PDA

View Full Version : The Appeal of Cursed Magic



DoomHat
2017-08-08, 01:43 PM
My three favorite classic D&D magic items are The Sword of Berserking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordBerserking), The Backbiter Spear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#spearCursedBackbiter), and The Mace of Blood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#maceofBlood). I'll take any of those three or items like them over a boring no frills [+X Weapon] at every opportunity.

I've mused for a long time and occasionally embarked on writing exercises to try and figure out how to make the rest of the usual catalog of cursed items as or more practically useful as the above examples. I've always wanted to play a game that had a magic system where all spells were similarly weird and costly (though not necessarily as tonally dark).

I just wanted to know how alone I am in this preference. Does anyone else prefer their magic and blessings to come with strange caveats?

inuyasha
2017-08-08, 01:52 PM
Absolutely. Magic being amazing is great, but magic with caveats makes it feel alien, strange, and truly wondrous.

This is why most of my games use a variant of wild magic (in my current one, all the spellcasters encountered have been wild-casters just because my players find it as funny as I do).

For this same reason, I'm also a big fan of the Ravenloft Dark Powers check, giving consequences to black magic and blasphemy (among other things), and giving weird powers/penalties when the checks are failed.

Jormengand
2017-08-08, 02:16 PM
A lot of the cursed items, their drawback can be turned into a benefit (such as the cursed -2 sword where the inability to leave your possession, combined with quick draw, can be used for extra triggers on "Whenever you draw your weapon" effects). Some are just straight-up good (dust of sneezing and choking is just good as a weapon, and I'm not the only person who would go to great lengths to gain the girdle of masculinity/femininity). Lesson to learn: someone, somewhere will turn the drawback into an added bonus.

JellyPooga
2017-08-08, 04:39 PM
It would be an interesting limitation on the "christmas tree effect" if every single item had some kind of drawback or side effect; one or two such items in your posession would be ok, but five? Ten? Just tracking all those little things, let alone the effects themselves, would make the accumulation of such items, or the lack of, self-policing.

LaserFace
2017-08-08, 07:35 PM
I like all sorts of curiosities that give you power at a cost. Adding this dimension to some items can make for some interesting decisions and problems for players, and I think if used appropriately add a lot of fun to the game.

I don't think a drawback is a necessary include with most items, though. It's true, a cursed weapon tends to be a lot more interesting than Generic +1 Longsword, but it's my policy to never hand out Generic +1 Longswords. For every piece of treasure I give out that isn't gold, scrolls or potions, I try to give it as much characterization as a cursed item might have; I give it a history, distinct markings, small properties, basically everything you find in DMG 142-143.

I find this approach dials back PC thirst for upgrades (they seem to get attached to items that were thoughtfully constructed), and reminds me to not shower the party with loot (the added effort is sometimes a barrier when I'm lazy, or alternatively lets me take full stock of just how much crap I'm actually giving them when I realize how much time went into it).

Overall, I think both Cursed Magic Items and simply Detailed Non-Cursed Magic Items are fun and healthy for gameplay. I think the actual Curse aspect is most beneficial in its ability to change things up, though. I wouldn't include one unless I thought it would get people thinking.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-08, 07:53 PM
I have always liked the idea that magic is a strange, dangerous unknowable power. People can use it, but with a risk. Divine magic is mostly safe, as the gods 'filter' it, and a lot of simple magic is mostly safe......but otherwise anything can happen.

Fiction is full of dangerous and interesting magic...but D&D has gone down the sliding slope of making magic as dull, boring and robotic as possible. Worst was starting with 3E and the rule of ''the spell does exactly what the page says it does always..beep." Yet fiction..including most D&D novels too...contains things like ''two wizards fought and ripped open a hole to the dimension of nightmares when they died in spell-battle''. Yet you won't find any official rules even hinting at that.

In my own game I like to make magic strange and dangerous. An old classic is having [evil] type spells summon snakes, bugs and such...sometimes under the casters control, but often not. And [good] spells summon more good and noble creatures. My magic house rules are extensive...

And Curses are a favorite of mine. I have always liked the idea of ''forbidden'' places and things that ''punish'' people that go there or use them.

I do recall a player of mine, more then once, using the cursed sword trick. So when they would get captured, and loose all their stuff and weapons, the character could always 'pop' the cursed sword back to their hand at a later time.

