The World of Layonara  Forums

Author Topic: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?  (Read 1800 times)

Pen N Popper

Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« on: September 17, 2008, 11:52:01 am »
This will come off as grumbling, which it partly is, but a discussion of the topic in general would be welcome.

Are rust monsters fun in any regard?

Some background:  My PC lost his adamantium greataxe with a 3rd enchant on it to a rust monster on a GM quest.  On another GM quest today there was literally a room full of rust monsters.  It was completely IC for my PC to panic and not go anywhere near them.  Honestly, though, those things OOCly made my head ring with pain.  Is there a growing theme here?  Is it puroseful?

Assume that you play a PC that worked very hard to get a metal item, say a RL month or more.  Now imagine losing it through no fault of your own.  Very frustrating, especially knowing that it will likely take at least that long again to reacquire the item.

I'm just wondering if rust monsters are fun or just a source of OOC grief.  Couldn't they instead unequip the item and remove from quickslots?  This would hinder battle and on a GM quest would allow the GM to say something like, "Your axe's metal is scarred and pitted, it will need a lot of cleaning before you can use it again."

Yes, I am still working hard to acquire a replacement for my greataxe.  I'm sure you've seen my pleading trade&market forum posts.  I am still several RL weeks away from working ingame enough to stay out of debt for a new one.
 
The following users thanked this post: lonnarin, Xiaobeibi, Muhkuman

LightlyFrosted

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2008, 12:45:34 pm »
Playing Rust Monster's Advocate here...

There are a couple of reasons to want to create something that literally destroys magical or useful items.  For one, aside from PC's foolish enough to attack CNR with their hand-to-hand weaponry, weapons don't break, don't go 'bad', don't in fact show any wear whatsoever.  Rust monsters, while perhaps punishing to those who rely wholly upon metal objects, are a reasonably seldom-used monster capable of removing some of these powerful 'magical' items from play.

Of course, if you're looking for a less mechanics-driven reason, there's also the fact that there's very little that can 'scare' an adventurer PC it would seem.  One of the things that features prominently in RL horror movies is a fear of, say, the walking dead.  As such creatures are considered by adventurers to be annoying facts of life as often as not, this holds little terror for them.  Similarly, demons, aberrations, and monsters in general hold little enough fear for adventurers with no particular fear of death.  There are exceptions, of course, but whereas most soldiers would prefer not to encounter a group of powerful heavily-armed foes, adventurers go giant-slaying on a fairly regular basis.

It's hard to put the fear of gods into adventurers for whom dealing with the terrifying and incredible is a matter of course.  I'm not saying that rust monsters should be used liberally - indeed, they are supposed to be aberrations, freaks of supernature - but there should be creatures like rust monsters that can leave the boldest fighter a little nervous to say the least.

*Shrugs*  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with using rust monsters in this capacity, but sometimes a little risk - if not presented overzealously - can be an effective tool, either as a deterrent against 'run in and bash', or as a challenge to be worked around.  As well, if you're looking to make a 'horror movie' for an armed and armoured fighter, 'day of the rust monster' might be a good one.

Just my two cents.  Make of it what you will.
 

jrizz

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2008, 01:16:40 pm »
Quote from: LightlyFrosted

Of course, if you're looking for a less mechanics-driven reason, there's also the fact that there's very little that can 'scare' an adventurer PC it would seem.  One of the things that features prominently in RL horror movies is a fear of, say, the walking dead.  As such creatures are considered by adventurers to be annoying facts of life as often as not, this holds little terror for them.  Similarly, demons, aberrations, and monsters in general hold little enough fear for adventurers with no particular fear of death.  There are exceptions, of course, but whereas most soldiers would prefer not to encounter a group of powerful heavily-armed foes, adventurers go giant-slaying on a fairly regular basis.

It's hard to put the fear of gods into adventurers for whom dealing with the terrifying and incredible is a matter of course.  I'm not saying that rust monsters should be used liberally - indeed, they are supposed to be aberrations, freaks of supernature - but there should be creatures like rust monsters that can leave the boldest fighter a little nervous to say the least.


