I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned enlightened criticism of WotC' R&D department for Dungeons & Dragons hit a new level when Melan first drafted his "tyranny of fun" tirade as a response to Mike Mearls' remakening of the Rust Monster (with Jeff Rients' much later tale of two 4Es scoring a close second - Arius Claudius, anyone?).

However, no matter how much Melan refined his position in later posts, there remained a blind spot as far as identifying the target group of aforementioned design philosophy is concerned.

Quote from: MelanWhat isn’t fun? The things the fans complain about. But who complains? In short, the kind of people older rulebooks (and pardon my edition snobbery, but that’s just how I see it) warned us about. People whose characters got their swords destroyed by a rust monster and who threw a hissy fit over it. People whose characters died to a hold person spell and who wrote angry letters to Dragon magazine.

Or here again

Quote from: Melan4th edition is strongly in support of the folks previous editions and gaming practice referred to as 'bad players', and their perspectives are currently dominant in gaming discourse. They are the people who couldn't deal with characters getting killed, complained because the game wasn't perfectly "balanced" (the solution? Uniformisation and sameness!), and got into nitpicky arguments over rules because they had neither the common sense nor shared trust to resolve situations amicably and avoid abusing the rules. These types now have an ideological support for their dickery - the dogma that common sense is in fact not possible or even desirable. A typical stance, I might add, for people who don't have any...

This, I think, can be improved upon by squarely identifying said people with the RPGA players (not RPGA DMs, in my experience, by the way) - as has been said in posts displaying evidence here, and then here and finally here. An awful lot of design in 4th edition doesn't make sense until you adjust yourself to the fact that this design accomodates Organized Play formats.

However, with the release of Monster Manual II for 4th edition, the evidence in support of this claim has reached a new level. For now the very game element which triggered the complaint of WotC R&D propagating uniformisation for the sake of standardized play - the rust monster - has itself demonstrably become nothing else but the codification of a RPGA ruling.

Let's take this one step at a time. First, the new rust monster, with the relevant bits excerpted.

Quote from: Rust Monster in 4E (excerpts)Attack Mode: Dissolve Metal (standard action; per encounter) • Targets a creature wearing or wielding a rusting magic item of 10th level or lower or any non-magic rusting item; +9 vs. Reflex; the rusting item is destroyed.
Residuum Recovery  • A rust monster consumes any item it destroys. The residuum from any magic items the monster has destroyed can be retrieved from its stomach. The residuum is worth the market value of the item (not one-fifth the value).

"Residuum", in 4E, is magical dust which performs the in-game duty of currency when creating magical items (PHB, p. 300). The creation of magic items, in turn, I should add, is now a "ritual" i.e. any PC can perform the creation of a magic item, no matter how powerful, as long as he dishes out measly 175 gp for the exercise and the desired magic item's cost quantified in "residuum". The ritual, I should add, consumes 1 hour of in-game time and so cannot be performed - for instance - right after slaying a rust monster in case the module is timed in such a way that two or three more combat encounters are already in cue.

Now, no matter how much you may dislike this new commodification of the creation of magic items (nothing new to 3E, I may say, with crystals in the Magic Item Compendium), pay attention to how this interacts with the rust monster.

In principle, a rust monster no longer destroys your magic item. It puts your access to said item out of control for the duration of... well until you (or someone else in the game world) can perform said enchant item ritual... which is usually.... at the end of a session when the DM allocates the 1 hour the ritual consumes (plus the optional hike back to town, which can be hand waved too). So: a rust monster puts your item access on hold for the duration of the remainder of the session.

And what does that remind us of? Why, of the RPGA's customary method of dealing with sundered weapons, of course! See, if you had a nasty RPGA DM who would use Sunder on your treasured magic sword, you could - at the end of the session - dish out half the gp cost of this magic sword to retrieve it back onto your Magic Item Logsheet. Hurray! ...because losing treasured magic items for which those RPGA whiners worked really hard would lose the RPGA its treasured player stock. Which they can't let happen. And that's why everyone in 4E, you see, and I mean everyone ever playing this game, be it at conventions or at home with friends you trust, is now subject to the same ruling. And, oh, that nasty rule that you had to pay half your item's gp cost to get it back? They got rid of that too!

