Rust Monster Lovin'

[gizmo33]

Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.

I respect my players - that's WHY there's a chance of bad stuff happening. Expecting them to consider to treat the dungeon like it's dangerous is an insult to their intelligence if the dungeon is not dangerous! What I'm arguing for is to design an adventure game that has more than the illusion of risk built into it.

Besides, talking about how this site is "more and more antagonistic" and then presuming that some people's gaming style is something you "grow beyond" is not constructive.

How is this different than orcs wanting to kill PCs? Isn't that adversarial too? What exactly is your list of "bad things that can happen to PCs" if it does not include negative modifications to their equipment inventory? Haven't people "grown beyond" getting upset at the DM when El Ravager loses his +12 hackmaster?

 

[Garnfellow]

I think this has been a pretty interesting thread coming off a pretty interesting article. I’m not sure I agree completely with the redesign, but then again I think some folks are completely missing the point of Mike’s piece -- this is not an actual, suggested change to the official rules but a purely theoretical exercise, designed to walk us through an example process of contemporary game design. No need to get too worked up about it.

One thing about this thread that is really bugging me, though, is the straw man argument that these changes to the rust monster are done just to those coddle poor, whiny, 3rd edition players. This charge seems to get repeated again and again -- and frankly, it’s pure bunkum. Nowhere in the article does Mike state this is his goal.

The reason to consider -- consider! -- redesigning the rust monster is that its one signature ability is extremely disruptive to the flow of the game. Period. No need to read anything more into it. No one at WotC is worried about anyone’s self-esteem or making a player cry.

For better or worse, in 3e a PC’s equipment is an vital component of that PC’s power. Permanently destroy that equipment, and you significantly weaken that character, making subsequent encounters far more difficult. I’ve loved the rust monster ever since I saw the Bill Willingham illustration in the old red D&D book. I even have one of the original plastic toys that inspired the critter. And yeah, I’ve laughed as players ran in stark terror from one.

But let’s face it: the rust monster is a gimmick encounter and I haven’t used one in years. Its sole, solitary purpose is to serve as an annoyance that must be overcome to get to a “real” encounter. I dare say few people have never built a dungeon with the rust monster as the boss monster. And in that light, its ability can greatly hamper -- out of all proportion to the nature of the encounter -- the ability of a group to get to the real meat of the adventure.

Say that an intrepid band of adventurers were exploring the Dread Manse of Impenetrable Evil, in search of the vampire lord’s lost crypt. After many brave deeds and heart-pounding battles, they were drawing near to the second level and the supposed location of crypt.

But then that dang rust monster went and ate the paladin’s armor, shield, and his magic sword, as well as the barbarian’s favorite axe. Now the whole group has to pull out and make for town so folks can reequip, or else that vampire will massacre them. This could easily kill a session of game time. Does this sound like a cool diversion? Is this really advancing the plot? Is this a lot of fun for anyone, including the DM?

Another reason to consider changing the rust monster is that it is the quintessential one trick pony monster. The first time someone gets nailed with one of those antennae, it’s a wonderful thing. But after that? Not so much. Unless you specifically engineer a real railroad situation that forces the PCS into close quarters with a rust monster, when experienced PCs see a rust monster they either run or nuke it from orbit or both.

 

[The_Gneech]

Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!

Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.

1) Facing dangerous foes and overcoming them is how my players have a good time. Facing a monster from which the negative effects "reset" after 10 minutes would bore them to tears.

2) The rust monster is an encounter; it's not the GM. The GM can want the players to win, and still put them up against creatures that could hurt them. In fact, he pretty much HAS to.

3) "Grew beyond that?" Who's antagonistic here?

-The Gneech

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Spoken like a true grognard. Screw the players having a good time, running a balanced game or whatever. D&D is about the DM power tripping! Your ass is mine, and I'll rip up your sheet whenever I feel like it!

Every day this site becomes more and more antagonistic to anyone but the traditional "screw you" DM of the early 80's, with its typical oppositional style of running a game. Its sad how few of us actually grew beyond that.