I cant agree with this more. Just the other day on a quest (one of my last) I rolled out the big bad guy if front of the adventurers and even though it was clear by all accounts that he was a BIG bad guy the adventurers chose to be glib with him and make fun of him. Now if I had attacked the group with him and he is his invulnerable state killed them all and SS were lost the group would have called foul on me. So they had no fear of him at all. Now if I had rolled out a 100% magic resistant high DR high HP high AB and damage rust monster they would have wet their pants and ran for the hills at full speed. So it is really both a IG and OOC thing at the same time. How do you scare players? There are only a few way to answer that and none of them will make the player community happy.

NOTE: Next time you see a room full of rust monsters, and you dont have a monk with you, Take off your armor, disarm yourself, take off all your magic items, pull out that oak club you have stuffed in your bag, and go see how you do :)
 

vgn

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2008, 01:19:15 pm »
What good are rust monster?

1. Rust monsters are scary as was pointed out by the last post.
2. It can be quite amusing to a not so wholesome character to watch a big dumb fighter lose his sword or armor.
3. The loss can lead to all kind of RP.
   a. The guy in number 2 can make fun of the fighter and make a nice enemy or at lease get pummeled a bit.
   b. The guy that lost X, now can go buy a new one or, perhaps through some persuasion get some friends to feel sorry and replace it.
   c. I'm sure there is more! Run with it.

Now, I think their existence is easily justified so on to why they aren't a big deal.

Even if you "specialize" in a certain weapon, it really is not very bright to never have alternatives. Carry an extra wooden club. Improvise and whip out a fishing pole. If it's a GM related thing, don't get locked into mechanics. Just because you are in a barren stock "dungeon/cave" room, doesn't always mean it is empty. Make sure to ask if there is anything around. Maybe there is a table, break the leg off. Maybe there are some logs/sticks. I'm sure any GM would grant you a basic wooden club to act as that table leg or log. Can't hit anything with a plain old club?? Well, of course you brought along a mage or cleric right? Just whip up a GMW and it's a super club.
 

Pen N Popper

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2008, 01:26:36 pm »
All well formulated responses, thanks.  I'm sure in time this loss will seem trivial to me.  

I must say that had I seen the original rust monster, there is no way OOCly I would have engaged at all.  I don't think anyone bothers to roll a LORE check when they see that floaty text.

Thanks!
 

merlin34baseball

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2008, 01:47:26 pm »
um... in the sake of fairness... is there a creature that eats wooden weapons and shields? Or leather armor? Or moths of doom that eat magic clothing and hoods?

Not that I'm aware of.
 

miltonyorkcastle

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2008, 01:53:01 pm »
Moth of DOOM! I'm totally using that monster in one of my PnP campaigns.

Although, the folks that don't use metal stuff likely wouldn't be anymore bothered by a creature that devours wooden clubs in an instant, than a rust monster. This is because they'd likely deal with both creatures in the same way: through empathy, rather than trying to kill it.
 

LightlyFrosted

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2008, 01:57:48 pm »
*Shrugs*  In the sake of fairness, by and large, wooden weapons and shields are seen as less desirable.  Similarly, leather armour is not favourably comparable to its metal counterparts in most circumstances, and magic clothing and hoods tend to be less useful than, say, a suit of armour or a weapon.  Add in to that fact the fact that in many cases, equippables are not quite as their counterpart appears - the circlet of the confidante is neither a hood nor a helm, but rather something rather resembling a laurel - and it's understandable why there might be more of a focus on the big expensive items.

Should there be creatures that attack wooden weapons?  Dire termites?  Dire moths?  Possibly.  However, the rust monster also has the 'advantage' of being a classic D&D monster.  I suppose it's easy to say that only using something that attacks metal 'picks on' fighters, but they certainly have the leather and wood alternatives to the gear that such creatures are the bane of.

Whether or not rust monsters should affect metal reinforced clothing is contentious at best.
 

orth

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2008, 02:38:19 pm »
I lost my prized scimitar that I toiled for a month for back in Jan./04 to a group of rust monsters that spawned right on top of me.  It stunk, I left the game as it was the straw that broke the camel's back on a particularly trying time in my Layonara life.  I had recently just been asked and thus stepped down as a GM as well at the time and there was serious drama involving other respected community members.  In the end it was a blessing.  