Drynwyn
2017-08-08, 11:25 PM
If you're into that sort of thing, I recommend reading Unknown Armies 2nd or 3rd edition. 2nd edition in particular is a game that's mostly about magic with weird requirements and caveats.

LadyFoxfire
2017-08-09, 12:05 AM
My friend was telling me about a character in his game who had a bag of devouring and used it as a trash can/toilet.

inuyasha
2017-08-09, 02:54 AM
Oh dang, using one as a toilet sounds like you're just asking for trouble...

Eldan
2017-08-09, 04:12 AM
We should homebrew some more of those, they are always fun. I'm spontaneously thinking of an item that stores knowledge, but also constantly whispers to the bearer, making it hard for them to concentrate and depriving them of sleep.

BWR
2017-08-09, 05:44 AM
A lot of the cursed items, their drawback can be turned into a benefit (such as the cursed -2 sword where the inability to leave your possession, combined with quick draw, can be used for extra triggers on "Whenever you draw your weapon" effects). Some are just straight-up good (dust of sneezing and choking is just good as a weapon, and I'm not the only person who would go to great lengths to gain the girdle of masculinity/femininity). Lesson to learn: someone, somewhere will turn the drawback into an added bonus.

And at this point you have missed the point of the item being cursed. Neither I nor any DM I know would allows this sort of nonsense.

GungHo
2017-08-09, 08:10 AM
The Hammer of Dwarf Throwing is great when you need to get across a gap.

Jormengand
2017-08-09, 09:35 AM
And at this point you have missed the point of the item being cursed. Neither I nor any DM I know would allows this sort of nonsense.

To me, the attempt to get around the curse is far more interesting than the "And now you have a -2 penalty. Well, this'll sure make for some fun and interactive gameplay!"

Say, what is the point of the items being cursed? Just as a DM "Screw you" to the players, Tomb-of-Horrors style? Or as an actually interactable-with fact of the world?

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-09, 09:53 AM
My three favorite classic D&D magic items are The Sword of Berserking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordBerserking), The Backbiter Spear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#spearCursedBackbiter), and The Mace of Blood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#maceofBlood). I'll take any of those three or items like them over a boring no frills [+X Weapon] at every opportunity.

I've mused for a long time and occasionally embarked on writing exercises to try and figure out how to make the rest of the usual catalog of cursed items as or more practically useful as the above examples. I've always wanted to play a game that had a magic system where all spells were similarly weird and costly (though not necessarily as tonally dark).

I just wanted to know how alone I am in this preference. Does anyone else prefer their magic and blessings to come with strange caveats?

A cursed item isn't suppose to be a benefit. Attempts to workaround and turn it into a benefit should generally backfire.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-09, 10:09 AM
If the cursed item has an effect, that effect has implications and interactions with the rest of the "reality" that the characters inhabit.

With descriptive context, the item does what it does, and has the effect that it has, and interacts with the rest of the setting.

Dropping a giant "NOPE" on players following through with the implications and interactions of that effect within the setting... and inflicting a mechanics-only curse with no descriptive context, is pushing the RPG into board-game territory.


And what is even the point of that sort of "just inflicts a negative" cursed items, anyway? It strikes me as of-a-kind with those stupid ear-burrowing worms that were added to D&D just to "punish" players for listening at doors.

BWR
2017-08-09, 11:02 AM
To me, the attempt to get around the curse is far more interesting than the "And now you have a -2 penalty. Well, this'll sure make for some fun and interactive gameplay!"

Say, what is the point of the items being cursed? Just as a DM "Screw you" to the players, Tomb-of-Horrors style? Or as an actually interactable-with fact of the world?

Like Freddy said, it isn't a curse if you make it work for you. A curse is something you want to get rid of because it screws you over. This is not the same as going all 'gotcha', as some people like to call it. Call it Classical thought: attempts to outwit destiny or work around curses backfire. Cursed items can have many origins: screw-ups when making something, deliberate traps to kill people (usually specific ones, and then the item makes its merry way around the world), and evil gods playing tricks are the major that come to my mind. While you may argue that from a metagame perspective it is to screw over incautious players, you can say that about tons of other things like traps and certain monsters. I think it's just a fun part of the game.

Jormengand
2017-08-09, 11:08 AM
I think it's just a fun part of the game.

