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

[Maggan]

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.

Absolutely. But just because a product has gone through its product cycle, does not make it a fad.

D&D3e has been going for close to six years. Is that brief enough to make it a fad if it reaches its product cycle end next year?

To me, no. A six or seven year run of popularity is too long to reduce D&D3e to being a fad.

/M

 

[Hussar]

Mark me down as someone not seeing the difference; incautious behavior breeds bad results, no matter if from an ear seeker, or from a blast-happy wizard tossing flame on an Iron Golem. Same thing could be said about traps; they exist SOLELY to stop incautious intruders, as do ear seekers. In a world where Bioengineering existed before it was even a cool concept, things like ear seekers, otyughs, and rot grubs are going to be commonplace, as guards, traps, wards, and deterrents. I'm not saying a DM should use them every game, but one session with ear seekers is quite enough to have rogues thinking twice about laying bare ear to a door for the rest of a campaign. Similarly, one encounter with an Iron Golem will teach a player that fire (or magic, even!) is not the answer to everything.

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.

I picked these two quotes because they are very similar in tone to me.

I'm sorry, but the ONLY reason a rust monster was created was to screw over players. It was not drawn from any sort of genre novel or story. It was not there to fill any sort of niche other than, "Neener neener!" The same goes for ear seekers. This wasn't done for any other reason than that.

Ogres and giants are staples of fantasy. Stories of them have existed for centuries. We can use either creature in a variety of ways - standard BBEG, thug, mook, non-combat, comic relief (there's an ogre on the WOTC Vicious Venues section that acts as a rickshaw driver) and whatnot.

There is no such thing for rust monsters and ear seekers. They server EXACTLY the same role as a trap. You could write up a rust monster or an ear seeker as a trap and the encounter would fall out in an identical way to a combat encounter. That's what I mean by a Gotcha creature. Any creature whose SOLE role can be served by a trap qualifies as a Gotcha creature.

As Merric rightly points out, creatures like a golem can be curveball creatures. The require different tactics to defeat. However, I cannot do a golem encounter with a trap. Golems, while pretty much purely combat machines, do have enough versatility to warrant being creatures and not traps. A golem could sunder, breathe its breath weapon, charge, full attack, grapple, or any number of other options.

It has nothing to do with whining players losing their loot. It has to do with the idea that some creatures are better served as a trap. There's a reason Green Slime isn't in the MM. There's a reason that the piercer morphed into darkmantles. It's a trend I wish they had kept up with and removed a number of other so called creatures as well.

As far as player entitlement goes, well, the poll you did RC was somewhat badly written that people voted for the choice they could understand rather than possibly the way they would have had they understood the question. That I do remember coming out from that thread. I also remember in the thread that spawned the poll that, other than one or two people, we had pretty much universally condemned the idea that railroading is what the player said it was. In any case, that thread wasn't edition specific.

And finally, yes BroccolliRage, when you use the word disposable and "drive them into the ground and throw them away" I took that as a negative. Considering that people who also responded to your post also took it that way, perhaps it is generally considered negative to say that a car is disposable - as in use for a very short time and throw into the garbage. A Model T was most certainly not disposable in that it could be sold and resold a number of times throughout its life. But, I think it was simply a misunderstanding. Nuff said.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ogres and giants are staples of fantasy. Stories of them have existed for centuries. We can use either creature in a variety of ways - standard BBEG, thug, mook, non-combat, comic relief (there's an ogre on the WOTC Vicious Venues section that acts as a rickshaw driver) and whatnot.

There is no such thing for rust monsters and ear seekers. They server EXACTLY the same role as a trap. You could write up a rust monster or an ear seeker as a trap and the encounter would fall out in an identical way to a combat encounter. That's what I mean by a Gotcha creature. Any creature whose SOLE role can be served by a trap qualifies as a Gotcha creature.

I keep hearing people claim that D&D is its own genre. Surely, if this is true, rust monsters are a staple of that genre. After all, many D&D monsters are not as close to their folkloric and fantasy counterparts as they could be. The mind flayer and beholder were created for D&D -- surely this cannot be a strike against a monster.

So, what are we left with? The number of ways you can use the monster?

So, you cannot use rust monsters to indicate where veins of ore are? You cannot use rust monsters as pets in conjunction with other monsters? You cannot use them as living weapons against iron golems and your armoured foes? You cannot make them pull a rickshaw? You cannot use an awakened rust monster for comic relief? For the BBEG? For both at the same time?

Please.

The rust monster is as versatile a creature, surely, as any vermin or animal encounter in the book. Because your imagination isn't up to the task, you should not conclude that the task is impossible (or even unlikely). This isn't a failure of the rules, or the creature as written. It is a failure of the DM.

BTW, while I would write up the ear seeker as a hazard in 3.X, hazards and traps don't tend to follow you around. I would love to see your write up of the rust monster as a trap that is no different than the effects of the rust monster in the game.....and somehow makes the rust monster not seem like a living creature that has to be beaten to death.

(Quick! Roll on the Wandering Trap chart!)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It has nothing to do with whining players losing their loot. It has to do with the idea that some creatures are better served as a trap.

I think you need to re-read that article. The rust monster is re-written as a monster that conveniently leaves you your equipment....more over, the rust damage "heals" because losing your equipment isn't fun.

As far as player entitlement goes, well, the poll you did RC was somewhat badly written that people voted for the choice they could understand rather than possibly the way they would have had they understood the question. That I do remember coming out from that thread. I also remember in the thread that spawned the poll that, other than one or two people, we had pretty much universally condemned the idea that railroading is what the player said it was. In any case, that thread wasn't edition specific.

Again, even when it was explained exactly what was meant, people held by their opinion. Once more, you should go back and look at the source material.


