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

[pemerton]

Isn't there a person dedicated in EVERY group to make sure the dangerous monster doesn't ruin the fun of the game? Think about it, theres someone sitting at the table making sure the rust monster doesn't ruin everyones night uneccesarily.

The DM can do so in a TON of ways

<snip>

I really dislike the increasing attitude that DMs aren't responsible for keeping the game fun.

Who, posting in this thread, has that attitude?

But there are lots of ways as a GM to keep the game fun without using rust monsters. In a game focused mostly on non-looting play, in which magic items are (in the story) rewards from patrons or from the gods, and are (in the mechanics) an aspect of PC building, then the rust monster doesn't add very much to the game. It is typically just going to be a distraction from what is - for both the players and the GM - the real point of play.

Conversely, I would cheerfully use rust monsters in a Basic D&D game, in which (i) a +1 weapon is enough to hit any creature, (ii) there is no such thing as weapon specialisation, (iii) the maximum weapon bonus is +2, and (iv) few if any monsters have ACs below 2.

But every edition of D&D since then has changed one or more of these parameters. AD&D has monsters that need more powerful weapons to hit, and introudces weapon proficiency and specialisation rules, and introduces magic bonuses up to +5. 3E keeps all of that, and increased monster ACs. 4e drops the "magic needed to hit" mechanic but replaces it with a system of DC scaling in which magic weapons are essential for the game to run smoothly.

These changes in the mechanics of the game, in combination (in my case, at least) with changes in playstyle, make the traditional rust monster less interesting to me.

MM3 rot grubs, on the other hand, I have cheerfully used. A well-designed and fun monster.

Inevitably someone is going to say "I dont want to fudge numbers, break rules, or stack a dungeon with more items"

That is me.

Honestly, I'd much rather have a game that doesn't require the DM to fudge game rules (from my perspective, cheat at the game and undermine the players' fun) in order to step around the fact that an aspect of the game is rather inherently unfun. I'd much rather have central game rules that actually are fun and don't require that kind of action by the DM.

Liewise. I want a game where I don't have to break the rules for the game to work.

Instead of fudging a number you want to take the threat of random danger out of D&D.

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.

What was much more interesting, for me as a GM, was running an encounter at a dinner party. At the start of the encounter, the PCs had to work out where they put their weapons before sitting down to eat. And then when the (inevitable?) combat broke out, there was the intitial challenge of equipping themselves. The difference between this and a rust monster encounter is that it (i) puts the challenge into the hands of the players - they can have their PCs be less polite in the way they deal with their weapons, penalising the social side of things but boosting the combat side, and (ii) it allows the players later on to be tactically clever in recovering their gear. A rust monster - unsurprisingly, for an early D&D creation - puts more emphasis on operational play ("Have I got a backup weapon?" "Let's go back to base to buy some new armour" etc), which I tend to find tedious.

I think many of the arguments on this forum are between two groups: 1 group wants to run a perfectly balanced and fair board game and see what happens no rule bending allowed, the other wants to role play a story with their friends and a DM who is responsible for crafting a fun, memorable and epic adventure.

There may be two or more groups, but I think discussion would be helped by not misdescribing (and pejoratively misdescribing, at that!) at least one of them.

Look at the actual play report I've linked to above. Then get back to me and explain in what way my game resembles a board game.

 

[hanez]

Who, posting in this thread, has that attitude?

But there are lots of ways as a GM to keep the game fun without using rust monsters. In a game focused mostly on non-looting play, in which magic items are (in the story) rewards from patrons or from the gods, and are (in the mechanics) an aspect of PC building, then the rust monster doesn't add very much to the game.

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.

What was much more interesting, for me as a GM, was running an encounter at a dinner party. At the start of the encounter, the PCs had to work out where they put their weapons before sitting down to eat. And then when the (inevitable?) combat broke out, there was the intitial challenge of equipping themselves. The difference between this and a rust monster encounter is that it (i) puts the challenge into the hands of the players - they can have their PCs be less polite in the way they deal with their weapons, penalising the social side of things but boosting the combat side, and (ii) it allows the players later on to be tactically clever in recovering their gear. A rust monster - unsurprisingly, for an early D&D creation - puts more emphasis on operational play ("Have I got a backup weapon?" "Let's go back to base to buy some new armour" etc), which I tend to find tedious.

Well. I read your post and I agree with most of what you wrote, but I would argue that your putting up a bit of a strawman argument. I never said you should use a rust monster and if you don't your playing a board game.

I too prefer adventures like the dinner party you described, I find my players (after a little prodding), find these adventures MUCH more memorable, and there is more thinking, planning, and innovative uses of the players powers then "you walk into a room and a rust monster charges". In fact I have to plug the dungeon magazine "prince of redhand" as an awesome example of a dinner party adventure. But thats not the point.

The point I am addressing, is the person who wants to USE the rust monster but doesn't want it to have its defining feature. What is so special about a rust monster that doesnt threaten your weapons? Why not use oh I don't know any other monster. I take issue with removing the ability to make the game "fairer" and less "dangerous" at the expense of having memorable features in monsters. This type of play to me is like a board game, and I have watched it in action. Everyone has equal moves, equal powers, very defined play area (combat grid), limited options (powers), and encounters are jigged perfectly so that there aren't any threats of random loss. I don't want to USE the rust monster, but I do want a D&D where players know that things like that exist, and might be around the corner.

Personally I dab rumours of the Rust Monster here and there in case my PCs want to go face an epic challenge with epic reward. If my PCs go choose to go on that quest, theyll know that they are going to a monster the has its powers traditional D&D has always prescribed to it. I'm not arguing for its use, I am arguing for not removing its central ability. Let DMs who want to use it, use it.