What's fun about "Oh, you know that cool weapon you have, that may be your entire class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)? Oh yeah, you can't use it, you have to use this longsword instead, and also you get a -2 to attack and damage rolls because screw you, that's why."

What's the point of having a feature of the game which exists only to stop people doing cool stuff and give them -numbers instead? What's the point of the amulet of "Lol, no, you just die"?

It's also the difference between a trap, and the ToH not!traps which can't be searched or disable device'd, but which just kill you outright because screw you, that's why. There's no roll or method or strategy for finding cursed items. There's only what you choose to do when you have one. If I'm not using the Armour of Arrow Attraction to help me tank archers for my allies, it's only serving as a "No screw you that's why."

BWR
2017-08-09, 11:19 AM
What's fun about "Oh, you know that cool weapon you have, that may be your entire class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)? Oh yeah, you can't use it, you have to use this longsword instead, and also you get a -2 to attack and damage rolls because screw you, that's why."

What's the point of having a feature of the game which exists only to stop people doing cool stuff and give them -numbers instead? What's the point of the amulet of "Lol, no, you just die"?

It's also the difference between a trap, and the ToH not!traps which can't be searched or disable device'd, but which just kill you outright because screw you, that's why. There's no roll or method or strategy for finding cursed items. There's only what you choose to do when you have one. If I'm not using the Armour of Arrow Attraction to help me tank archers for my allies, it's only serving as a "No screw you that's why."

Why would a soulknife be wielding a sword in any case?
I suppose I can interpret your position as "make everything easy and safe for the players so they don't have to worry" then, shall I? Once we're going for strawmen, I mean.
The fun bit is it is a challenge. It is an obstacle to overcome. It is something hampering you which you have to handle. That is an important part of D&D, perhaps the most important part. It's the sort of thing that may be irritating right then and there but which is a lot of fun later. Cursed items encourage caution and most issues can easily be rectified past a certain level. Remove Curse isn't that hard to get hold of unless you are like 1st or 2nd level.

Anymage
2017-08-09, 11:51 AM
Yes. In D&D, any time you have a problem there's a spell custom tailored to be the solution. In a way, that's precisely why I think DoomHat and others feel the way that they do.

-2 to hit and damage really isn't that interesting. Neither is "you just died, next time remember to test new items out on hirelings before using them yourself". Curses in fiction overwhelmingly had a plot-level focus (something trickier to do in a collaborative world) over simple mechanical penalties.

Many cursed items in the DMG can be turned around to the party's tactical advantage. That's a distraction to the main point. The real point is that many more cursed items feed into two popular fictional tropes; magic carries risks, and magic comes with a price. D&D magic doesn't do either one well. (At the very least, a skill based magic system would bring uncertainty that the slot based system doesn't.) Items with costs and/or tradeoffs are the closest you get to that concept.

DoomHat
2017-08-09, 12:02 PM
I couldn't disagree more strongly with those in favor of cursed items being strictly a negative. I am profoundly philosophically opposed. I understand that some people, somehow, enjoy slow oppressive "bomb disposal squad" dungeon delving, and Munchkin style "gotcha!" but personally that kind of thing sets my teeth on edge. I do my utmost to keep that style of play 150ft from my person at all times.

I find it heartening that a lot of people have so far agreed with me that curses are more interesting as tricky decision making exorcises. Dark temptations. Flaws to embrace, work through, around, and be empowered by, as opposed to pure obnoxious burdens to be disposed of or destroyed by.

Beelzebubba
2017-08-09, 01:17 PM
What's fun about "Oh, you know that cool weapon you have, that may be your entire class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)? Oh yeah, you can't use it, you have to use this longsword instead, and also you get a -2 to attack and damage rolls because screw you, that's why."

What's the point of having a feature of the game which exists only to stop people doing cool stuff and give them -numbers instead? What's the point of the amulet of "Lol, no, you just die"?

It's because it's a game, and the game presents challenges.

Sometimes you get knocked out because a spell hits your weak saving throw.
Sometimes you get nerfed because a monster is immune to your most damaging attack.
Sometimes you get hindered because the environment prevents you from certain tactics.
Sometimes you get interfered with by political forces that make a normal activity forbidden for a while.

Etcetera.

