Now I need to use a rust monster. It needs a better name though.
I suspect most of the guys I've played with would just run away though.

Quote from: nDervish;859931Granted, it's not a monster, but do you also consider daily spell limits to be a FUCK YOU rule, since they're there to prevent one player from contributing?  ("Well, guys, I've cast my one spell for the day.  Guess I can't do anything else useful until tomorrow.")

No, because I don't play with people who are that stupid.  If ALL the magic user can think about is his SLEEP spell, he's a cretin.

Quote from: Aos;859944Now I need to use a rust monster. It needs a better name though.
I suspect most of the guys I've played with would just run away though.

Iron Oxide Salamander

or better yet

Eisenoxid Salamander

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;859953No, because I don't play with people who are that stupid.  If ALL the magic user can think about is his SLEEP spell, he's a cretin.

In BX I have a dagger. And it does 1d6 just like every other weapon. And in BX at the early levels I hit the same as the fighter. So aside from feeble HP and abysmal AC. I could still contribute to combat.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;859953No, because I don't play with people who are that stupid.  If ALL the magic user can think about is his SLEEP spell, he's a cretin.

That's roughly what I was getting at with my question.  If you accept that an MU remains useful after he runs out of spells, then it makes no sense to bitch about fighters being useless if a rust monster catches them.  A fighter with an improvised weapon and no armor is no less useful than an MU with no spells.  And arguably more useful, since the fighter still has more HP and better to-hit rolls than the MU, even without his gear.

Quote from: drkrash;8594431) Traps. In B/X, a trap is activated on a 1-2 on d6. Do you use this? On the one hand, they make dungeons a little less dangerous...except when the party fails to activate one, and then retreats out the dungeon the same way it suddenly grabs them. Seems like a dick move.

2) Treasure that isn't captured. Suppose monsters are slain but treasures are not retrieved. Suppose the treasure in question is out in the open, like a chest. When the adventurers return on a subsequent delve, is the treasure still there? What is the treasure was hidden, but is now no longer guarded? Does it get discovered?

1. I do use this. It makes who gets hit (if they don't search/don't find/are unlucky) a little more random than "whomever's in front." I do try to make my traps realistic, however, so complex mechanical traps left unattended for many years will likely have corroded in some way, and maybe have a lower activation chance (of course, for any long unattended dungeon, why haven't most of the traps been sprung at some point? So there's likely someone there maintaining them).
2. If there is a sentient creature there who personally values treasure (so like an orc or a dragon) they will do what they can to add that treasure to their own control, however they define it. They, of course, might well realize that the treasure could be trapped, so maybe they'll instead lure the next (or returning) PC party into the room to test the treasure, and then attack them once they've done so.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;859859This was out of line.  My apologies.

Not my circus, not my monkeys, but it does enhance your esteem in my eyes that you caught this yourself and apologized.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859880The issue is that the Rust Monster is there to nullify a single class.  That's it.  If it actually was a threat to the entire party, like most other monsters, it wouldn't be as annoying.  And really, that's what it is, an annoying monster and it feels petty to use it.

A FUCK YOU Monster (to me) are monsters that are there to prevent one player from contributing.  And sometimes even having help means you lose and then the player has to either twiddle their thumbs as everyone else scrambles to overcome the challenges.

Well, so are water hazards. And golems are FU monsters to wizards. An overabundance of any of them is tantamount to saying, "yeah, I really want X class to be less effective than Y class," but they all have a place. It can even reinforce the team-effort mentality of the group to face something like these once in a while.

What I don't like about the rust monster is that it is a surprise effect monster that everyone already knows about. Yeah, it's absolutely devistating the first time you ran into it when you first started playing. But now? Meh. Kinda like watching The Sixth Sense now. Or a A/D&D example, the mycanoids--in the adventure where they were introduced, it was a cool idea--these really creepy fungus monsters that, surprise, are a peaceful good guy race. Once you've gone through it, though, there's really no real reason to ever run into one again.

As to EGG himself and his design decisions, remember that when he was developing this, people were often playing multiple characters in the same party, so making sure that the people playing fighters felt included, as they were potentially also playing magic users.

A lot of stuff that's been published was shared because it's fun to encounter for the first time in play, NOT with the intent that it should be something players know all about just from reading, or the intent that it should be used over and over.

FRP started out with an emphasis on the imagination of the participants, especially the GM's when it comes to making up things such as dungeons. Then the demographic shifted, with more people who just copy whatever is in the books.

I've always thought it was purposeful in AD&D to put in monsters that are extremely effective against a single thing.  

This is to prevent players from over-reliance on a single thing, and force a breadth to character choices instead of, for instance, always and only spending proficiency points on swords (if available to a class).

Why should a fighter ever take a proficiency in club?  Things like rust monsters play a role there.

Why shouldn't thieves listen at every door of the dungeon?  Things like ear seekers play a role there.

