far as I can tell, you're paying no attention to why the fight might matter, what might motivate the PCs (and, indirectly thereby, the players) to think that this is something worth doing. And you seem to be ignoring the contribution that the players make to answering these questions, which in turn might shape the way a GM sets up the game. Which is the whole point of my Orcus example. If the player wants to play a game about his/her PC confronting Orcus, and the GM wants to GM that game, why would we all waste our time faffing around with rust monsters?

It's nothing to do with being a "mewling pantywaist". It's about playing the game that you want to play.

You're acting as if you cant tell have a story with with character loss/infirmary/death and that's complete crap and I think you know that even as you were typing it.

I know that I can't, using the AD&D mechanics, have a viable story about a PC confronting Orcus in battle if the PC doesn't have a +3 weapon. I know that, in 4e, I can't have a story about a PC confronting Orcus if the PC doesn't have an epic-tier weapon. These are mechancial facts about the game.

Loss and death are red herrings. A PC who confronts Orcus might lose. Might die. The point is that it will be significant and worthwhile to the participants in the game.

The stuff that happens to a player during a game isnt always by THIER CHOICE. If that's what you want then have your players get together script out your game, hand it to the GM and say "WE WANT THIS". It'll make everyones life easier.

Two things. First, there is a difference between building an encounter, and resolving it. So even if the players of a game built all the encounters, that wouldn't be the same as scripting the game, because the encounters would still have to be resolved.

Second, I play in a style which strongly emphasises the role of the GM in building encounters - among other things, this allows aspects of the gameworld that are unknown to, or unexpected by, the players to be brought into play. But I do my best to build encounters that will be interesting to my players, and that will let them take their PCs in the directions that they want to take them.

The idea that the players get to have any say in what gets thrown at them during the course of an adventure is the height of arrogance and self-entitlement and has nothing to do with ANY edition past, present or future. This isn't about system. This is about self entitled players. I'll tell you what maybe you should try handing your DM a list of monsters that are off limits in the campaign and see how well that goes over.

If my players handed me a list of monsters that they weren't interested in having their PCs fight, I'd be happy to take account of it.

At the start of my current campaign, I told all the players that they had to build PCs who had a reason to be ready to fight goblins (because I had a module, Night's Dark Terror, that I wanted to use, and it is premised on goblin-fighting). As it happened, all the players were happy with this instruction. If they hadn't been, though, for whatever reason, then I would have happily talked it through to work out what sort of campaign set up they were interested in playing that I was also in a position to run.

There's a middle ground to be attained here.

I don't think so. This is why a unity edition has to support multiple playstyles - which is what I posted upthread.

What's the point of players dictating their own challenges?

If by "dictating their own challenges" you mean designing the encounters that their PCs face, I've never played this way myself, and I think it faces some difficulties, but I think the most obvious reason for doing it would be that the game would be guarnateed to focus on the things in which the players are interested.

But if by "dictating their own challenges" you mean things like deciding who a PCs principal enemy will be, then that is pretty standard to a whole lot of RPG play. I assume you are aware of game designs which allow players to choose particular enemies of their PCs as part of the PC build process. In some games, like HERO, this is considered a disadvantage, because it gives the GM an excuse to lean heavily on that PC. In other games, like Burning Wheel, it is considered an advantage that the player must pay for, because the GM is going to lean heavily on everyone in BW, but at least if you pay for your enemy the GM is obliged to give you the story that you want. Either way, it is a player getting to choose his/her PC's adversary.

It's just as bad as a GM railroading the crap out of his players.

Railroading is one way to make sure that the players don't get to contribute to the story in the way that they want to. For certain sorts of play, in certain systems (eg 4e, 3E and to a lesser extent AD&D), using encounters that degrade the PC build is another way.

 

[ferratus]

Ugh. There's a middle ground to be attained here. What's the point of players dictating their own challenges? It's just as bad as a GM railroading the crap out of his players.

See and that's where both sides are talking past each other.

For some people it is about the dungeon/campaign world and characters are merely vessels for exploring that dungeon/campaign world. If one character dies or becomes too hopelessly gimped to play, you roll up a new character and continue on.

For other people, it is about the story of a particular group of characters. In such a case, random rolls leading to death and/or uselessness are disruptive to that character arc. If a character dies, all of the character specific plot hooks, preperation, and a huge portion of the storyline dies with him. It is very difficult to invest a new character with the same sense of purpose in the existing story.

Is the second style of play more linear? Of course it is. But if people are enjoying it, that's okay. Also, if they complain that save-or-die or rust monsters are disruptive to their style of play to the point that they would get upset at having their expectations for their character arc dashed, it isn't because they have to grow a set of testicles. It is because they have a different viewpoint about what the game is for than you do.

Finally, there is the problem of DM's who like to use save-or-die, rust monsters, and other such mechanics because they are an easy way to use the rules to frustrate or bully their fellow players. That doesn't mean that save or die mechanics are to blame directly for that DM's behavior, but it has left a lot of bad feelings towards those mechanics by some players.

 

[ferratus]

If my players handed me a list of monsters that they weren't interested in having their PCs fight, I'd be happy to take account of it.

I would also like to say that I am happy to take into account any feedback on what kind of game my players want to have, and what they want to do. In fact, I encourage it and plan encounters around that feedback.

The idea that the DM would say "we are running my adventure, my way, and you are self-entitled pantywaists if you want to have any say in it" is an anathema to me.

As a player, I definately wouldn't show up to the next game. I deal with petty tyrants and bosses in my working life. I don't need it on my day off, thank you very much.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The idea that the DM would say "we are running my adventure, my way, and you are self-entitled pantywaists if you want to have any say in it" is an anathema to me.

As a player, I definately wouldn't show up to the next game. I deal with petty tyrants and bosses in my working life. I don't need it on my day off, thank you very much.

Well then it's a good thing that I didnt say that now did I?

 

[ferratus]

Well then it's a good thing that I didnt say that now did I?

So what's this then?

The idea that the players get to have any say in what gets thrown at them during the course of an adventure is the height of arrogance and self-entitlement and has nothing to do with ANY edition past, present or future. This isn't about system. This is about self entitled players. I'll tell you what maybe you should try handing your DM a list of monsters that are off limits in the campaign and see how well that goes over.