A cursed item is yet another temporary challenge to be overcome.
Overcoming challenges is part of the fun.

...isn't it?

PS - what's this Amulet you're talking about?

Jormengand
2017-08-09, 05:12 PM
There's a difference between a challenge and artificial difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty).

Let's take two items to demonstrate, the -2 longsword (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordCursed) and the necklace of strangulation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#necklaceofStrangulation).

A character who picks up a -2 longsword, takes it home, and only discovers after having owned it for a week that it's cursed, is faced with the challenge of "How can I still fight effectively with a terrible sword?" The challenge has answers - there's the cheese-weasel answer of "Invest in iajutsu focus and the quick draw feat and wreck face with not!Sneak Attack", or you can try to use it and still adventure normally, only with a penalty, or you can use it as a throwing weapon because hey, free ammo - there are options, so long as the DM doesn't say "No, any way to use this sword for a benefit goes horribly wrong because I say so". If the DM does, then it turns out you got slapped with a -2 to attack/damage and inability to use any other weapons because you weren't careful.

The necklace of strangulation, on the other hand, can't be used as anything but a DM "Screw you." Oh, you didn't use a miracle that you probably can't cast at this point to identify a moderately-expensive necklace just in case it's the Necklace of No, You Just Die, Because Screw You, That's Why? Well that's a crying shame, isn't it. There's no counterplay to the necklace of strangulation: even if you happen to know that limited wish, wish and miracle would prevent it (you have no way to learn that this is the case), what's the chance you know it or have it prepared? 6 damage a round gives you a solid minute or two to figure out what to do, and practically nothing is effective. And I'm not saying "Practically nothing" for comic effect: there is, for all intents and purposes, no way to figure out that the necklace will try to kill you, and nothing you can do to stop it. This is Tomb-of-Horrors-no-it's-not-a-trap-and-can't-be-searched-for-or-disabled-but-it-kills-you-anyway-level nonsense from the necklace of strangulation right here. It's not a challenge, you just die. Dying isn't a real challenge, it's just the DM making rocks fall. The DM can already make rocks fall; she doesn't need a cursed item to tell her how to.

LaserFace
2017-08-09, 06:32 PM
I think a -2 Longsword is about as bad as a +1 Longsword, maybe worse because nobody likes strict debuffs.

I'd much prefer some kind of Longsword of Mad Rage that disallows the wielder to take actions in combat other than 1) Attack an enemy or 2) Move toward an enemy so you can attack it. I might even give it a +1.

I do think the "Curse" aspect for the wielder should actually be bad, though. Sometimes you can find clever ways to make it still somewhat useful, ie that Necklace of Strangulation, but I find the whole appeal of cursed items to be "You are suffering from this Curse now. How do you deal with it?", Not "Oh this thing is bad, but I guess you can use it on your enemies."

BWR
2017-08-10, 02:38 AM
I do think the "Curse" aspect for the wielder should actually be bad, though. Sometimes you can find clever ways to make it still somewhat useful, ie that Necklace of Strangulation, but I find the whole appeal of cursed items to be "You are suffering from this Curse now. How do you deal with it?", Not "Oh this thing is bad, but I guess you can use it on your enemies."

Pretty much this.

It occurs to me now that we have two different things here and have been kind of talking about them as the same thing while arguing about which it should be, while mechanically they are indistinguishable. One is the trap item, intended to appear harmless or useful but actually mess someone up. Dust of Sneezing and Choking and Necklace of Strangulation can very easily be made as they are to trap stuff or kill people. Properly created and used, these aren't dangerous to the user. They have one mechanical effect which is reliable and strictly limited. The other is the genuine curse. They mess you up and probably don't function quite as intended when created. It doesn't matter what you try to do with it, your results will be unintended and tragic. You try to throw the Dust in someone's face, a breeze blows it back into yours. You try to assassinate someone with the Necklace, it's found and used by a loved one. You try to use the sword for stupid quick draw (which is another peeve of mine) nonsense and the sword doesn't let you do it. The actual mechanics of the items themselves are the same but they are actually curses, not just another magic item.

I just feel that curses should be cursed, not useful.

DoomHat
2017-08-10, 03:05 AM
Pretty much this.