Sorted out my life and came back a few months later much happier and soon found myself leading the Layonara development.  I remember logging back in in the Underdark the first time I came back and had to find my way back all by myself.

I lost my prized shield on the final episode of my WLDQ to a metal eating Delver? I think it was called.  It was a serious challenge to continue without, Brisbane relinquished her shield to me to continue and put herself at grave risk.  I was really disheartened at the time, but it went away.  It made the story that much more epic.

I don't know what these anecdotes have to do with anything except to say losing items unexpectedly have been significant factors in Plen's life.  Never have I felt it was unfair or not fun.  I just felt angry that it happened to me.

And I just wanted to reaffirm PnP, you'll get over it and it will make just one more interesting chapter you'll remember.  Getting past hardships is what makes the story that much more compelling.
 
The following users thanked this post: eltalstroneves

Xiaobeibi

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2008, 03:03:40 pm »
Interesting points raised here :)

I was on the quest which led to this question and overall I had a great time. Really enjoyed then banter in the group and I think the Gm did a sterling job of letting us bicker our way ahead.

Personally I hold that at the end of the day a succesful game is one in which all the players enjoyed themselves. People are different and what upsets and ruins it for players differ from person to person. I dont think a gm can ever cater to all tastes, but I think that a gm should hold this perspective as a prime consideration. As a gm asking yourself "would I enjoy this?" isnt good enough, you have to ask yourself "would he also enjoy it?".

Quote
What good are rust monster?
1. Rust monsters are scary as was pointed out by the last post.


I am not sure I consider this as valid an argument as it appears. Playing the devils advocate here I think the GM who cant scare his players without using "do or die" mechanisms need to go back basics. You frighten players by building up the suspense and creating the right atmosphere. ;)

Quote
2. It can be quite amusing to a not so wholesome character to watch a big dumb fighter lose his sword or armor.


Yep to the character, but we are talking about the PLAYERS, not characters.

Quote
3. The loss can lead to all kind of RP.
   a. The guy in number 2 can make fun of the fighter and make a nice enemy or at lease get pummeled a bit.
   b. The guy that lost X, now can go buy a new one or, perhaps through some persuasion get some friends to feel sorry and replace it.
   c. I'm sure there is more! Run with it.


Yes, but show me the player who will enjoy loosing their cobalt fullplate, adamantium chainmail or that mithril drop sword they bought for their lifesavings.

a. The guy in number can make fun of the fighter, but he is more likely to upset the player further and sadly we cant reach out through the screen and knock people about ;)
b. The guy that lost X can now restart the grind that earned the true for said item or pray that the rare loot drop will come up in an auction he can afford.
c. Run with it or loose it ....

Quote
Now, I think their existence is easily justified so on to why they aren't a big deal.


Now I dont think their existence is justified so on to why they are a big deal :)-

Quote
Even if you "specialize" in a certain weapon, it really is not very bright to never have alternatives. Carry an extra wooden club. Improvise and whip out a fishing pole. If it's a GM related thing, don't get locked into mechanics. Just because you are in a barren stock "dungeon/cave" room, doesn't always mean it is empty. Make sure to ask if there is anything around. Maybe there is a table, break the leg off. Maybe there are some logs/sticks. I'm sure any GM would grant you a basic wooden club to act as that table leg or log. Can't hit anything with a plain old club?? Well, of course you brought along a mage or cleric right? Just whip up a GMW and it's a super club.


I have played and/or gm'ed in PnP D&D, Fantasy Grounds D&D, Turn based D&D (on the computer) and Neverwinter nights.

In PnP or Fantasy grounds I love rustmonsters, I also love shadowdancing/invisible foes, death traps, curses and picppocketing rogues. In Neverwinter Nights I hate them, why?

