[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Renfield]

On Wayne Ligons Post

On Wayne Ligons Post and the topic of Gotcha Monsters.

First off, you are dealing with a settuings where wizards somehow find the materials and means to build and construct massive dungeons guarding treasures and so on. Settings where it is common for spellcasters to literally create creatures, Life, for their own ends. Worlds where a man can be hit with 10 arrows and still have 23 hitpoints left and no penalties to anything! Now imagine you're a wizard with loot to protect. Or perhaps a Dragon, or maybe you're just a powerful entity who is bored and creates a dungeon for the soul purpose of being entertained by silly adventurers. How are those monsters improbable given these situations? I know I'd like to ward thieves in any way possible so why not create or find some ear seekers, or my personal favorite, lock lurkers! Honestly?

And the reasons behind these creatures existing can be more than convincing. Considering the lovely ages old war talked about in the Sword of Truth series of books? You have an ancient war where both sides had powerful magic users who constantly created creatures and the like for the soul purpose of countering the other sides strengths. Incorporate that into D&D add a halfway competant DM and it's easy. I.E. Ancient war in a D&D world, one side is often creating magical items to arm their warriors with? Why not create a disenchanter or a rust monster to counter that? Add a few hundred or thousand years of history and these things are scattered throughout the world. Perhaps Rust Monsters live in iron rich hills or the secrets for creating Disenchanters to fend off those pesky adventurers?

Maybe you should simply try looking at them in a different light, or your DM applied them in an annoying way because I've tossed these monsters at my players and certainly wasn't met with the frustrations you speak of. Rolled eyes and groans weren't given to me. Granted I did get that when I was fairly new to DMing and didn't apply them properly. Perhaps that is what you experienced and it soured you to it. Can't write off something that should be blamed on bad DMing application.

"Gotcha" Monsters, a Wizard hermits way to make those pesky inquisitive adventurers think twice!

 

[Lanefan]

A Gotcha! monster is a monster that exists solely because adventurers exist and do certain things for the sole purpose either damaging adventurers or screwing said adventurers out of hard-won resources and equipment (or as a faux-balance tool for a campaign that has 'gotten out of hand'. Given out too many magic items? Trot out the Disenchanter!). It's a heavy-handed and usually nonsensical creature. In the same vein as this are creatures that exist solely to stop, block or nullify a specific character class ability.

All they usually serve to do is make would-be bold adventurers into whining, cringing accountants who want to map corridors with protractors and laser sights.

The old cursed magic items are another form of Gotcha monster. Nothing says 'fun adventuring' like finally winning through a tough adventure to find that the cool item you thought you were getting is acutally not only worthless but now you have to go on a special side adventure just so you can get rid of it.

[...]

* Adventurers wear a lot of heavy metal armor. Introduce the Rust Monster.

* Thieves listen at doors. How dare they! Introduce the Ear Seeker.

* Mages covet magical books and store their most important class ability on paper. Introduce the Bookworm that only eats magical books.

* Beholders are terrifying creatures of vast power and evil intent. Any encounter with one, especially at lower levels, is sure to be a super-tough fight and result in at least a couple of dead party members. OMG! There's one now! Quick, drink your potion of Heroism. Cast Haste or Stoneskin. Use charges from that wand! Expend a couple of your once-a-day ability uses! Charge! Boom, haha! It's a Gas Spore. Now you're all going to sprout mushrooms out your ears.

There are risks in earning the levels, rewards, etc. There are risks in keeping them. There are risks in using them. Start reducing those risks, and the game becomes less challenging...and thus, less fun.

In other words, regarding what you say above; I fail to see a problem...

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

There are risks in earning the levels, rewards, etc. There are risks in keeping them. There are risks in using them. Start reducing those risks, and the game becomes less challenging...and thus, less fun.

Exactly.


RC

 

[MerricB]

I dislike "gotcha" monsters. I love "curveball" monsters.

A "curveball" monster is one that you have to think to defeat, that forces you out of your set combat tactics. Golems are a prime example of these, but, in truth, D&D is full of them.