RC

 

[Thurbane]

I guess in the real world, a great white shark is a gotcha monster...

I mean, come on, it's favorite food item (seals) just happens to look almost exactly like a human splashing around on a surfboard when seen from below? No way that evolved naturally, some vicious Gygaxian deity obviously created the great white to screw over surfers!

Or the funnel web spider! The only vertebrates with an extreme (sometimes fatal) reaction to it's toxin are primates (i.e. humans). Other mammals suffer little more than a nasty sting. No way that could have come about naturally, right?

Or to use the Gas Spore ananlogy, several species of non-venemous snakes have evolved almost identical markings to extremely dangerous snakes as a defense mechanism...

 

[Psion]

I guess in the real world, a great white shark is a gotcha monster...

I mean, come on, it's favorite food item (seals) just happens to look almost exactly like a human splashing around on a surfboard when seen from below? No way that evolved naturally, some vicious Gygaxian deity obviously created the great white to screw over surfers!

Or the funnel web spider! The only vertebrates with an extreme (sometimes fatal) reaction to it's toxin are primates (i.e. humans). Other mammals suffer little more than a nasty sting. No way that could have come about naturally, right?

Or to use the Gas Spore ananlogy, several species of non-venemous snakes have evolved almost identical markings to extremely dangerous snakes as a defense mechanism...

Good post!

 

[Maggan]

I guess in the real world, a great white shark is a gotcha monster...

I mean, come on, it's favorite food item (seals) just happens to look almost exactly like a human splashing around on a surfboard when seen from below? No way that evolved naturally, some vicious Gygaxian deity obviously created the great white to screw over surfers!

Or the funnel web spider! The only vertebrates with an extreme (sometimes fatal) reaction to it's toxin are primates (i.e. humans). Other mammals suffer little more than a nasty sting. No way that could have come about naturally, right?

Or to use the Gas Spore ananlogy, several species of non-venemous snakes have evolved almost identical markings to extremely dangerous snakes as a defense mechanism...

Hey, who said real life was supposed to be balanced?

/M

 

[Hussar]

Just as a point, you cannot Awaken a rust monster. (nitpick)

Yup, the remade rust monster leaves your equipment, but, it also can now beat the snot out of you as well, and then eat your equipment at its leisure. People tend to conveniently forget that part. Suddenly a stock monster has TWO things it can do instead of one.

Funnel web spider - trap.

Shark - summonable, awakenable, works great with templates (try the Hellfire Bloodshark from Scarred Lands), and is not only there to screw over players.

Gas Spore - works great as a trap.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But please do not point to sales figures as evidence of greatness. McDonalds may sell more burgers than Licks, but I know which one tastes better.

Yes, but taste isn't everything for a hamburger. A hamburger is many things, any item is -- it's taste, it's texture, it's cost, it's time, it's availability, it's advertising, it's a complex amalgam of factors, of which taste is only one (though arguably an important one).

McDonalds sells more than Licks because McDondalds takes into account EVERYTHING about the hamburger (including, notably, cost, time, availability, and advertising), and thus makes a hamburger that is better suited to the majority of people because of the qualities it has. It sacrifices taste, sure, but people obviously don't care about taste or it wouldn't be successful. A better burger isn't just about taste -- apparently, people are willing to eat cardboard at 59 cents when they can demand it in about 30 seconds. A good hamburger will take that into account, as McDonald's does.

That's kind of the point I'm making. 3e provides a baseline because the majority of people want a baseline and it's very useful to have one. It may not cater well to an inventive or out-of-the-box DM, but people obviously don't care about inventive or out-of-the-box DMs or it wouldn't be successful. A game isn't just about the ability of a DM authority or thinking outside of a box, it's also about balance, consistency, and speed of play. A good game will take that into account, as 3e does (and as other editions only did to varying and limited degrees).

Now, there's obviously a sustainable market for good, quality hamburgers, enough to sustain quite a diversity of places dedicated to providing delicious hamburgers. These cost more, take longer, and are, effectively, "luxury" items. Thankfully, they are affordable enough and common enough and in demand enough that there is a market to support them.

Is there enough of a demand for what older editions offer that 3e lacks (which I still can't really identify) to sustain a market? If there isn't, it is almost literally a waste of time and money to consider bringing that back. If there is, than other parties will meet that need and there's no need for 3e (or McDonald's) to offer you a game more like an earlier edition (or a better tasting hamburger).

In effect, criticizing McD's for bad hambugers is pointless complaining and griping about 3e for "too many options" (for instance) is similarly whining -- McD's is interested in the more-profitable venues of convienience and cost, they never claimed to win taste tests with French chefs. 3e is interested in tools and customization, they never claimed that a limited suite of selectable classes (for instance) was something they'd ever be interested in.

Now, the REAL issues to gripe about 3e are numerous enough, I don't know why people would invent issues such as "videogamey" or "too easy on the players" (pretty much entirely false and/or subjective criticisms) based entirely on snap judgements of limited evidence just to have something new to whine about.

We know what 3e offers in the way of a balanced, codified, easily-tweakable ruleset and a baseline that allows for said balance (and controlled deviations from it). What did earlier editions offer that was special to them, that has been lost?

And I want *real* offers that can be backed up by *real* differences, none of this vague griping about how it feels. Tell me, with specifics, what 2e and 1e and OD&D did that 3e does not and cannot do, and why it was *good* that they did that and why it is *bad* that 3e doesn't.

In other words, don't tell me what 3e does wrong, tell me what the other editions did *right*, and tell me specifically, in ways that are in the rules themselves, not in your own experience or just from your DM style.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nope. Taste is everything. Unless it gives me enough gas that I have a heart attack or something, nothing else matters.

"Ooh, this tastes like crap, but it's GOOD for you...."