Simply speaking there is a world of difference between those and yes game mechanics, speed of typing and mouse agility do matter. if I meet a rustmonster in PnP I can take precautions and discuss my actions in detail with the gm. In neverwinter nights I can in theory do the same, but practise it is very different.
Most likely before I am finished typing a detailed response someone has taken a swing and events have moved ahead. If not, then the GM has most likely been carpet-bombed with tells, dicerolls and requests, AND even though he has asked the players to slow down, someone will have ignored it and gone ahead.
GMing is hard at the best of times, adding things which further complicate it can make it impossible for even the ablest gm. Sadly it is not a likely GM requirement to have eight arms and four heads. ;)

I loathe rustmonsters, I loathe shadowdancing foes because they "abuse" the game engine, I loathe tiny fast foes because I as a player cant hit/target them with the mouse. Add lag to any of these and as a player I have little impact on the outcome.


Having said all this in argumen against rustmonsters I will say the one argument I hold for them:

In my opinion the key to a great game is giving the GM freehands to tell his story. As long as the GM is true and loyal to the world and the values of the server, he should have free hands.

I dont wish for rustmonster or any monsters to be banned, but I still hope they arent used.

:)
 

lonnarin

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2008, 05:44:22 pm »
On the plus side, imagine the chaos that would ensue if you managed to smuggle just one of these little guys in with a burlap sack and toss him in the bank vault pile with all of Rael's money.
 

Drizzlin

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2008, 06:10:20 pm »
Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Playing Rust Monster's Advocate here...

There are a couple of reasons to want to create something that literally destroys magical or useful items.  For one, aside from PC's foolish enough to attack CNR with their hand-to-hand weaponry, weapons don't break, don't go 'bad', don't in fact show any wear whatsoever.  Rust monsters, while perhaps punishing to those who rely wholly upon metal objects, are a reasonably seldom-used monster capable of removing some of these powerful 'magical' items from play.



I have lost 3 dragon slayer swords, countless shields, and many many more amulets, rings, and weapons from the "full" inventory bug. That bug is the real monster...
 

Script Wrecked

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2008, 09:56:32 pm »
Quote from: LightlyFrosted
For one, aside from PC's foolish enough to attack CNR with their hand-to-hand weaponry


Not all striking of CNR with weapons is caused by foolishness. In fact, I'm pretty sure a significant part of it is due to misclicks.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Rust monsters, while perhaps punishing to those who rely wholly upon metal objects...


Remove the "perhaps".

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
...are a reasonably seldom-used monster capable of removing some of these powerful 'magical' items from play.


Why? To what end? People seem have this idea that taking hard earned things away from characters is "a good thing". But unless its part of some greater storyline, it doesn't have any meaning, and only creates grief for the player involved.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Of course, if you're looking for a less mechanics-driven reason, there's also the fact that there's very little that can 'scare' an adventurer PC it would seem.  One of the things that features prominently in RL horror movies is a fear of, say, the walking dead.  As such creatures are considered by adventurers to be annoying facts of life as often as not, this holds little terror for them.  Similarly, demons, aberrations, and monsters in general hold little enough fear for adventurers with no particular fear of death.


You are only scared by things that you do not know. In a world full of undead, daemons, aberrations and other monsters, these things, as you succinctly put it, are facts of life.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
There are exceptions, of course, but whereas most soldiers would prefer not to encounter a group of powerful heavily-armed foes, adventurers go giant-slaying on a fairly regular basis.


"Powerful" is a measure of how much damage they can cause you. In the real world, certain level of injuries have a permanent and lasting affect. In Layonara, the only permanent injury is the loss of a Soul Strand. Thus, "powerful" is a creature that can kill you before you can kill it. So, if you can kill giants without being killed, they are not "powerful".

You are not taking into account all the areas where people don't go because the monsters are so deadly.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
It's hard to put the fear of gods into adventurers for whom dealing with the terrifying and incredible is a matter of course.


Exactly.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
I'm not saying that rust monsters should be used liberally - indeed, they are supposed to be aberrations, freaks of supernature - but there should be creatures like rust monsters that can leave the boldest fighter a little nervous to say the least.


Running around with one Soul Strand has a similar effect. People become very thoughtful about the activities in which they engage. You could say that they have had the "fear of the gods" put into them, but that is not seen in the game so clearly.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
*Shrugs*  I'm not saying I necessarily agree with using rust monsters in this capacity, but sometimes a little risk - if not presented overzealously - can be an effective tool, either as a deterrent against 'run in and bash', or as a challenge to be worked around.