These are artificial "constraint plays", for lack of a better term, that make over-reliance on what would be otherwise the most efficient decisions eventually fatal (or otherwise painful).

As far as the rust monster goes, have those in leather armor with the club or the quarterstaff take it out.  Oh, you don't have any of those?  Then it's not a dick move, it's doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

Also, the game assumes a constant in-flow and out-flow of magical stuff.  Lots of DMs hesitate on using that which creates an out-flow (like rust monsters) and subsequently level accusations that the game system creates players that look like magical item Christmas trees.  

Gygax wasn't stupid.  He was designing a game, though.  Not a character simulation system.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;860141And golems are FU monsters to wizards.

Actually, I also agree that Golems are Fuck You Monsters to the casters.  But are actually kinda worse in a way, because although Fighter types and Rogue types (Thieves and Bards) and the Cleric can still bash away at them, they run the risk of getting mulched anyway, because Golems are brutally hard fights on their own.

Now, again, in B/X in which the damage is more or less standardized, my biggest complaints are more or less moot, and yes, I understand this.  Now.  So rock on and keep playing.

It's just in later editions in which certain classes need certain things to be viable, that's what I question the point of.

Jesus H. yodeling Christ in a gorilla suit.

We used to hang around and invent monsters.  Gary just happened to have a little plastic critter the color of rust.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck fuck fucking fuck fuck fuckitty fuck fuck fuck.

We thought making up nasty monsters and telling everybody else about them was fun.

Excuse fucking us.

Quote from: Omega;860013In BX I have a dagger. And it does 1d6 just like every other weapon. And in BX at the early levels I hit the same as the fighter. So aside from feeble HP and abysmal AC. I could still contribute to combat.

There's a reason my GaryCon OD&D game is called "Magic Users with Knives."

Two years ago Jon Peterson killed an ogre singlehandedly with his first level magic user.  Using a knife.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860243Jesus H. yodeling Christ in a gorilla suit.

We used to hang around and invent monsters.  Gary just happened to have a little plastic critter the color of rust.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck fuck fucking fuck fuck fuckitty fuck fuck fuck.

We thought making up nasty monsters and telling everybody else about them was fun.

Excuse fucking us.

I have to ask, why are you taking this so personally?  I admit that my dislike of certain monsters does freely colour my opinion, but like people pointed out, when you have a standardized die for weapons, it becomes less an annoyance.

So why so upset?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;860266I have to ask, why are you taking this so personally?  I admit that my dislike of certain monsters does freely colour my opinion, but like people pointed out, when you have a standardized die for weapons, it becomes less an annoyance.

So why so upset?

I'm sure Gronan will answer for himself, but I don't think it's just you - I think it's that the accumulated irritation of decades of players critiquing things like the Rust Monster or complaining about PC deaths being "unfair" has made him understandably touchy.

D&D was originally presented as a toolset or springboard for people to be creative and use their imagination.  Deadly dungeons and horrible monsters were presented as examples of the kind of challenges DMs could create for their own players.  The game was meant to be hard, but fair.

Today, many, many players approach D&D as a prescribed set of rules with an immutable list of "standard" monsters and adventures.  They complain about critters like the Rust Monster as though they were designed to be end bosses in a video game, and should somehow be perfectly fair challenges for any PC of a given level.

Personally, I don't blame him.  If I gave my kids all of my childhood LEGO, and they immediately started complaining that it didn't come with any instructions, I would probably have a similar reaction.

And all Chris was doing was saying was 'I don't like X because Y.' He didn't say it shouldn't have been printed.

Quote from: Ddogwood;860284I'm sure Gronan will answer for himself, but I don't think it's just you - I think it's that the accumulated irritation of decades of players critiquing things like the Rust Monster or complaining about PC deaths being "unfair" has made him understandably touchy.

D&D was originally presented as a toolset or springboard for people to be creative and use their imagination.  Deadly dungeons and horrible monsters were presented as examples of the kind of challenges DMs could create for their own players.  The game was meant to be hard, but fair.

Today, many, many players approach D&D as a prescribed set of rules with an immutable list of "standard" monsters and adventures.  They complain about critters like the Rust Monster as though they were designed to be end bosses in a video game, and should somehow be perfectly fair challenges for any PC of a given level.

Personally, I don't blame him.  If I gave my kids all of my childhood LEGO, and they immediately started complaining that it didn't come with any instructions, I would probably have a similar reaction.

Ding!  Winner.  All the way back to 1976 and some whiny ass little crybaby from California bitching that "apparently Gygax thinks empty rooms are fun."

Besides, "I hate this monster" is every bit as personal as "I'm sick of people bitching about monsters."  And I'm not the one who used the terms "Gygaxian dickery" or "fuck you monsters."

"I'm going to use inflammatory and insulting terms and then react with mock surprise when somebody gets pissed."

Drink soup made from the brown crust in my underpants.

(ddogwood, not  you)