:\

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Hm.. I guess I am one of them grognards who never outgrew such a messed up gaming style..

Example of the most recent use of a RM in my game...which was quite a while ago

Group adventuring on an anti-fairy tale, with a princess who hired them to rescue the prince who is captured by an evil coven of Hags...I will skip all the entertainment in between with half the party wanting to kill the princess..who had forced them to accept her as a party member..and get to the RM encounter.. In a cavern leading to the Coven's lair they find the darling prince locked up in a wooden cage.. inside a permanent 'Silence' zone. He was accompanied by this nicely shaped buxom elf who, as it happens, was missing most of her cloths. The Palidon seemed to completely miss that the Prince was not quite occupied with the fair young lass..and rushed foward to free them.. faster to getting the Princess off his back I think.
He cut through the ropes tying the cage and was immediately embraced by the lass..whose skin started rusting through his plate mail... she was really a poly-other RM.
Not being a total RBDM, I was giving the armor some time as the rusting ability was supressed somewhat in the new form....
Besides, the entertainment of the Palidon trying to get the lass off of him.. while silenced an unable to explain his actions to the others..

Made for a great encounter..and his armor was destroyed before he got to fight the Coven..who came to investigate the howling laughter coming from near the prison



Anyway, I think the -2/-4/-6/gone could work very well.. but I also figure the RM is quiet useful as is. I susggest using the varient that fits your playstyle, or ignore the poor little critter as appropriate.. and let us grognards who need to 'grow up' enjoy the game we like it

 

[gizmo33]

One thing about this thread that is really bugging me,

But there's no reason to get worked up, as you say.

though, is the straw man argument that these changes to the rust monster are done just to those coddle poor, whiny, 3rd edition players. This charge seems to get repeated again and again -- and frankly, it’s pure bunkum. Nowhere in the article does Mike state this is his goal.

True. Saying that players are coddle and whiny is insulting. I agree that people shouldn't say that. But one could argue that WotC is trying to change the types of bad things that can happen to PCs to a relatively short list. It's not just Mike's article - there are plenty of other cases of this already happening in the rules.

The reason to consider -- consider! -- redesigning the rust monster is that its one signature ability is extremely disruptive to the flow of the game. Period.

What the heck does "disruptive to the flow of the game" really mean? Does somebody have a rust monster miniature that actually rusts the players dice or rips up his character sheet? I think you're making an assumption here about how the game ought to flow that IMO should be explicitly stated. I've never seen a monster keep people from playing the game.

For better or worse, in 3e a PC’s equipment is an vital component of that PC’s power. Permanently destroy that equipment, and you significantly weaken that character, making subsequent encounters far more difficult.

Why does this side of the argument keep saying this over and over without addressing the fundemental issue? One would have to assume that you guys NEVER capture PCs and take their stuff. That no one EVER sunders, disjoins, uses acid, fire, pick pockets - or MYRIADS of other ways to divest players of their stuff. PLEASE, SOMEONE on that side of the argument explain this.

But let’s face it: the rust monster is a gimmick encounter and I haven’t used one in years.

I don't find this statement entirely unreasonable. It's just that what's the point of redesigning a monster when you object to it's premise. It's as I said in my nymph analogy above.

Its sole, solitary purpose is to serve as an annoyance that must be overcome to get to a “real” encounter.

The same thing is true of pretty much every other encounter in DnD - relatively few have a real chance of killing PCs. Managing your resources so that the rust monster does not incapacitate the party is it's challenge.

I dare say few people have never built a dungeon with the rust monster as the boss monster. And in that light, its ability can greatly hamper -- out of all proportion to the nature of the encounter -- the ability of a group to get to the real meat of the adventure.

Show me a redesign that makes you want to make the creature a boss encounter. Not all monsters are boss encounters.

