Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5793829" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Who, posting in this thread, has that attitude?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>MM3 rot grubs, on the other hand, I have cheerfully used. A well-designed and fun monster.</p><p></p><p>That is me. </p><p></p><p>Liewise. I want a game where I don't have to break the rules for the game to work.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>idea</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>What was much more interesting, for me as a GM, was <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/309950-actual-play-my-first-social-only-session.html" target="_blank">running an encounter at a dinner party</a>. 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5793829, member: 42582"] 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. That is me. Liewise. I want a game where I don't have to break the rules for the game to work. 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 [I]idea[/I] 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 [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/309950-actual-play-my-first-social-only-session.html]running an encounter at a dinner party[/url]. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I don't DM 4th edition, but when I do
Top