It occurs to me now that we have two different things here and have been kind of talking about them as the same thing while arguing about which it should be, while mechanically they are indistinguishable. One is the trap item, intended to appear harmless or useful but actually mess someone up. Dust of Sneezing and Choking and Necklace of Strangulation can very easily be made as they are to trap stuff or kill people. Properly created and used, these aren't dangerous to the user. They have one mechanical effect which is reliable and strictly limited. The other is the genuine curse. They mess you up and probably don't function quite as intended when created. It doesn't matter what you try to do with it, your results will be unintended and tragic. You try to throw the Dust in someone's face, a breeze blows it back into yours. You try to assassinate someone with the Necklace, it's found and used by a loved one. You try to use the sword for stupid quick draw (which is another peeve of mine) nonsense and the sword doesn't let you do it. The actual mechanics of the items themselves are the same but they are actually curses, not just another magic item.

I just feel that curses should be cursed, not useful.
This is exactly the opposite conversion I was expecting this thread to wind up going in.
As some have already pointed out, the core gist of my OP was, "Hey, I prefer my magic to come saddled with weird or terrible prices, anyone agree?".

So, I was expecting people to take umbrage with the notion of magic items and potentially even casting being taxed in that way. It would have never occurred to me that people would be upset by the idea that curses could ever be allowed to have any sort of upside.

Eldan
2017-08-10, 03:33 AM
I'm not opposed to curses having upsides. But those upsides should not be too obvious. I like my players to work for them.

In fact, one of the things I like as a DM is when my players come up with an unexpected idea and turn a negative into a positive. Can be any kind of negative, doesn't have to be an item.

What I mean is, what I don't want is players going "This sword gives +6 to damage, but makes you mute? Pff, barbarians don' need to speak anyway." That's cheap.

Giving it to an enemy can be fun, though. There's this rather glorious tomb of horror story that's going around, though I don't remember the details. There's two magic items that you need to advance in the dungeon, but if the same person holds both, they are disintegrated with no save. So the party managed to put both of them on the basically unbeatable demilich endboss.

That kind of thing is fantastic.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-10, 06:46 AM
This is exactly the opposite conversion I was expecting this thread to wind up going in.
As some have already pointed out, the core gist of my OP was, "Hey, I prefer my magic to come saddled with weird or terrible prices, anyone agree?".

So, I was expecting people to take umbrage with the notion of magic items and potentially even casting being taxed in that way. It would have never occurred to me that people would be upset by the idea that curses could ever be allowed to have any sort of upside.

Well, this is three types of magic:

*Cursed Magic: This is the nasty punishment magic for breaking a rule or custom or other such thing. D&D does not really support this type of magic in 3X or beyond, but it's common in older editions.

*Trapped Magic: This is called ''cursed'' magic in 3X and above. This is the magic item made to be a harmful trap. Like most traps and ''gotcha'' things they have been watered down in 3X.

*Magic with a Price: This is magic that offers an effect, but for a price. D&D does not really support this type of magic in 3X or beyond, but it's common in older editions.


Though you can mix all the types of magic together. Like a Ring of Water Breathing that is an unholy item of Skorn the Fish God. The ring has a curse and a trap: if you don't worship Skorn you can't remove the ring and it will slowly polymorph you into a fish. Though for the price it is a ring of water breathing.

DoomHat
2017-08-10, 07:48 AM
*Magic with a Price: This is magic that offers an effect, but for a price. D&D does not really support this type of magic in 3X or beyond, but it's common in older editions.

I'm really confused by how objectively untrue this is? What about the Mace of Blood that only functions if you actively choose to maintain a coat of blood on it and risk inevitably succumbing to chaotic evil impulses? What about the Spear of Backbiting that works perfectly fine except that you might be willfully risking taking damage on a fumble? What about the Sword of Berserking which IN ITS VERY RULES AS WRITTEN strait up acknowledged that some people will probably be perfectly willing to accept and exploit the trade-off.

I call your attention to the entire swath of text and tables labeled "Dependent", "Requirement", and "Drawbacks" Right Here In Cursed Item Section of The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#).

Zale
2017-08-10, 07:59 AM
The whole "What Should Curses Be" tangent reminds me of how some Rogue-likes (Especially to my knowledge Nethack) handles cursed things (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Curse).

If something is cursed or not can be super important to a playthrough of Nethack because the status of something can change it's magical effect. Most of the time this is flatly negative (Exploding wands and armor you can't remove).

