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

[Wormwood]

You just made the best argument I've heard to removing +'d weapons from D&D....

Much as I'd *love* to see them go away forever (so utterly boring), they're as iconic to D&D as hit points, armor class, and attacking the darkness.

(But honetly, in a game where attack roll determines whether a sword penetrates armor or not, I can't think of a better way of expressing 'this sword is magically sharp' than adding a few percentage points to that roll.)

 

[Remathilis]

Much as I'd *love* to see them go away forever (so utterly boring), they're as iconic to D&D as hit points, armor class, and attacking the darkness.

(But honetly, in a game where attack roll determines whether a sword penetrates armor or not, I can't think of a better way of expressing 'this sword is magically sharp' than adding a few percentage points to that roll.)

I agree, but if the loss of a 5% bonus to hit/damage is enough to force your barbarian to has a sad, perhaps they need to go...

 

[Jawsh]

I agree, but if the loss of a 5% bonus to hit/damage is enough to force your barbarian to has a sad, perhaps they need to go...

I think making the barbarian sad is pretty cool. Can you imagine playing the role of that dwarf who loses his ancestral sword. RP-wise, that dwarf should be throwing a fit. He should be whining and crying and pouting, and generally being a nuisance to his party, and cursing the gods for allowing the rust monster to exist. That's good role-playing.

I don't even care if the player carries it over into RL. I want the player to be sad that he lost his sword. I want the player to be an annoying, whiny prick. The trick is for the DM not to cave. And for the Monster Manual writer not to cave in.

 

[Siberys]

That's where we're different, [MENTION=17061]Jawsh[/MENTION]. I'm fine with all that happening to the character. If it steps out into RL, and the player starts acting like that? it's gone too far - I'd consider that a breach of my side of the "social contract". IMO, best to nip situations like that in the bud.

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.

 

[MarkChevallier]

That's where we're different, @Jawsh . I'm fine with all that happening to the character. If it steps out into RL, and the player starts acting like that? it's gone too far - I'd consider that a breach of my side of the "social contract". IMO, best to nip situations like that in the bud.

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 agree with this, no-one should relish making their friends and fellow gamers miserable. On the other hand,vicarious unhappiness can be the mark of a successful game - we've all seen sad movies, and while they make you sad, no-one would say that that makes them bad.

And also, someone who gets unreasonably upset at defeat and loss, may not be someone I'd want to play with, for two main reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure I'd be able to run the kinds of games I enjoy; and secondly, I've seen people use out-of-character unhappiness/anger as a tool to manipulate the flow of the game. Obviously this isn't true in all cases, but it's something to watch out for - the bad faith upset which some people, sadly, can bring to a game.

 

[Siberys]

Magic items can go as mysteriously as they appear. Figuring themas a given into "the math" makes them just gear of varying quality instead of magic items.

I agree. Ideally, a +1 magic item would be it - maybe +2, tops. Taking magic items out of the expected math is in fact on my 5e wishlist. But the fact is, for at least the last 11 to 12 years, there has been an expected math by level that has been assumed for monsters which included minimum magic item bonuses for both attacks and defense. I can't speak to pre-3e, but it's not as if this is a new thing.

Losing out on even just a +x item is major, even if it doesn't seem that way. It cuts a large chunk off the top of you chance to hit (or tacks a large chance on to your chance to be hit), loses you out on several thousand gold, and can cause the player issues, too. 4e's rust monster still does all of that except the "lose out on the gold" part, and even then you might as well have until you can get back someplace to have the item replaced. Which could be a very, very long time.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think this post misses a lot of the point. 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, like:

• not pitting the party up against the monster until they are ready
• ruling that every item gets a saving throw because this was a young monster
• ruling that "your fathers sword" was soooo strong it resisted the rust but now has mysterious marks on it
• finding a group of NPCs to save the day but now you owe them and they have a request...
• fudging some roles here and there (yeah DM Im looking at you, its your job to make sure the table has a good night)
• take the items and DESTROY them and as the parties whining like a bunch of babies stack the dungeon with a TON of magic items to reoutfit and reenergize the party

I really dislike the increasing attitude that DMs aren't responsible for keeping the game fun. Inevitably someone is going to say "I dont want to fudge numbers, break rules, or stack a dungeon with more items", instead they want to fudge what the basic definition of a rust monster IS. Instead of fudging a number you want to take the threat of random danger out of D&D.

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.

To be blunt, I'd rather have no rust monsters in the game at all rather than a DM who pulled the last stunt on your list...

 

[Siberys]

I agree with this, no-one should relish making their friends and fellow gamers miserable. On the other hand,vicarious unhappiness can be the mark of a successful game - we've all seen sad movies, and while they make you sad, no-one would say that that makes them bad.

Of course. But there's a difference between vicarious unhappiness, as you put it, and aiming to cause the player unhappiness. Having fun can mean being sad - there's a reason sad movies sell. But people don't go to movies and see things that are targeted at making them, specifically, sad - they feel empathy for the characters. In the same way, if the player is sad, it shouldn't be because he feels he, as the player, has been screwed over; it should be because he is empathizing with his character. Big difference.

 

[Jawsh]

I agree with this, no-one should relish making their friends and fellow gamers miserable. On the other hand,vicarious unhappiness can be the mark of a successful game - we've all seen sad movies, and while they make you sad, no-one would say that that makes them bad.

And also, someone who gets unreasonably upset at defeat and loss, may not be someone I'd want to play with, for two main reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure I'd be able to run the kinds of games I enjoy; and secondly, I've seen people use out-of-character unhappiness/anger as a tool to manipulate the flow of the game. Obviously this isn't true in all cases, but it's something to watch out for - the bad faith upset which some people, sadly, can bring to a game.

It's just that, for me, maybe it's because I'm not the best role-player, but I've been a player in a game, and bad things happened to me, and I reacted as if I cared about the character. I whined a bit, and pouted. And then I was surprised by the DM who said "okay okay, that didn't happen." That was not what I was going for at all. I was getting into the story.

I know it's hard for the DM too, because I've been on the dark side of the screen, and I watched players react with anger or sadness at something not going the character's way, and I can't help but feel sympathy for them. As the DM, I have the power to make that sadness go away. I can instantly grant them their beloved weapon back, (or cohort, or familiar, or entire character, or whatever) because the DM can do that. But I think you have to resist it.

 

[hanez]

To be blunt, I'd rather have no rust monsters in the game at all rather than a DM who pulled the last stunt on your list...

Im confused. the last item on my list was

take the items and DESTROY them and as the party is whining like a bunch of babies stack the dungeon with a TON of magic items to reoutfit and reenergize the party

Are you suggesting that there is something negative to a DM boosting items in dungeon to solve the fact that the party is now woefully low on items?

There are ways to put items in a dungeon without straining your sense of reality, or the party knowing thats what the DM did. Obviously with a dangerous monster there may be signifigant reward (D&D sort of works on that assumption right?)

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.

Not too demean either side, but its becoming hard to see how these two types of play can "unite" in a single edition.