 

[Siberys]

But... There is a chance of random loss in the version you're against. That's been established - running off the rust monster, we have at least one example of a 4e game where using the 4e rust monster as written resulted in a significant random loss for the player.

There is still a large amount of risk. There's still the threat of being killed, of being defeated, of having your stuff rusted out by a rust monster. So what if after the fight the PCs can get the resources to reconstruct their item? They still have to actually reconstruct it, and if they lose (easier to do if they're out of their good items), it doesn't matter!

 

[hanez]

But... There is a chance of random loss in the version you're against. That's been established - running off the rust monster, we have at least one example of a 4e game where using the 4e rust monster as written resulted in a significant random loss for the player.

There is still a large amount of risk. There's still the threat of being killed, of being defeated, of having your stuff rusted out by a rust monster. So what if after the fight the PCs can get the resources to reconstruct their item? They still have to actually reconstruct it, and if they lose (easier to do if they're out of their good items), it doesn't matter!

Good point. I guess it depends on how you use the powder. In my campaign it would have some form of loss so the monster doesn't perform the function of a magic item trader. In my campaigns magic is so common that it really wouldn't matter either way. I'd just like to see the threat of loss still being possible in the rules

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It's fine to cause the characters hardship, but the players are there to have fun. If I think it will visibly make the players, instead of the characters, upset, I don't do it.

I think that if the player gets upset to the point where it becomes a distraction I'd just as soon as not play with that player. I get it, losing a magic item sucks. Having played a crap ton of AD&D I know and I've been through a few douche DM's too. But you're playing a game. If you dont trust your DM to run fairly? Then why are you at the table?

If you're going to be seriously upset about your character dying or your character losing a magic item then that speaks to a lot of the fears and perceptions that people outside of the game have about the people who do play the game.

Yes it sucks but have your character deal with it in game. Focus that energy through your PC. Dont get passive agressive with your GM or start moping.

NUT UP and move on.

 

[hanez]

I think that if the player gets upset to the point where it becomes a distraction I'd just as soon as not play with that player. I get it, losing a magic item sucks. Having played a crap ton of AD&D I know and I've been through a few douche DM's too. But you're playing a game. If you dont trust your DM to run fairly? Then why are you at the table?

If you're going to be seriously upset about your character dying or your character losing a magic item then that speaks to a lot of the fears and perceptions that people outside of the game have about the people who do play the game.

Yes it sucks but have your character deal with it in game. Focus that energy through your PC. Dont get passive agressive with your GM or start moping.

NUT UP and move on.

Agree with a strong BUT........ the DM is also responsible to make sure the campaign is FUN and enjoyable for everyone. Rust Monster once. OK, cool, but you cant do it over and over again unless thats what the players like. My players are "preordained by the gods to be heroes" cause thats what they like. SUre I do what I like to, but its all about balance. It just bugs me when we see neutering challenges and monsters because some players are scared of bad dms. If your DM is that bad, whats they point of even playin.

 

[innerdude]

Any monster or encounter that stands a good chance of a player standing up and saying, "eff this, I'm going home" is not productive for a game. Old-schoolers talk about not coddling players but at the end of the day, you can't MAKE players put up with a lousy game.

Any character build, feat, or power that stands a good chance of the GM standing up and saying, "Eff this, you guys are a bunch of powergaming whoremongers" is not productive for a game. New-schoolers talk about how they demand more control over the game, but at the end of the day, you can't MAKE lousy roleplayers create the type of game experiences you really want to have.

(All of the above should be taken very tongue-in-cheek, by the way.)

 

[pemerton]

I get it, losing a magic item sucks.

<snip>

But you're playing a game. If you dont trust your DM to run fairly? Then why are you at the table?

<snip>

Yes it sucks but have your character deal with it in game. Focus that energy through your PC.

This is the new horizons forum. We're supposedly talking, here, about a new, unity edition of D&D. Presumably a unity edition is going to be designed so as to support multiple playstyles, and - given the designer comments about multiple approaches sitting at the one table - it is apparently going to do this in a very smooth way with minmal tweaking of the basic chassis required.

Given that, what is to be gained by telling people who prefer a different style from yours to deal with it, etc?

Some players like Gygaxian play, where the GM is expected to push hard against the players, and degradation of a PC's mechanical capabilities - via energy drain, rust monsters, etc - is expected and accepted.

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.

 

[billd91]

Some players like Gygaxian play, where the GM is expected to push hard against the players, and degradation of a PC's mechanical capabilities - via energy drain, rust monsters, etc - is expected and accepted.

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.

These two cases aren't mutually exclusive. You can push the players with some pretty hard challenges to themselves and gear while stile working on the story of what it is like to be a hero in a world of darkness. And if a weapon is necessary to confront Orcus, I would expect it to have artifact level immunities to rust monster complications.

 

[pemerton]

These two cases aren't mutually exclusive. You can push the players with some pretty hard challenges to themselves and gear while stile working on the story of what it is like to be a hero in a world of darkness.

Perhaps, although I think that it is harder than is sometimes suggested. In particular, at least in my experience, operational play and the somewhat cynical, expedient attitude it can tend to foster, can have a tendency to increasingly swallow up other aspects of the game.

And if a weapon is necessary to confront Orcus, I would expect it to have artifact level immunities to rust monster complications.

I was thinking more of the AD&D or 4e situation. In 1st ed AD&D it would be (from memory) a generic +3 weapon required, which is not immune to rust monsters. In 4e I think an aspect of Orcus is low Epic, in which case the maths would require a generic +5 weapon, which also is not immune to rust monsters.

I don't know Orcus's 3E stats without my books, but the idea of an artefact being necessary would strike me as a quintessentially 2nd ed approach to fighting demon princes. I have my own issues with that approach, but I agree that it would not be subject to rust monster derailment.