"Gotcha" monsters that don't destroy you utterly, I don't mind. The Gas Spore is fine in my book, as long as you use it appropriately. What's appropriately? Not using it against 1st level PC comes to mind. Gas Spores are great against 10th+ level PCs. Why? They reduce their (renewable) resources without killing them. You need a cure disease in 24 hours or you die? That's achievable.

Cursed items? Fine by me. Wish they were more prominent. (I do agree that using one as the "reward" for several sessions of play without other stuff is a horrible idea).

Where I dislike "gotcha" monsters is when they're used to destroy a party. As an example, the PCs are coming up against a arch-devil. In the encounter before the arch-devil, they meet a "rust snake" (a rust monster, but disguised). The fighter leaps forward, hits it with his sword. With no warning, the +3 blade they needed to take on the devil crumbles to dust.

Rust monsters are good against new players with no magic items - nothing too valuable will be lost, and the players need to learn that not everything can be destroyed with swords. (Skeletons fulfill a similar role, actually). They're also good against experienced players who know what they are - it's fun to see them react to what's happening. Not so good against high-level PCs that have no idea what they are.

As a counterpoint to that, it's not so bad to use them if magic items are plentiful. If you can replace your +3 sword quickly, it'll be fine.

Cheers!

 

[BroccoliRage]

I've been driving my Corolla for 8+ years. It's far and away the more reliable of the two cars I've owned (the other was an ancient Ford Taurus). Yes, you can drive Japanese cars into the ground, but that's because they last long enough to be driven into the ground! I would not hesitate to buy another Toyota when the time comes.

I think by making this analogy you are providing fodder for those who might claim that 3e is an improvement over 1e/2e (just as the Corolla was an improvement on what American car mfrs were putting out at the time).

That's why I bought one.

I never said a Corrolla was crap, Hussar. That's your own inference. A Model T was disposable as well, and was not crap for it's time. A disposable car is a damn good thing, because you aren't out $60,000 when it gives up on you. It will last around 15 years without any major maintenance. That's great! I can then toss it away when I'm done, and buy another one new and own that within two years as well. What a great deal. An rpg system is not even in the same realm and does not make for a good comparison.

A non-disposable car requires precision maintenance, offers a good deal more comfort, is built with specific themes in mind aside from zipping about. You don't toss your (in descending order) Lambourghini, Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Infiniti, Cadillac, Lincoln, and so forth away, they cost too damn much. A car that costs as much as them needs to be maintained. It is far more of an investment than a Corrola. If you paid less for one of these cars new than you did for a Corrolla, you were had. (By the way, I just named to foreign makes up there.)

And a fad can last for years. D&D was pretty damn popular in the days of 1e, and then wasn't so popular. Fantasy themed stuff in general has seen an upswing since the release of the Lord of The Rings movies. It will fall off. Everything always does.

Alaska is not the state to watch for business trends, by the way. Yes, I'm aware plenty of people live there, and I'm also aware that you're all very proud to be living there. Facts are facts.

 

[RFisher]

I've never really had a problem with cursed items. Heck, one of my favorite stories to tell is my PC that died from Exploding Runes.

But...as DM, I tend more towards the One Ring/Artifacts & Relics school. The PCs are more likely to find an item that has both beneficial & malevolent qualities.

Of course, the best is when you manage to make good use of a cursed item.

 

[Renfield]

Alaska may not be the state to watch for business trends but the internet evens that playing field quite a bit. I imagine if you were to take a peak at the numbers comming out of Wizards of the coast you won't find much pointing towards a declining trend. As for Alaska and business trends, well, it's a matter of perspective, you don't watch business trends up here the same way you do in the states though I will admit we are a tad removed. As for plenty of people, not sure where you got that idea, I wouldn't call 500,000 with the largest city sporting about 250,000 being plenty of people Still, I spend a lot of time in Washington and Oregon and I imagine my gaming friends there would agree that RPG's and D&D in particular are most definitely not in decline, though I may just be wrong. Perhaps some of the people around here who know better can lend comment on that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And a fad can last for years. D&D was pretty damn popular in the days of 1e, and then wasn't so popular. Fantasy themed stuff in general has seen an upswing since the release of the Lord of The Rings movies. It will fall off. Everything always does.

