Things, places, monsters and items

So, let's do this little game of things you LOVE in an rpg, weather it be an item, monster, place, event, etc..
Things you like or enjoy how they can function or the like

I'll start this, with a monster.

One of the most fun (and mean) monsters I think, is the Rust Monster (D&D 3.5). Neutral Alignment, abberation,
these creatures love nothing more than to eat metal, even precious metals like gold, silver and platinum. They will also eat magical metals, and have a hide that turns metal to rusted dust at the touch.

Now, the reason i love them is because they're not intelligent, and not evil. This is a creature following it's basic instincts for wanting food, and it can smell metal at a distance. They're also kind of difficult to combat since using metal weapons versus one will turn your weapon to slag, poor weapons. ^-^

Events- weather changes in outdoor settings.

Monsters- Rust Monster and Purple Worm.

emotional and or moral quandaries to see who is accurately playing their characters.

Rust monsters are always fun!
Hah, so you mean demonicly infused children? ^__________________________________^

I agree with Shakka, emotional and moral situations are best...but it has to be deeper and even more morally questionable than just the cliched demon children.

Favorite Monster: Mankind

Shakka_Kairn, your comment raises a couple of questions for me:
1. What do you consider a moral quandry?
2. How does such a thing help you "tell" if players are playing their characters accurately?
3. Why would you feel it's important to "check" or "test" how well players are playing their characters? Isn't a character defined only in so far as it is roleplayed, and not the other way around? (I mean, if the player is having fun playing the way they are, then why not change the *character* instead of the player?)

I was referencing something we did with a group of ours once which turned out fantastically. They played their characters to the T and it was swell.

Shakka never said anything about testing characters to change them. She means, to see who is playing their character the way they set them to be. Not to answer for her, but shakka is a very roleplay heavy GM.

Moral quandaries are events that push a characters actions and problem solving to places they don't normally have to venture. Against the grain of what they define as right an wrong. Where a player has figure out what their character would do in the complex situation that or event that would cause them to pause.
It's like if you're against putting an animal down, and your cat is horrifically maimed and going to die a very painful death. Would you put it down even though you're against it, or let it suffer?

If you're not doing it to "test" with the inevitable plan to change (either the characters or the way the players are playing them), then why have a "test" in the first place?
I had suspected that this was the kind of thing meant by moral quandary. If the goal is to "test" players RP skills, then a moral challenge is a bad test because by its definition it's a difficult choice. No aspect of the character creation (if the character is interesting and humanly flawed) will guide the player to make a decision in such a situation (because, by it's definition, it goes against the grain of the characters notions of right and wrong). THAT said, moral quandaries and the like are good tools for make consequences and stories more interesting for the players. As long as used sparingly (if you do it too often, they become routine and boring and less meaningful) they can create tough, interesting and memorable moments for everyone.

Test: a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.
Seeing how players react in character does not = trying to change the character or the player.
putting events in there so players can become better at roleplaying and immersion isn't ever a bad thing.

I personally have played with a lot of groups that are combat heavy and don't rp very well, i put more situations into my games now that require the player to think in character more than as a player to get an outcome they desire. i don't punish them if they don't, but i will nudge them into a non-meta focus for gaming since Roleplaying is about immersion.

For monsters, I like 4th Edition's minions. They're brilliant. They're quick and easy to run and to deal with, but not completely trivial, since they circumvent the normal approach to hit points and can't be automatically wiped out by something that does damage on a miss. I particularly like minions that cause trouble just by being near a character.

For events, I generally like any kind of interesting failure. By that I mean any kind of failure that moves things forward in an adventurous way, rather than grinding things to a halt. Fiction is full of failure like this, because it raises the tension and the stakes. The Empire Strikes Back consists of failure after failure for the heroes, but each failure moves the story along. I wouldn't want to watch a movie in which the Rebels repelled the Imperial invasion, or one in which the Rebels were completely wiped out.

I guess generally I like failure that is basically success but with huge cost. "The battle's done, and we kinda won..."