As a frontline fighter, what other option is there (not just in this case, but in all cases) apart from "rush in and bash"? The aim is to remove the threat as quickly as possible, that means closing with the enemy quickly and engaging in combat. "Run in and bash" is not "a bad thing".

Quote from: jrizz
I cant agree with this more. Just the other day on a quest (one of my last) I rolled out the big bad guy if front of the adventurers and even though it was clear by all accounts that he was a BIG bad guy the adventurers chose to be glib with him and make fun of him.


You can blame the culture of glib movie heroes for that. The players/characters soon work it out as each individual offending smart mouth is struck down.

Quote from: jrizz
NOTE: Next time you see a room full of rust monsters, and you dont have a monk with you, Take off your armor, disarm yourself, take off all your magic items, pull out that oak club you have stuffed in your bag, and go see how you do :)


Is changing armor really an appropriate course of action? I know people whip their armor off and on when resting, but in the middle of a hostile situation?

Quote from: vgn
What good are rust monster?

1. Rust monsters are scary as was pointed out by the last post.
2. It can be quite amusing to a not so wholesome character to watch a big dumb fighter lose his sword or armor.


If its not your sword/armor thats just been lost. Schadenfreude is hardly something we should be encouraging.

Quote from: vgn
3. The loss can lead to all kind of RP.
   a. The guy in number 2 can make fun of the fighter and make a nice enemy or at lease get pummeled a bit.
   b. The guy that lost X, now can go buy a new one or, perhaps through some persuasion get some friends to feel sorry and replace it.


Or not. The system is not set up for the easy replacement of lost items. These items were hard to get the first time, and will be hard again to replace.

Having to replace something you had is demoralising.

Quote from: vgn
Even if you "specialize" in a certain weapon, it really is not very bright to never have alternatives. Carry an extra wooden club. Improvise and whip out a fishing pole.


So, are you suggesting people carry around more equipment in their inventories?

Quote from: vgn
If it's a GM related thing, don't get locked into mechanics. Just because you are in a barren stock "dungeon/cave" room, doesn't always mean it is empty. Make sure to ask if there is anything around. Maybe there is a table, break the leg off. Maybe there are some logs/sticks. I'm sure any GM would grant you a basic wooden club to act as that table leg or log. Can't hit anything with a plain old club?? Well, of course you brought along a mage or cleric right? Just whip up a GMW and it's a super club.


This sort of improv is hard to do in the middle of combat.

Quote from: orth
I lost my prized shield on the final episode of my WLDQ to a metal eating Delver? I think it was called.  It was a serious challenge to continue without, Brisbane relinquished her shield to me to continue and put herself at grave risk.  I was really disheartened at the time, but it went away.  It made the story that much more epic.


Losing an item as part of a problem that contributes to the resolution of a quest is probably the only time this would work. Then it becomes part of the story that you are participating in; it has meaning. Otherwise, its just bum luck. Its like losing Soul Strands, I prefer to lose them on a quest where at least it would mean something.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
 

LightlyFrosted

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2008, 11:12:40 pm »
Much as I prefer my points to be viewed and addressed as a whole rather than dissected and addressed individually, I do have a few defenses and rebuttals for my position.  You'll have to forgive me if I don't 'quote' the points that I am addressing separately - it would simply get too segmented, and I want to address just a few of my points.

I think it can generally be agreed upon that most adventurers possessed of a full compliment - or even a majority - of their allotted soul strands have what one might refer to as 'no fear of death.'  I play a character with only a single soul strand left.  He's exceptionally careful about what he does in a day, and has died only once in the last three months or so.  It's not an unreasonable point, I should think, to state that dying hurts, and not just fiscally.  The process, at least as most adventurers frequently engage in it, is painful, and should theoretically be avoided whenever possible.