But sometimes it just inverts the effects of an item. A Potion of Gain Level does what you might think. A Cursed Potion of Gain Level instead bumps you up a level in the dungeon. Some of the items can totally be leveraged to do useful things because they do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do.

It can add a fun element to play.

I'd honestly prefer a cursed item that has a defined effect that can be used if the players are creative rather than one that is just uninteresting negative. It's more fun to watch a group figure out how to use a throwing hammer that throws you instead of itself than it is to watch them go, "Well time to find someone to uncurse this so we can dump it."

It makes it feel kind of dull.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-10, 08:10 AM
I'm really confused by how objectively untrue this is? What about the Mace of Blood that only functions if you actively choose to maintain a coat of blood on it and risk inevitably succumbing to chaotic evil impulses? What about the Spear of Backbiting that works perfectly fine except that you might be willfully risking taking damage on a fumble? What about the Sword of Berserking which IN ITS VERY RULES AS WRITTEN strait up acknowledged that some people will probably be perfectly willing to accept and exploit the trade-off.

I call your attention to the entire swath of text and tables labeled "Dependent", "Requirement", and "Drawbacks" Right Here In Cursed Item Section of The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#).

Yes, 3X does have a very small handful of ''cursed'' and ''magic for a price'', all most all in one section. But the vast bulk of all 3X magic is of the ''all ways works for the best way for whiners and complainers to have fun''.

3X does not have any ''must have'' items or spells, like the ones most roll playing optimizers demand they must have to role play their character, that have ''a price''.

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-08-10, 08:36 AM
Why are any magic items cursed? Who makes them? "The result of failed attempts to make good magic items" only seems to have turned up with rules in Pathfinder (correct me if I'm wrong).

On the other hand, cursed items have a place, when the curse is functional:
only an elf can use this magical bow, anyone else sickens and dies... The Helm of Moradin was made for the dwarf-friends of the Mountain Realm, it grants darkvision to Lawful humans who wear it - but if they ever try to harm a dwarf, they will suffer pain and anguish (-4 to STR, CON, WIS) until they atone... this sword, made by the Order of Holy Smackdown during the Hell Wars, inflicts a negative level on any non-Lawful Good character who tries to wield it, and only grants its benefits to a Paladin...



These are cursed items, too.

Aneurin
2017-08-10, 09:36 AM
Cursed magic - something that slaps the characters in the face and penalizes them - has always struck me as a little dull. I mean, it can work as part of a plot arc, but just as a general random, context-free thing it's just kind of meh.

Magic with a price on the other hand? That works. There's something to overcome, something to add a little flavour to things and something to build on. A ring that grants ultimate power, but the wearer cannot feel love lest the ring shatter. The sword which, if drawn, will always grant victory in battle - at the cost of the bearer's life. An ever-burning lamp that uses the owners' blood for fuel. Or even just a fiery sword that burns right down to the pommel.

All of those have a definite drawback, but they're all good enough it's worth finding a way around it... or just sucking it up. They're no good for a D&D magic-marts-in-every-village sort of thing - magic items with a price work best when magic and magic items are rare and special.

Beelzebubba
2017-08-10, 09:44 AM
There's a difference between a challenge and artificial difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty).

Let's take two items to demonstrate, the -2 longsword (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordCursed) and the necklace of strangulation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#necklaceofStrangulation).

A character who picks up a -2 longsword, takes it home, and only discovers after having owned it for a week that it's cursed, is faced with the challenge of "How can I still fight effectively with a terrible sword?" The challenge has answers - there's the cheese-weasel answer of "Invest in iajutsu focus and the quick draw feat and wreck face with not!Sneak Attack", or you can try to use it and still adventure normally, only with a penalty, or you can use it as a throwing weapon because hey, free ammo - there are options, so long as the DM doesn't say "No, any way to use this sword for a benefit goes horribly wrong because I say so". If the DM does, then it turns out you got slapped with a -2 to attack/damage and inability to use any other weapons because you weren't careful.

What I'm gathering is you feel you are entitled to having a character that never has a setback, never suffers a penalty, never even slows down their smooth, continuous accumulation of power and ability on their path to Godhood.

