|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:03AM
#31
|
|
|
These monsters are an archaic part of the game and from an age where DM's felt the need to humiliate players in order to feel better about their system-supported DM entitlement.
DMs don't need rust monsters to humiliate players! There's really nothing stopping a bad DM from humiliating his players.
The DM's the boss at the table, regardless of the system and no matter how many locks you put in the game system to prevent it. If the DM crosses the line, he's going to run out of players quickly.
Please just don't bring them back. They aren't fun to play against, they aren't fun to play WITH, and they don't add anything to the story.
They're both fun to play against and to play with. It adds a little excitement to the combat. They're puzzles. Your casters summon creatures to use as meat shields while the heavily armored hide behind the casters to shoot arrows. It creates tention and tention is good for immersion.
**** happens both in real life and in adventuring parties.
And seriously, how many DM do you know that use Mord's disjunction, rust monsters or black puddings at the PCs without some kind of plan? You're right, as random monsters, they're just a nuisance. But you can use them to weaken the PCs, make a little part of the adventure more challenging, and the reward is usually an upgraded version of that gear you just destroyed. Of course the PCs then expect it so you sometimes wait for a session or two beforing giving it back just to get them a little worried.
I think toying with your players emotions is part of your job as a DM. Make them laugh, worried, scared, feel accomplished, etc...
"Sleepy McNap the Dwarf was steadily advancing into the cold, dark dungeon when he fell into a pit trap and got his loot destroyed by a nefarious rust monster!"
That DM could just as easily have sent a group of high level bandits to rob the players of their belongings. There's nothing wrong with robbing the PCs if you're not doing it to be a dick.
Moderated by
ORC_Ragnar
on Feb 28, 2013 - 02:20AM
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:11AM
#32
|
|
|
You know I gotta say, the ease of returning from the dead and lack of "save or die" type of effects, though it sounded fine to me at the beginning of 4e, really makes me not have as much investment in my character as I did in 3e. If there really is no downside risk of failure (a -2?) then you can do pretty much anything and get away with it. There is no threat that makes you share your character's sense of danger. Of course my fighter would be scared to face a lichking, but I as the player know that, meh, he will probably be fine. As long as save or die type conditions are used appropriately to heighten tension and not abused to simply kill PCs by DM fiat, there is nothing wrong with them. Same thing with the rust monster - oh and they are a reason for everyone to carry a bow 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:13AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
The DM's the boss at the table, regardless of the system and no matter how many locks you put in the game system to prevent it. If the DM crosses the line, he's going to run out of players quickly.
That's mostly true. But, it's also a matter of degree. If DMs are hard to find, say because the system is really rather hard to DM, the players will put up with more. If the /system/ seems to be screwing the players over ("Hey, I rolled a rust monster on the random encounter table and I just ran it as written..."), the DM can get away with it a little more. If the system is so bad that the DM needs to 'fix' it for the game to not totally suck, then the players might cut him little more slack when he 'goofs' - frequently.
There are, indeed, pathological DMs out there, and pathological players, for that matter. Both do their thing more easily in the context of a bad system than a good one. A good system doesn't stop them, but they'er easier to spot, and there's less impetus to put up with them...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:26AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The DM's the boss at the table, regardless of the system and no matter how many locks you put in the game system to prevent it. If the DM crosses the line, he's going to run out of players quickly.
That's mostly true. But, it's also a matter of degree. If DMs are hard to find, say because the system is really rather hard to DM, the players will put up with more. If the /system/ seems to be screwing the players over ("Hey, I rolled a rust monster on the random encounter table and I just ran it as written..."), the DM can get away with it a little more. If the system is so bad that the DM needs to 'fix' it for the game to not totally suck, then the players might cut him little more slack when he 'goofs' - frequently.
There are, indeed, pathological DMs out there, and pathological players, for that matter. Both do their thing more easily in the context of a bad system than a good one. A good system doesn't stop them, but they'er easier to spot, and there's less impetus to put up with them...
But these are all forces out of the designers' control. No amount of rules will ever stop bad DMs from being bad or change the supply and demand forces that enable bad DMing. Taken with the fact that the definition of "good" and "bad" change from person to person and you've got a nigh impossible task. All you can really do is keep things simple and provide options - which is what they appear to be trying to do.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 2:39AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
The DM's the boss at the table, regardless of the system and no matter how many locks you put in the game system to prevent it. If the DM crosses the line, he's going to run out of players quickly.
That's mostly true. But, it's also a matter of degree. If DMs are hard to find, say because the system is really rather hard to DM, the players will put up with more. If the /system/ seems to be screwing the players over ("Hey, I rolled a rust monster on the random encounter table and I just ran it as written..."), the DM can get away with it a little more. If the system is so bad that the DM needs to 'fix' it for the game to not totally suck, then the players might cut him little more slack when he 'goofs' - frequently.
There are, indeed, pathological DMs out there, and pathological players, for that matter. Both do their thing more easily in the context of a bad system than a good one. A good system doesn't stop them, but they'er easier to spot, and there's less impetus to put up with them...
But these are all forces out of the designers' control. No amount of rules will ever stop bad DMs from being bad or change the supply and demand forces that enable bad DMing.