Regarding facing off against giants, again I fear I must disagree.  I was not using 'powerful' as a relative term - indeed, I was attempting to be as objective as possible.  The lack of fear of death is in many cases what makes adventurers daring enough to face off against foes which - and they still are in many cases - would be considered 'mighty' by the majority of the world's population.  Given the number of graves I frequently see in areas of giant spawns, it would seem that a number of the 'daring adventurers' would be inclined to agree with me.

If death is not the final blow, and holds little consequence for the adventurer who rolls lucky versus the soul mother - as so many frequently do - and banks his coin, what then is there to fear from it?  And if there is nothing, then perhaps some other consequence needs to be there for rushing into a situation instead of considering various tactics.  When a fighter sees a rust monster across the room, the tactic assumed might not be one of 'rush in and beat it to death', but rather 'find an alternate method of removing the threat'.  I haven't seen rust monsters in the areas they used to spawn recently, and the only anecdotal evidence I've heard of recently has been quest-related, so one would presume that such monsters are infrequently met up with when one is by oneself - perhaps this is a job for the mages and clerics and archers?  Rush in and bash IS a bad thing, if the consequences of 'rush in and bash' are unfavourable.

Without meaning to get too wordy, a few other points.  There have been notions raised that a good GM can inspire an ambiance of fear without using a mechanical threat such as a rust monster.  Certainly a GM can cause thematic fear, but only occasionally does this tie into a fear of consequences.  

On a perhaps related note, 'removing powerful items from the economy' is viewed as a 'good thing', because there's a bottomless well of the things.  Aside from rust monsters, metal eating delvers, and hitting trees, weapons don't 'go bad'.  People are constantly complaining that crafting nets less and less profit each year.  Part of this is due to an influx of crafters, but a not-insignificant part may be attributed to the ever-increasing supply.  While it is something of a blow for a character to lose their 'hard won' equipment - and I don't mean to trivialize such a loss, as it is a significant inconvenience - such items can be replaced.  Not all losses must be essential to a story, or even thematic.  If the sword was hundred-folded steel, cooled from the forge in the spring waters of Ice Reach, and then fed the blood of tyrants, that becomes a more significant loss - and certainly one which one might take a CDQ to repair.  If instead you bought an iron longsword, and it cost you a couple thousand coins, it's a story roughly equivocable to "I went to the store and got a tin of beans, but they went bad so I had to throw them out."  It's still an inconvenience, and certainly you are due some sympathy, but you don't always lose a soul strand on a quest - and nor should you.  Adventurers live a dangerous life.

Monsters are facts of life.  Adventurers grow quite adept at dealing with them, but sometimes monsters that are not threats to your life can be threats to things which are surprisingly more important, such as your material possessions.  I understand that people may feel irked if they lose a valued possession, but I do believe that the rust monster is simply a different sort of consequence.

Just my two cents.
 

Necromancer

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2008, 12:29:36 am »
If I may, for a moment interject.

Whilst I have not been here long I have extensive experience in tabletop gaming. I have found that in tabletop games, movies and all other similar scenario's that the unknown is what gives fear, not the known. This unknown factor can come from many things. Capture for example may induce fear as time spent inside of the dungeon of an evil villain at the hands of torture and such forth may also induce fear, both OOC and IC as it represents pain and suffering for a character and time lost playing for the person.

By conveying a fear of something foreboding and evil one is able to induce fear far better than when the enemy is known. Many situations help induce this fear, ambushes, surprises, twists, turns and gruesomely descriptive scenes.

When you walk down a hallway with no prompts or story from the GM, you are often left with a situation which screams generic dungeon bash. I believe that appropriate comments and situations combined can lead to a situation which induces fear.

I do not argue that rust monsters are, or are not necessary, my opinion is that they are acceptable in a situation which makes sense. I believe, that in the dungeon which myself and pnp were in they did not make sense. The Rust monster would have eaten the equipment of other creatures inhabiting that space or at least attempted to and thus been killed. The ecology of the creature in question did not fit with the ecology of the other denizens of the dungeon. I find it hard to believe that creatures relying upon metal equipment would also tolerate the presence of such a creature.

The point should never be is this fair OOC, is this nice OOC, but does this make sense within the confines of the rules of the world we are in? The rust monster inhabits a cave with other aberrations then in my opinion that is fine as most aberrations don't use weaponry. If it inhabits a cave with ghosts then that may also be justified.