And to top it off, lo' and behold this gem of design culture, a mini-design essay that accompanies the new rust monster, which reads like a post lifted straight from EnWorld back in 2006.

Quote from: MM2, page 179A Guide to Using Rust Monsters

For a PC, the threat of losing gear can be greater than the threat of being reduced to 0 hp. Because of this fact, rust monsters can be more terrifying for players to face than a rampaging red dragon. A character who loses his or her armor becomes extremely vulnerable, and a character who has lost a magic weapon won't be as effective in later encounters. When a rust monster consumes a PC's weapon, it effectively gives that PC a significant penalty on attack and damage rolls until he or she can find a suitable replacement weapon. A PC who loses armor to a rust monster suffers an even more dramatic reduction in AC unless replacement armor can be found.

The possibility of recovering residuum from a rust monster or a dweomer eater alleviates this disadvantage to some degree, but the PCs will still need to find time to rest and use the Create Magic Item ritual, and they might even need to "head back to town" to find a way to replace the item. But you don't want an encounter with a rust monster to be one that forces the PCs to stop adventuring. When you include a rust monster in an encounter, think about ways to allow the PCs to carry on, with perhaps less optimal gear. For example, the PCs might have had a previous encounter that provided armor or weapons that they wouldn't normally use, or the PCs might be able to fashion clubs or other simple weapons out of nearby materials.

Eventually, though, the PCs should have an opportunity to regain their lost equipment by using the residuum found in the monster. Although a PC might lose an item, it is intended that the loss be only temporary, which is why the residuum recovered from a rust monster is equal to the full value of the destroyed item. How the PCs deal with the loss is what makes the rust monster fun. Be wary of PCs who try to abuse a rust monster's powers to their advantage by using rust monsters to consume items the PCs would otherwise sell for one-fifth value. In such cases, you should reduce the resulting residuum to one-fifth value, effectively making the rust monster a free Disenchant Magic Item ritual.

I'm out of words. Really. I mean, it's so easy to joke about that, but no joke would equal the actual thing. Dude, that sucks arse so massively I'm stunned. For Pete's sake, give me back my save or die traps!!!

Why is the base assumption that PCs will dungeon-crawl or otherwise be on a short, raid-style mission?

As a player (although I mostly GM), I always have a back-up weapon on my persdon, plus extra weapons and armor (plus spare boots, clothes, etc) on the party cart. Because stuff breaks or gets lost.

And in my campaigns, regardless of genre (although I don't use D&D or d20), players had better do the same.

Now, admitedly, I do not have creatures or spells in my campaigns that can harm an enchanted weapon, but on the flip side, in the course of fifty to sixty sessions the PCs will likely encounter just enough enchanted arms to equip each PC with one weapon, and maybe an enchanted dirk or dagger.

Sad stuff.

Guys, you totally misunderstand. Our heros will not just encounter the rust monster. They will go looking for one, if they need to disenchant a magic item (i.e. reduce it to residuum).


I can actually think of a merchant who made up or required a reliable ritual for surgery. He could then keep a rust monster, and retrieve the residuum from its stomach without killing it.

Maybe, in time there could be rust monster breeders and a domesticated form of rusty. Maybe house rusties would excrete most of the residuum without digesting it, so one wouldn't need to cut their stomachs open.

Of course, before that happens, there might be Humanoids for the Ethical Treatment of Magical Beasts.

Ah, I've been waiting for these "We have come here to bury Caesar not to praise him" posters to show up. About time!

Interesting tweet from Mearls himself just this Thursday:

Quote from: Mearls, via twitter13:40 DMing Motto: Why kill them when you can let them live with the consequences of failure? Far more interesting.

Quote from: Garnfellow;305279Interesting tweet from Mearls himself just this Thursday:

Quote from: MearlsDMing Motto: Why kill them when you can let them live with the consequences of failure? Far more interesting.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a shameless plug.

Here's the original (s.v. the paragraph on "Give the players the sun and make them fight for the moon"). Here's the plug, of which the twitter is a rehash.

