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

[Raven Crowking]

BR has it entirely wrong. It's not that many monsters are Gotcha monsters. Gotcha monsters aren't simply me whining. They are a small number of creatures that fit the following criteria:

• They exist specifically to affect one group of players - rust monsters screw fighters, ear seekers screw thieves.
• They have abilities which are permanent or are very, very difficult to reverse
• Almost every encounter with said creature will result in almost the same events every time.

Now, creatures that don't fit those three aren't really Gotcha creatures.

I guess that explains why green slime, rot grumbs (ToH), and ear seekers (ToH) were described in terms of hazards, whereas rust monsters were not. I don't believe that they qualify, and obviously neither did the designers when they penned the MM.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

Just to continue with the rust monster bit for a second. The vast majority of encounters, very close to all encounters with a rust monster will go one of two ways: either the rust monster gets the drop on the party and rusts someone's weapon before the armored guys shove the wizard out in front to club the rust monster to death or; the party spots the rust monster, and shoves the wizard out in front to club it to death.

Assuming the party even knows what a rust monster* is. That said, you say you think of the rust monster as a trap rather than a monster, as if a trap is a Bad Thing. Is it?

* - Never mind its more insidious cousin the rustlater monster, where the rust effect occurs 1d4 hours after the metal contacts the creature...

By the way, what is RM2?

I was wondering the same thing. RoleMaster was all I could think of, but I didn't know there was more than one version of it.

Lanefan

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

RM2 = Rolemaster circa 1991, usually interpreted as the core 1e RM books plus the first three to five companions.

I always thought that 3E bears striking similarities to RM, too. At least one of the designers (i.e. Monte Cook) used to write for RoleMaster, so I didn't find it terribly odd.

 

[Thurbane]

I have a fundamental problem with the philosophy that it is "unfair" to inflict any form of lasting damage on a character. Characters need to feel that there is a genuine risk when adventuring, otherwise what is the point? You might as well be earning your GP through Craft and Perform checks.

Short of a TPK, the ease of Raise dead spells, and the fact that the only penalty you take for dying is the loss of a level - which you can earn back as normal (at an accelerated rate, as you are now 1 level behind the others, which the CR system will reward you for).

Characters see a Rust Monster - suddenly the fighter thinks that his Keen Vorpal Ghost Touch Flaming double sword might be destroyed. i.e. he feels a sense of risk. Not to mention the fact that I think the system has been set up to make characters waaay to reliant on their equipment in 3.X.

What my ramblings are getting at is the mindset that thinks that inflicting a TPK is fine (within the hallowed halls of CR, of course), as it within the "spririt of the rules", but taking someone's shiny magic armor and weapon is grossly unfair, and has rendered that character now unlayable.

Call me an old stick in the mud, but "back in the day" when you knew that dying meant, at the very least, the loss of 1 point of Constitution, and that level drains from undead could well be permanent if you didn't have a high level Cleric handy, bred a real sense of risk and adventure.

 

[MerricB]

I always thought that 3E bears striking similarities to RM, too. At least one of the designers (i.e. Monte Cook) used to write for RoleMaster, so I didn't find it terribly odd.

Mind you, I find 3E to have striking similarity to other games - it's all a matter of what you're familiar with. I mean, die + modifiers for skills sounds remarkably similar to Teenagers from Outer Space to me.

Call me an old stick in the mud, but "back in the day" when you knew that dying meant, at the very least, the loss of 1 point of Constitution, and that level drains from undead could well be permanent if you didn't have a high level Cleric handy, bred a real sense of risk and adventure.

You're an old stick in the mud.

I'm not fond of unavoidable encounters, but that is more a feature of bad DMing. "Gotcha" monsters don't bother me when used appropriately. (I do think Ear Seekers are pretty stupid, though - Rot Grubs are fun, Ear Seekers just irritate me. There's a bit of equipment in the Complete Thief of 2e that is a mesh-covered ear trumpet. At that point, Ear Seekers lost their relevance).

The "ease" of getting past level loss and death in 3e is partly a reflection of the change in adventures that are enjoyed by the players; the constantly restocking mega-dungeon is no longer the adventuring environment of choice. Campaign arcs have become much more important. (See the popularity of the Adventure Paths in Dungeon magazine).

There is also the rise in importance of character history and story. Where in the mega-dungeon, the PC's only interest lay in their abilities and how they could overcome the next challenge, when you have a lot of role-playing invested in a particular PC, with allies, enemies, story threads and suchlike, then the permanent loss of a character means a lot of work wasted on the part of the DM and player.