Well, actually some qualities of a game will change the supply/demand factors for DMs. If a game is easy to run, more people will be willing & able to run it. When the bad DM says "you don't like the way I run this game, /you/ one run," one of his players will say "OK,' and better campaign will be launched.
Likewise, if a game seems to be going badly, you might wonder if its because the game's so bad, or because the DM's being a jerk. If the game's really kinda bad, you cut the DM some slack. If the game's pretty decent, and the DM needs to change and twist it around to be a jerk, you might not be so forgiving.
Taken with the fact that the definition of "good" and "bad" change from person to person
Meh. There are good games and bad games. You can plead subjectivity or relativism all you want, if there were no good or bad, there'd be nothing to discuss. Balance is better than imbalance, clarity is better than incoherence, consistent is better than arbitrary, evocative is better than bland, etc. There are many dimensions along which the quality of a game might be judged, and sure, many are qualitative. At most, their relative importance varies with taste...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 3:03AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Well, actually some qualities of a game will change the supply/demand factors for DMs. If a game is easy to run, more people will be willing & able to run it. When the bad DM says "you don't like the way I run this game, /you/ one run," one of his players will say "OK,' and better campaign will be launched.
Yeah the DM prep time does help, but if a game is fun people will be interested in running it. The thing I've noticed when folks start DMing after playing is they start to understand why the decisions are made the way they're made. They don't necessarily rule the way I would but they immediately back off DMs unless it's really important 'cause the develop an appreciation for the position and how hard it is to juggle everyone's taste and make it into a game. I bet you could say similar things about DMs who never play, but I've never met one.
Likewise, if a game seems to be going badly, you might wonder if its because the game's so bad, or because the DM's being a jerk. If the game's really kinda bad, you cut the DM some slack. If the game's pretty decent, and the DM needs to change and twist it around to be a jerk, you might not be so forgiving.
Umm I dunno about that. The game would have to be pretty bad to make it the obvious problem, but as a player I'm pretty passive and usually just happy to have someone run a game for me.
At most, their relative importance varies with taste...
Precisely my point. What one perceives as balanced on one end will be perceived as imbalanced on another. The rulers and methodology you use to come to a conclusion over quality of a game is also highly subjective. Some look no further than the math. Others the look and feel. Some care about math across pillars, others from class to class, others from specific groupings.
There's about a million different ways to slice the pie and we all want it sliced our way. But you're right about one thing: the more consistent you are about always taking the same slice, the easier it us for people to understand where you're coming from and probably the game will be better for it.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 3:19AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
At most, their relative importance varies with taste...
Precisely my point. What one perceives as balanced on one end will be perceived as imbalanced on another.
Balance is a matter of degree, and perfect balance at best something you can work towards rather than something you can reach. Whether you find one game 'balanced' or 'imbalanced' a better-balanced game is still better balanced (or less imbalanced). You might say 'hot or cold is subjective,' the native New Yorker in Februrary find 35 degrees warm, the native californian in july find 70 degrees cool. 70 degrees remains warmer than 35 though, and both will agree on that.
The rulers and methodology you use to come to a conclusion over quality of a game is also highly subjective. Some look no further than the math. Others the look and feel. Some care about math across pillars, others from class to class, others from specific groupings.
We're splitting hairs, at this point. Yes, some measures are quantitative and others qualitative, and there are many potential measures. Any one comparison, though, is not subjective. Whether you love balance or don't much care about it, some games are better balanced than others. Whether you throw a book across the room when you find a vague rule, or just shrug and keep reading, some rules are clearer than others.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 3:42AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
But it also means that it's more about player response. I think it's pretty clear that the community is really diverse and will have a variety of responses. You're never going to please everyone and how a game is perceived has a lot more to do with how it's treated than what it actually is. but back to the topic, I think we absolutely should have rust monsters and other crazy creatures out there because they're a dial just like many others and some people like creatures that players automatically want to avoid because it leads to interesting gameplay. The fact that the consequences are real and lasting is what makes players treat them differently, and to some that's a really good thing. I also think we should be able to dial it back, and I think we need some really clear guidance about how game changing a given power is.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 3:56AM
#39
|
|
|
As long as I'm not making it obvious, my players tend to respond a lot better to losing equipment as a result of an in game occurance than through some process of negotiation. There are lots of ways of taking gear away, rust monsters going won't stop gear from being lost.
Even when discussing it with players, you would solve it through actual play. It is just really challenging in a game to get rid of one specific item without it being obvious.
As for raise dead and the threat of death, the real irony is that in RAW 3e dying was actually a benefit. Sure, you lost a level, but you did not loose nearly enough treasure to compensate for it so it got you ahead of the gold curve. So in the end it was a lot of paperwork with little real benefit. I doubt it is the ease of raise dead that makes 4e threat feels stale. I think that is more likely due to the fact it is simply a LOT harder to actually die in 4e.
I do agree with poster on the level drain thread. Isn't it saying something about the hit point system if people only fear level drainers and ruster monsters more then other traditional powerhouses like dragons?
(Personally I don't mind weird monsters that much since I can simply decide not to use it. I do think there needs to be a warning signal for new DMs so that they do not accidentally create a problem by incorrectly using the monsters.)
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 28, 2013 - 4:09AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Rust Monsters and other jerk monsters are okay. As long as they come with a warning label that describes to inexperienced or poor DMs how not to use them.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