What's more - what's the point of signing up to that DM motto if you design monsters which positively screw with that concept? After all, Mearls' design philosophy is to minimize what he calls "blast radius" (a persuasive criticism thereof is given here).

I'm guessing it comes in new packaging as well:

Quote from: 1of3;305274Guys, you totally misunderstand. Our heros will not just encounter the rust monster. They will go looking for one, if they need to disenchant a magic item (i.e. reduce it to residuum).

Saddest part? They will not, because they won't need it with all that crap that actually amounts to "every PC must have any and all toys the player wants him to have or you fail as a DM".

But... in your post's vein (I lol'd):

"Good morning to you, sir, and welcome to Willy's Magic Weapon Exchange. So, you want a... +2 flaming longsword? Excellent, just hand me your +2 freezing mace. It will be ready in about an hour. RUSTYYYYYY!!!"

Y'know I'm the last person to comment on matters 4E but from the perspective of a gamer who has gamed for some time (mostly as a GM) who is aware of the likes and dislikes of a diverse range of players and who understands that games change and playstyles change, I have to say, the quoted text of the MM2 is another perfect example of why this game will not be played by my crew. This is not meant to be a slight against fans of the game or indeed even this particular playstyle, but it's just not for us.

Regards,
David R

Don't get me wrong here: I've got nothing against the game per se, I've got a thing against someone whose reason to play that particular game is that THE FUCKING OUTCOME IS PRE-MOTHERFUCKING-WRITTEN. If you do it for the roleplay, why bother with combat statistics? And if you do it for the combat, then what good is it if you not only know you're gonna win, you even know that you'll never even lose a stinking sword? I don't get it. I mean it, I don't. Where the fuck is the fun in that? Or the excitement, or the satisfaction if you win, or I don't know... THE FUCKING GAME?


Man, don't I hate sore losers...

I'm enjoying several aspects of 4E, such as the tactical focus on combat, the ability for my players to do more than just swing a sword at something every turn, etc.

However, it's things like the quoted text above that just make me shake my head.  It's almost like the designers have decided that since character death makes people upset, or makes them not want to play anymore, then any negative effect on a character must be made trivial and short-lived.  
 
It's almost a syptom of life these days.  No one wants to take responsibility for their actions.  I guess this is just the extension of that worldview into RPGs.

Unfortunately, it runs counter to everything I believe about RPGs.  Choices are supposed to have consequences.  If you decide to steal from a dragon hoard, you shouldn't be surprised when you end up squaring off against a dragon.  If you die, unless your party can raise you, you're dead.  Period.

Why the hell do we have to mollycoddle and dance around the subject of lasting penalties?  Isn't that what makes the games fun and suspenseful?  Hell, without the threat of actual penalties, the game will lose its luster extremely fast.  Guess it's time to activate house rules again.

Quote from: Demonseed;305301Unfortunately, it runs counter to everything I believe about RPGs.  Choices are supposed to have consequences.  If you decide to steal from a dragon hoard, you shouldn't be surprised when you end up squaring off against a dragon.  If you die, unless your party can raise you, you're dead.  Period.

Why the hell do we have to mollycoddle and dance around the subject of lasting penalties?  Isn't that what makes the games fun and suspenseful?  Hell, without the threat of actual penalties, the game will lose its luster extremely fast.  Guess it's time to activate house rules again.

it's very much like the new(ish) trend of having sports teams for children where no one loses, and everyone wins.  it's like dr. spock run amok where you can never say NO to a child, nor can they be made to feel like they're not 'special' or 'winners' by coming in second place, or (gasp) Last.

horrible, horrible, horrible.

Quote from: kregmosier;305302it's very much like the new(ish) trend of having sports teams for children where no one loses, and everyone wins.  it's like dr. spock run amok where you can never say NO to a child, nor can they be made to feel like they're not 'special' or 'winners' by coming in second place, or (gasp) Last.

horrible, horrible, horrible.

Exactly.  I honestly think that my players would be upset if the rust monster was reduced to this level of nonsensical existence.  Remove the challenge, and there's no reason to even show up every week.

What exactly has happened to the mantra of house-ruling?

Mould the game to your group's preferences.

The rules are not my master...