Which one do you prefer your character suffer? Death vs Rust Monster vs Level Drain

[Hussar]

Ariosto - which one would you assume if you were designing a 1e adventure module - that a 5th level party would have no magic weapons, or some magic weapons?

The entire point of this was that you claimed that there are no assumptions built into the game that the party would have magic weapons at a given time. While the assumptions weren't explicitly spelled out, I think that they most certainly were there.

Apparently my point is no so difficult to understand that other people cannot grasp it. Bill91 got it in one. Perhaps the problem lies elsewhere?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I voted death.

First, gear is extremely important, even more so than a single level difference if I can't get a True Res.

Second, even if I don't get a resurrection, I have so many backup character concepts that I won't ever run out.

Third, level drain is a really, really, really unfun concept. It takes all the negatives of character death and gear loss and wraps them together in one big package of suck.

 

[Ariosto]

The entire point of this was that you claimed that there are no assumptions built into the game that the party would have magic weapons at a given time.

If that wasn't the assumption, then why are 1e modules so chock a block with magic weapons?

Your characters can venture, or be transported by trick or trap, from the first dungeon level to the second -- regardless of whether they possess magical weapons. The tables allow the possibility of encountering a gargoyle (maybe after meeting a rust monster) on that level. It is not the DM's job to hold your hand and keep you safe! It is the DM's job to provide a challenging and interesting environment to negotiate.

Sure, no disagreement.

Completely agree.

???

 

[Lanefan]

Unreasonable? Not a bit. +1 weapons are fairly common and minor as magic items go. I'd especially expect to see it if a DM were following the advice of the 1e DMG and placing magic items that fit in with the campaign he's running, particularly since they'd be a natural defense in any area in which monsters only hit by magical weapons were relatively common.

That said, once the treasures were placed, it would be up to the skill and luck of the PCs to actually obtain them.

And to then keep them in one piece...see below...

Hopefully they're paying attention, being cautious enough that they aren't blundering into the worst danger areas without having a chance of picking up the some of the bolstering loot first.

Or, if they do blunder into the danger zone, they're on top of things enough to know when to back the truck up.

I have no problem whatsoever giving lots of magic items - particularly weapons - to the party. Why? Because I know damn well they're gonna break the things just about as fast as they find 'em! Right now, the two parties I'm running are levels 3-5 and 2-4 repsectively, and both groups have various magic weapons ranging from +0-with-extras to +3. As DM, does this bother me? Not at all. In fact, it's a benefit if anything, as it gives me a bit more headroom to throw tougher/more interesting opponents at them.

But they still freak out when they see a Rusty!

That story business, I think, makes death, item loss and level drain bigger bothers.

It can. Or, depending how you view the greater game, it might not matter at all.

If you see the story as something the *party* develops, with individual characters coming and going, then the bad stuff just becomes part of the story. My favourite analogy here is the party or campaign as a sports franchise, with the characters equating to the individual players on the team. The story would equate to the history of the franchise (the Montreal Canadiens <=> the Dafan D+D campaign), with different players/characters (Rocket Richard, Guy Lafleur, etc. <=> 'Sheh, Rugor, etc.) holding larger or smaller roles, or none, in any given part of it.

But if your view extends no further than your own single character and that's the only character you intend to play, then the bad stuff sucks. But the blame for that lies not with the bad stuff...

Lan-"I ran with those guys"-efan

 

[Aus_Snow]

Heh...let's say you're playing a heavily armoured character.

Of the 3 options, which one is the MOST preferable outcome that you as a player would prefer to be subject to?

Rust Monster, any ol' time. I will accept whatever fate, but that's the one I would pick, if I could, and if I had to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ariosto - which one would you assume if you were designing a 1e adventure module - that a 5th level party would have no magic weapons, or some magic weapons?

Neither. You are proposing a false dichotomy, as I stated earlier.

There. See how easy that was?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Allow me to elaborate.

If you assume that 5th level PCs have magic weapons, then there is no reason to put them into the adventure module -- they have them already.

If you assume that 5th level PCs should have magic weapons when they need them, you not only put them in the module, but you include signs that say "Magic Weapon Here For the Taking".

If you follow Gygax's advice, you seed the module with magic weapons which the PCs may or may not find, and may or may not have when they "need" them. You are creating opportunity; you are not dictating or making assumptions about how that opportunity is utilized.



RC

 

[Hussar]

???

Congratulations. You can take several quotes out of context and strip away any meaning.

We're done now.

RC - No, there is no false dichotomy here at all.

If I build a 1e module for 5th level PC's, can I put a wight in the random encounter table?

If I do, then I am assuming that the PC's have magic weapons. If I cannot make that assumption then I cannot put a wight in the random encounter table.

But, of course you know this, so, I suspect that this is more about trying to "prove" something.

We're done here too.

 

[billd91]

If I build a 1e module for 5th level PC's, can I put a wight in the random encounter table?

If I do, then I am assuming that the PC's have magic weapons. If I cannot make that assumption then I cannot put a wight in the random encounter table.

Not true at all. You're not assuming they have them to fight the wight any more than you're assuming they can run away from the wight simply by putting it on the encounter table. But, having the wights being on the random encounter table, I think 1e's guidelines would encourage the DM to sprinkle about some magic weapons to enable the PCs to take on the wight... if they don't have those weapons already.

Your take on this with the wight example implies that monsters are there solely so PCs can defeat them through an application of force. That's not necessarily so, nor should it be so.

 

[Hussar]

Your take on this with the wight example implies that monsters are there solely so PCs can defeat them through an application of force. That's not necessarily so, nor should it be so.

A creature that appears on a random encounter table is most likely going to be a combat encounter no? Particularly as wights aren't known for their conversational abilities.

True, they could just run away (assuming they're faster than a wight - my knowledge of PC movement rates and a wight's is lacking). But, claiming that a random encounter isn't assumed to be a combat encounter is a bit of a stretch IMO.

Meh, my entire point was that, while there are not specifically called out wealth assumptions in 1e, it's not exactly a stretch to think that by level X, you can generally guess that PC's will, at the very least, have one magic weapon.

Which is all I was calling into question anyway.