It is also worth noting that adventurers by and large are people whom the normal and 'mundane' combat situations are more every day occurrences, these are people who have forsaken the normal day and life they left behind and decided for whatever reason to adventure and live a life of danger which often entails a gruesome and quick end. The word adventurer itself entails some degree of a person who thrives upon or seeks out things which a normal person would fear.
 

LightlyFrosted

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2008, 12:59:01 am »
Ah, but if rust monsters are only found around aberrations and ghosts, what do those rust monsters eat?

Sorry, cheap shot, but they can't RELY on adventurers...
 

Script Wrecked

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2008, 01:46:09 am »
Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Much as I prefer my points to be viewed and addressed as a whole rather than dissected and addressed individually, I do have a few defenses and rebuttals for my position.  You'll have to forgive me if I don't 'quote' the points that I am addressing separately - it would simply get too segmented, and I want to address just a few of my points.


I apologies to you, and to everyone else whose posts I have dissected in reply; I do appreciate that a post is greater than the sum of its parts. However, I do like to make sure that when I am saying something, people know what part of the whole (without excluding the rest of the whole), it is in response to. It also saves me from having to establish that myself before hand. :)

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
I think it can generally be agreed upon that most adventurers possessed of a full compliment - or even a majority - of their allotted soul strands have what one might refer to as 'no fear of death.'


When you're young, you're supposed to be like that. Its only when you've learnt a few hard lessons that the reckless youth becomes less foolhardy.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
I play a character with only a single soul strand left.  He's exceptionally careful about what he does in a day, and has died only once in the last three months or so.  It's not an unreasonable point, I should think, to state that dying hurts, and not just fiscally.  The process, at least as most adventurers frequently engage in it, is painful, and should theoretically be avoided whenever possible.


*nods* :)

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Regarding facing off against giants, again I fear I must disagree.  I was not using 'powerful' as a relative term - indeed, I was attempting to be as objective as possible.


Power is always a relative term, otherwise it is impossible to understand. It has to be in terms of something that you understand the power of, which is usually yourself.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
The lack of fear of death is in many cases what makes adventurers daring enough to face off against foes which - and they still are in many cases - would be considered 'mighty' by the majority of the world's population.  Given the number of graves I frequently see in areas of giant spawns, it would seem that a number of the 'daring adventurers' would be inclined to agree with me.


This is another common misconception, that "graves" equals "foolhardy play". Until you know how powerful something is relative to yourself, you do not know how dangerous it is. Sadly, the threat rating from "poking" the creature is often inaccurate. Therefore, the only way to find out is to engage it. "Whoops, too strong, I'm dead, won't do that again." This is not (necessarily) from lack of fear of death, but quite possibly inexperience.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
If death is not the final blow, and holds little consequence for the adventurer who rolls lucky versus the soul mother - as so many frequently do - and banks his coin, what then is there to fear from it?


The random nature of the Soul Strand loss has been discussed at length. Rust monsters are not a solution to luck.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
And if there is nothing, then perhaps some other consequence needs to be there for rushing into a situation instead of considering various tactics.


Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm afraid you are going too far off on a tangent, here. This is proposing a fundamental change to the consequences of death, which might be a point for discussion, but perhaps worthy of its own thread.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
When a fighter sees a rust monster across the room, the tactic assumed might not be one of 'rush in and beat it to death', but rather 'find an alternate method of removing the threat'.


For a frontline fighter, what might that be? Run away? Everything runs at the same speed, as well as the issue of "dragging".

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
I haven't seen rust monsters in the areas they used to spawn recently...


That might be due to a change in your character's level.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
...and the only anecdotal evidence I've heard of recently has been quest-related, so one would presume that such monsters are infrequently met up with when one is by oneself - perhaps this is a job for the mages and clerics and archers?


Assuming there are mages and clerics to be called upon.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Rush in and bash IS a bad thing, if the consequences of 'rush in and bash' are unfavourable.


Unfortunately, the "if" tends to get left off, forgetting the condition.

"Rush in and bash" (in itself) is not "a bad thing".

