Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5794151" data-attributes="member: 82160">Well.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I never said you should use a rust monster and if you don't your playing a board game.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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 &quot;you walk into a room and a rust monster charges&quot;.&nbsp; In fact I have to plug the dungeon magazine &quot;prince of redhand&quot; as an awesome example of a dinner party adventure.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; What is so special about a rust monster that doesnt threaten your weapons?&nbsp; Why not use oh I don't know any other monster.&nbsp; I take issue with removing the ability to make the game &quot;fairer&quot; and less &quot;dangerous&quot; at the expense of having memorable features in monsters.&nbsp; This type of play to me is like a board game, and I have watched it in action.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I don't want to USE the rust monster, but I do want a D&amp;D where players know that things like that exist, and might be around the corner.&nbsp; Personally I dab&nbsp; rumours of the Rust Monster here and there in case my PCs want to go face an epic challenge with epic reward.&nbsp; 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&amp;D has always prescribed to it.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not arguing for its use, I am arguing for not removing its central ability.&nbsp; Let DMs who want to use it, use it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hanez, post: 5794151, member: 82160"] 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 [U]you should use a rust monster and if you don't your playing a board game.[/U] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification