Rust Monster Lovin'

[Ourph]

There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper.

I don't think the game-stopper accusation has been anywhere NEAR proven. If the Rust Monster eats your armor there are work-arounds for that just as their are work-arounds for HP loss, ability score damage, curses, diseases, etc.

Say a fighter loses his armor. You would argue he's no longer able to continue adventuring, he's dead in the water until he can buy new armor. IMO that's completely untrue. The Wizard casts Mage Armor and Cat's Grace on him to boost his AC and he is ready to go (maybe not with the same exact AC as he had before, but it's not like he simply can't function).

Say a fighter loses his magic sword. You would argue he can no longer contribute to the party. Again, I think that's completely misrepresenting the truth. Someone in the group has an extra weapon (most likely the fighter himself) he can use. Magic Weapon, Divine Favor, Align Weapon, Bull's Strength, Heroism, Rage, Keen Edge, etc. all go a long way toward helping the Fighter stay effective.

Using spells to help make up for equipment loss is no different than using spells to ameliorate HP loss or to reverse ability damage or to remove curses and diseases. It's all a matter of utilizing resources, it's just that the Rust Monster requires players to use their resources in different ways than the normal, average encounter.

I think the problem here really IS "whiny player syndrome" because it's not that the character can't go on, it's that the character can't go on at the same maximum level of effectiveness he was functioning at before the equipment was lost. To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, I don't agree that's what we're (or Mearls) is talking about here. I don't see "solid rules foundation" = "non-creative and judgement-challeneged"

Not what I said. I think you can supply a solid rules foundation without adopting a "DM-as-a-rules-computer" approach. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

that's actually somewhat offensive.

Uh oh...today's ultimate sin...

Seriously, though, if the design approach assumes a DM that heartlessly applies the rules like a computer, then the approach assumes the DM is not going to exercise judgment or creativity in his application of the rules -- he's going to heartlessly apply the rules, like a robot. If you find that offensive, I don't think your beef lies with me. Not sure what else to say to this.

 

[hong]

Yes, I understand. I think it's well-intentioned, I just don't agree that it's a good approach.

For one, I think that the "DM-as-rules-computer" approach encourages "rules creep" and the attendant "record-keeping creep," because there's a tendency to want to supply a rule for the computer so it "knows what to do."

There's nothing wrong with that, because experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.

 

[hong]

To me that's just another way of saying "I won't play unless the deck is stacked in my favor" and I can't see why anyone would want the game to be designed around players who approach the game with that attitude.

Because they have more money than you.

 

[rounser]

There's nothing wrong with that, because experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.

Yeah. Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.

 

[Glyfair]

Yeah. Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.

Is this sort of comment necessary at all?

 

[hong]

Yeah. Maybe the "In Eberron" and "In Faerun" columns in monster descriptions could be replaced with "If You're Stupid" and "If You're Deluded" columns, with suggestions for the clueless and the overconfident respectively.

Indeed.

 

[rounser]

Is this sort of comment necessary at all?

Was meant as a joke; will go back put in winky.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

There's nothing wrong with that, because experienced DMs can deviate from a stable rules set.

Okay, I'll concede that (again), because it's tangential to my main argument. The DM is certainly free to cut out any rules he doesn't like, replace them new ones, and otherwise spindle, fold, and mutilate to his heart's content.

My main concern is this one (since we're going in circles, already, I'm going to be lazy and copy it from the same post you quoted):

I also think it boxes in DMs by providing a de facto standard of how things "should work," rules-wise. Now, providing such examples is a good thing, in one sense, but it's a bad thing if there are no examples of "edge cases" in the rules. If every monster, every trap, and every threat fits neatly into the homogenized formula, then that implies that there shouldn't be a threat that doesn't follow the formula. And if that's the case, woe to the DM who does something outside the established norm; judging by some of the posts, here, he'd be accused of trying to screw their characters and not playing "by the rules." I think it would be better to keep some of the "edge case" threats and include some suggestions on how to use them, rather than forcing them into the box that is "the formula." In other words, teach the DM how to use his judgment, rather than assuming he doesn't have any.

In other words, IMO, it's not so much that "the new rust monster sucks and is nerfed" vs. "the old rust monster rocks." Rather, it's "this design approach encourages homogenized, neatly conforming challenges...wouldn't it be better to have some 'edge cases' in the rules? Wouldn't it be better to provides some examples of how a creative DM can use his judgment to bend or break the established norms and enhance his game."

IMO, that's just a better approach. You can provide stable rules without assuming the DM acts like a rules-computer. And when you think about the DM as a creative judge, rather than a computer, it's a lot easier to come up with approaches that help him be a creative DM that exercises good judgment. If you think about the DM as a computer, you're not really thinking about ways to help him grow along those lines.

 

[BluSponge]

There's been quite a bit of substantiating evidence in this thread. You can't say it isn't a game-stopper. At most, you can disagree with the evidence (contradiction), say that those who disagree are whiny players who need coddling (personal attack), or say that your experience doesn't back up that finding (subjectivity). But it's as reliable a finding as there really can be on the internet. It has brought games to a screeching halt in a way that an ogre's greatclub doesn't.

Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that its a game breaker, have done my absolute best not to call the nay-sayers whiny players, and frankly have never used the thing in an adventure so have no anecdotal evidence to cloud my judgement. All the rust monster stories posted here (anecdotal evidence, so it's worth exactly that) has gone CONTRARY to what you've been espousing. Nothing posted thus far, from Mike or anyone else here, has convinced me that the rust monster does anything other than what it and a dozen other monsters are *designed* to do (be a trap for uncautious PCs). Nothing posted from Mike, you, or anyone else has convinced me the redesign does anything but turn the encounter into just another run of the mill obstacle with all the flavor of an open 10" pit. The MAJORITY of the people here who have commented on the redesign (again, small, biased sample), even those who LIKE the redesign, have stated that the new "temporary" weapon damage factor is broken -- moreso than the original version, perhaps.

You can bend to the gospel of Mearls all you want. That's fine. But please don't just dismiss all the criticism because others of us don't agree. Your characterization of us is about as insulting as me calling you a whiny git who can't play a character who isn't surgically attached to his equipment and stomps off when the DM tells you you've run out of arrows. It's inaccurate and irritating.

Tom