"Rush in and bash rust monsters" is "a bad (detrimental) thing".

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Without meaning to get too wordy, a few other points.  There have been notions raised that a good GM can inspire an ambiance of fear without using a mechanical threat such as a rust monster.  Certainly a GM can cause thematic fear, but only occasionally does this tie into a fear of consequences.


Give consequences, then. I know a few characters who have learnt the consequences of speaking out of turn to a certain dragon.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
On a perhaps related note, 'removing powerful items from the economy' is viewed as a 'good thing'...


Do you believe that enough to dump your good items in the trash can?

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
...because there's a bottomless well of the things.


That well has so far proved elusive to Dubbel.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Aside from rust monsters, metal eating delvers, and hitting trees, weapons don't 'go bad'.  People are constantly complaining that crafting nets less and less profit each year.  Part of this is due to an influx of crafters, but a not-insignificant part may be attributed to the ever-increasing supply.


Rust monsters are not the solution to the problems with the crafting system.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
While it is something of a blow for a character to lose their 'hard won' equipment - and I don't mean to trivialize such a loss, as it is a significant inconvenience - such items can be replaced.  Not all losses must be essential to a story, or even thematic.  If the sword was hundred-folded steel, cooled from the forge in the spring waters of Ice Reach, and then fed the blood of tyrants, that becomes a more significant loss - and certainly one which one might take a CDQ to repair.  If instead you bought an iron longsword, and it cost you a couple thousand coins, it's a story roughly equivocable to "I went to the store and got a tin of beans, but they went bad so I had to throw them out."


I don't believe we are refering to "just" iron weapons here.

Quote from: LightlyFrosted
It's still an inconvenience, and certainly you are due some sympathy, but you don't always lose a soul strand on a quest - and nor should you.  Adventurers live a dangerous life.

Monsters are facts of life.  Adventurers grow quite adept at dealing with them, but sometimes monsters that are not threats to your life can be threats to things which are surprisingly more important, such as your material possessions.  I understand that people may feel irked if they lose a valued possession, but I do believe that the rust monster is simply a different sort of consequence.

Just my two cents.


The consequence of the loss is far greater than the reward for overcoming the rust monster; it is a lose/not-lose situation (there is no "win").

And apologies if I am being/coming across as (too) haranguing.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.
 

LightlyFrosted

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2008, 02:16:58 am »
*Sighs*  You are.

Very well.  To each his own.  I maintain my position, and will clarify any points in my argument that people find nebulous or unclear.
 

Necromancer

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2008, 04:36:56 am »
Quote from: LightlyFrosted
Ah, but if rust monsters are only found around aberrations and ghosts, what do those rust monsters eat?

Sorry, cheap shot, but they can't RELY on adventurers...


I would imagine they could eat ore. I figured that rust monsters would inhabit mostly disused mines and such forth, food there would be plentiful. I would say it's a fair point. I find the greatest immersion when monsters in an area have a reason for being there, goblins, orcs. Cultists and demons etc.
 

Pseudonym

Re: Rust monsters, are they really necessary?
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2008, 05:01:46 am »
There comes a time when the jewels cease to sparkle, when the gold loses its lustre, when the throne-room becomes a prison, all that remains that brings us joy is ... rust monsters.

Seriously though, I used rust monsters in my quest last night .. the timing of which I can only assume, at least in part, prompted the initial post by PnP. Why did I? Those participating (hopefully) know the answer and (hopefully) deemed them an entirely appropriate beasty to encounter at that part of proceedings.

I 100% agree they shouldn't make an appearance unless it makes complete IC sense for them to be present and a GM should consider many of the things raised by PnP and Script Wrecked when deciding whether to feature these creatures in a quest.

I also think they, if used sparingly, provide an opportunity for some variation to the normal dynamic of a questing party. Archers to the fore! The low level, broad area, low damage spells normally useless on a med-high level quest all of a sudden of vital importance again.

In summary, any encounter with rust monsters present should have not only the 'challenge rating' but also the possible ramifications to the characters and the appropriateness of their presence be given careful consideration by the GM running the quest. That said, "adventurer beware" is my philosophy!