But even if 3.X never sells another book, that still doesn't say anything about its relative quality as a game. Betamax isn't always the winner over VHS. The Avro Arrow doesn't always go into production. Sometimes people prefer McGames to greatness.

The point is, whether 1e or 3e sold more has nothing to do with their relative quality, unless a direct relationship can be established. In the event of a market that isn't even head-to-head, this becomes even more meaningless.

A Gotcha! monster is a monster that exists solely because adventurers exist and do certain things for the sole purpose either damaging adventurers or screwing said adventurers out of hard-won resources and equipment (or as a faux-balance tool for a campaign that has 'gotten out of hand'. Given out too many magic items? Trot out the Disenchanter!). It's a heavy-handed and usually nonsensical creature. In the same vein as this are creatures that exist solely to stop, block or nullify a specific character class ability.

All they usually serve to do is make would-be bold adventurers into whining, cringing accountants who want to map corridors with protractors and laser sights.

Out of curiosity, in a meta-sense, don't ogres "exist and do certain things for the sole purpose of either damaging adventurers or screwing said adventurers our of hard-won resources and equipment"? I mean, within the context of the game, ogres exist either to engage you in melee (damaging adventurers) or to attempt to extort a bribe or toll (screwing said adventurers our of hard-won resources and equipment).

The same could be said of bandits, thieves, tax collectors, local magistrates, innkeepers, dragons, and the BBEG at the end of the adventure.

Even if you make the claim that these characters and creatures are presented as having an existence outside the context of the adventure (and you should make such a claim!), the exact same claim can be made quite easily for the rust monster, which exists in underground places surviving off of metal veins and ores found in the very rock. While a guy walking around in plate mail is a veritable feast to a rust monster, this doesn't mean that it is all the rust monster eats. Compared to some of the strange creatures found around oceanic vents in the real world, the rust monster seems rather plausible.

In D&D worlds, magic is a source of energy, and all energy sources are potential food sources. Is it really so strange to consider the possibility of a magiovoure? The Expeditious Retreat book dealing with worldbuilding (forget the name off-hand, but it's on my EN World bookshelf) talks about the likelihood of just such beings, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. These things are as "realistic" as dragons, ogres, and iron golems.

Is a creature with strong SR designed to "screw over one particular class or 'niche'"? How about a creature with a high AC that is vulnerable to magic? And why is screwing the party all one can do with rust monsters? Why can't the DM use the presence of rust monsters as a means of determining where it is worthwhile to dig for ore (once the monsters are clubbed to death)? Or use their presence as a clue to the whereabouts of the Lost Dwarven Mines of Marrowgate? Surely the dwarves were aware of rust monsters, and would use approriate measures (including stone doors on hidden pivots) to keep them from the treasury!

For that matter, why can't encounters with rust monsters allow a party to use the monsters themselves as a resource against a pesky iron golem they know is coming up? Why can't the party let loose rust monsters in the armoury of the hobgoblin warband?

Where I dislike "gotcha" monsters is when they're used to destroy a party.

But, what part of that statement really requires the monster to be a "gotcha" monster? And, from your example, one would almost assume that if the fighter leapt into battle with a giant, and the giant successfully used Sunder on his weapon, you'd be of the same mind.

Just because something is a setback, that does not make it unfair. Nor does it make it unfun. If the setback means that there is no way to win, and there is also no way to avoid trying to win (you must kill the devil or you/your loved one/your village dies) then that is perhaps a more an example of poor DMing than poor monster design.

Of course, sometimes there is still a way to win (your choosing to give up without looking about you doesn't make the DM a bad DM), there may have been tons of clues about that "rust snake" that you simply didn't bother to look at (like all those piles of rust and the fact that the devil's minions all eschewed metal armour and weapons), etc.

You shouldn't cry "Bad DM!" just because something didn't go your way.

(Consistent patterns of behavior are another animal; seek or start a new game!)


RC

 

[BroccoliRage]

I already said that sales and fashionability are not indicative of quality.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I already said that sales and fashionability are not indicative of quality.

Yes. But it is a point that cannot be emphasized enough!