After many brave deeds and heart-pounding battles,

What brave deeds? After the brave adventurers nearly suffered the catastrophe of a -2 penalty on their attack rolls? OH the horror! Seriously, I can't figure out why any of the previous battles would be heart-pounding unless the players were naive. THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO GET TO THE BBEG ENCOUNTER. Anything else would be disruptive to the game flow AFAICT. So they should just chill and wait for the train to arrive.

Is this a lot of fun for anyone, including the DM?

When your players realize that they're on a railroad, and that fighting the minions of the vampire is going to have absolutely no effect on their ability to reach and fight the BBEG, then the minion encounters will be pointless. IMO story teller DMs rely on the reputation of other DMs to make the minion encounters plausibly dangerous. As a player I would quickly catch on as to the pointlessness of anything but the BBEG encounters in that particular game.

Unless you specifically engineer a real railroad situation that forces the PCS into close quarters with a rust monster, when experienced PCs see a rust monster they either run or nuke it from orbit or both.

You don't have to "engineer" an ecounter to take into account encounter distance and other factors. Experienced players will see a monster and either kill it, or run from it, or both.

A rust monster with a smidgin of cunning will probably figure out a way to minimize it's vulnerability. The hawks in your campaign don't walk around on the ground looking for food, do they? It's hardly "railroading" to assume some level of cunning from creatures.

 

[Mycanid]

Amazing ... the thread is still going on. Glyfair must be proud!

Anyway - but to the topic at hand. Post on!

 

[lkj]

Here's the two opposite sides of the issue, never spelled out more clearly. The truth is more somewhere in the middle. My take on something like the rust monster is: Don't use it, if its existing powers don't fit the style of play you prefer. There's bound to be other players using it as written, and they're the ones who'll benefit. If anything, a redesign should include quick fixes for optional levels of deadliness. Something like: Standard Rust monster does -2 per hit to limit of -6. Sidebar: CR 5 = Reflex save DC 17 or item loses half hit points, and then gone on next hit; CR 6 = Reflex save or gone; CR 7 = no save. Basically, scaling monsters, the same way Dungeon magazine scales adventures.

This suggestion falls much in the same general line of my own thinking. I'd put it this way-- I really like having some monsters, like the rust monster, that have scary-- even arbitrary-- effects. It adds danger and flavor to the game. I certainly wouldn't want all, or even most, of the monsters in the game to be that way. But I'd hate if all the monsters were 're-designed' to 'smooth out' the potentially bad effects of the occasional 'crazy' monster, like good old rusty. It'd take a lot of the fun of the game for me.

The problem seems to be the fear that these monsters will be used by 'mediocre' DM's too frequently or in such a way as to ruin player enjoyment (rather than using them sparingly and in situations that add an element of random mystery to the game). I understand both sides of this argument. I agree that it's a very real possibility, albeit I'd think it a pretty rare event regardless. But the way I'd handle it is a bit different. Rather than re-design the creature, simply add a DM's note to the monster description.

"DM Note: The rust ability of this creature can cause serious damage to the PC's abilities. While this monster can be a very enjoyable and memorable encounter, it should be used sparingly or, perhaps, with a modified rust ability that only makes the metal item unuseable for a temporary period."

I realize that could be written more effectively, but you get the idea.

AD

 

[Glyfair]

Amazing ... the thread is still going on. Glyfair must be proud!

Not when it's still going on because it devolved into some sort of an edition war. The beginning was fine. The discussion of rust monsters is fine. The discussion of how 3rd editon doesn't allow DMs to excercise their judgement, or how old school DMs are all about screwing the players over I'm not fine about.

 

[Knight Otu]

BWhy does this side of the argument keep saying this over and over without addressing the fundemental issue? One would have to assume that you guys NEVER capture PCs and take their stuff. That no one EVER sunders, disjoins, uses acid, fire, pick pockets - or MYRIADS of other ways to divest players of their stuff. PLEASE, SOMEONE on that side of the argument explain this.

I feel that it has been explained - most of the other stuff tends to be harder to pull off than a touch attack. Mordy's Disjunction is a notable exception here, and I've seen many whines about it, and many people were surprised that it wasn't changed in 3.5.