Cheers!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Mind you, I find 3E to have striking similarity to other games - it's all a matter of what you're familiar with. I mean, die + modifiers for skills sounds remarkably similar to Teenagers from Outer Space to me.

Sure. For example, to someone who plays Bridge and Poker (and that's about it), I suppose D&D and Panty Explosion are probably strikingly similar. However, I think it's understood that we're talking about something a bit narrower and more specific (i.e. fantasy RPGs and how they approach the specific mechanics, skill aquisition, etc) -- not something as broad and general as "die roll + modifiers."

 

[Ranes]

...when you have a lot of role-playing invested in a particular PC, with allies, enemies, story threads and suchlike, then the permanent loss of a character means a lot of work wasted on the part of the DM and player.

Honestly, I don't think it's necessarily a waste. Let's not be too precious about our mortal PCs.

 

[Thurbane]

There is also the rise in importance of character history and story. Where in the mega-dungeon, the PC's only interest lay in their abilities and how they could overcome the next challenge, when you have a lot of role-playing invested in a particular PC, with allies, enemies, story threads and suchlike, then the permanent loss of a character means a lot of work wasted on the part of the DM and player.

While I totally agree that 3.X shifts the focus further from pure dungeoneering than 1E (and to a lesser degree, also 2E), I would also say that the emphasis on "builds" in 3.X actually moves focus away from history and backstory somewhat...

 

[Thurbane]

Honestly, I don't think it's necessarily a waste. Let's not be too precious about our mortal PCs.

Indeed - if there is little chance of permanently losing a character, where is the sense of risk when you adventure? If I know in advance that death is little more than a minor setback, I lose a lot of excitement and anticipation during a combat...

 

[Hussar]

I have a fundamental problem with the philosophy that it is "unfair" to inflict any form of lasting damage on a character. Characters need to feel that there is a genuine risk when adventuring, otherwise what is the point? You might as well be earning your GP through Craft and Perform checks.

And, you would be wrong in ascribing this to any sort of real thought process.

There are any number of creatures in 3e which destroy equipment. Of hand, there's the bebilith, babau, various oozes. Yet, none of these qualify as a Gotcha creature.

Why?

Because these creatures have other functions BESIDES screwing over the players. The rust monster, the disenchanter and various other gotcha creatures exist for the sole purpose of screwing over the players. They don't do anything else. A rust monster can't attack. It's only function is to destroy equipment.

Do we really need a monster for that?

As far as dying and raising goes, well, difficulty varied across campaigns. One might be hard to find a cleric, the next it's easy. That isn't tied to edition. OTOH, losing a point of Con only mattered if you had a 15+ Con to begin with. I can go from a 14 to a 9 Con, FIVE raise deads and nothing happens to my character.

Compare that to losing a level.

As far as "emphasis on builds" there's two reasons for that. One, in earlier editions, you couldn't do it at all. Whatever you played at 1st level was what you played at 21st level. All the "building" went on at chargen. There were no builds in earlier editions to complain about since there was no way you could do it.

Secondly, I fail to see the problem anyway. If a player plans out his character from 1st to 20th level, he's assuming two things: one, he's still going to be playing with you a year or two from now, and two; your campaign will still be going two years from now. How are either of those a bad thing? Planning a fighter from 1st to 20th is EXACTLY THE SAME as playing a 1e or 2e fighter. The only difference is that I'm in control of how the character will look in 19 levels instead of the PHB. OH, shock and horror that players have control over their characters.

The number one thing that bugs me about these kinds of discussions, is the elitist attitudes that come out. That there are wrongbadfun sorts of inspirations for the game and that any other playstyle is also wrongbadfun. BR above calls CCG's "crap". Why? Is there something inherently bad about drawing inspiration from Yugioh?

Little story. I teach English in Japan. The other day, one of my younger students, about 10 years old, came in for class with a stack of Yugioh cards. To be honest, I've never really paid much attention to Yugioh and never seen the cartoon. So, this kid starts showing me his cards because he's all proud of his latest one. Fine. I wind up talking with him for about an hour about the game. Afterwards, I think to myself, "Wow, here's this kid, about the same age I was when I started gaming, getting into the genre in a fun way that's going to hold his attention for years." As I looked at the cards, I couldn't help but think that a number of the monsters would work great in my campaign as would a number of the effects.

Great inspiration. But, then I think, hey if this kid comes online to look at D&D, he's going to run into some Curmudgeon who's going to tell him that his hobby is crap and immature. I know that would turn me off from D&D. Why play a game where other people are just going to look down their noses at me? I get enough of that in real life.

There are no bad inspirations, just bad players.