That's fine, I've played plenty of video games like that, but great drama always has an Act 2 where the heroes get screwed for a while. If we're talking tropes, Luke gets His Hand Cut Off, the guy Loses The Girl, the Father Figure Dies, Gollum Takes The Ring, etcetera.

It's a great plot hook, it's a great excuse to role play what your character does in the face of difficulty, and this sort of thing is a staple of fiction and the game. It's also a way to see how mature the player is in the face of a setback. (You're failing that test.)



The necklace of strangulation, on the other hand, can't be used as anything but a DM "Screw you." Oh, you didn't use a miracle that you probably can't cast at this point to identify a moderately-expensive necklace just in case it's the Necklace of No, You Just Die, Because Screw You, That's Why? Well that's a crying shame, isn't it. There's no counterplay to the necklace of strangulation: even if you happen to know that limited wish, wish and miracle would prevent it (you have no way to learn that this is the case), what's the chance you know it or have it prepared? 6 damage a round gives you a solid minute or two to figure out what to do, and practically nothing is effective. And I'm not saying "Practically nothing" for comic effect: there is, for all intents and purposes, no way to figure out that the necklace will try to kill you, and nothing you can do to stop it. This is Tomb-of-Horrors-no-it's-not-a-trap-and-can't-be-searched-for-or-disabled-but-it-kills-you-anyway-level nonsense from the necklace of strangulation right here. It's not a challenge, you just die. Dying isn't a real challenge, it's just the DM making rocks fall. The DM can already make rocks fall; she doesn't need a cursed item to tell her how to.

This isn't a cursed item. It's a trap.

It's also a MacGuffin. In the 30+ years I've played, I've never encountered it once. Because we all knew we would hate it, and we played a more story-driven game that was built around cinematic heroism. (Maybe it happened when I was 12, whatever, but we were all awful to each other back then. I don't remember.)

And, I've also seen it argued about more fervently than 'cute baby Orcs, kill them or not'. So, you're shaking your fist at a cloud in the sky here. Sure, you're outraged. So what? Everyone always is. Yawn.

That said, in a hardcore 'AD&D by the rules' game, it works. It's the kind of thing a Balor or Lich leaves in their treasure hoard, to execute ice cold revenge on anyone who dares slay them. A thematically perfect trap, especially for a party that gets careless while they're in the stronghold of their most devious and evil opponent. I wouldn't hesitate to use it, if the table all agreed on allowing stuff like it in our session 0.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-10, 10:15 AM
What I'm gathering is you feel you are entitled to having a character that never has a setback, never suffers a penalty, never even slows down their smooth, continuous accumulation of power and ability on their path to Godhood.


What I'm gathering is that you're mistaking adversarial GMing and non-sequitur gotcha/screwjob moments... for actual in-context challenges and obstacles that also serve to increase the entertainment and depth of the campaign.

And yes, that's absolutely as fair to your statement as your statement was to the post you were replying to.




That's fine, I've played plenty of video games like that, but great drama always has an Act 2 where the heroes get screwed for a while. If we're talking tropes, Luke gets His Hand Cut Off, the guy Loses The Girl, the Father Figure Dies, Gollum Takes The Ring, etcetera.

It's a great plot hook, it's a great excuse to role play what your character does in the face of difficulty, and this sort of thing is a staple of fiction and the game. It's also a way to see how mature the player is in the face of a setback. (You're failing that test.)


What does any of that have to do with -2 swords and Necklaces of You Should Have Been More Paranoid randomly popping up?

Actana
2017-08-10, 11:11 AM
Disregarding the part about maturity tests (seriously, what kind of dysfunctional GM tips book is that from?), what exactly is the payoff from a plot arc revolving around getting rid of a cursed -2 longsword? "I should have been more careful handling treasure"? Because that was obvious from the get go as it the curse is noticed. There's no arc in dealing with the sword because the lesson is learned immediately and there's no more real inherent narrative potential to the sword than there is to anything else. There's nothing more to learn or space to grow after you realize it's cursed. The effect is the same were it an instant HP damage curse. But instead you're saddled with a dull uninteresting object that you're now forced to use because reasons. The comparisons to actual plot arcs about tragedy and overcoming loss are entirely inappropriate.

Darth Ultron
2017-08-10, 11:55 AM
These are cursed items, too.

A race item, or a alignment or group item is not cursed. It just has a defense against non-whatevers using it.

A Cruse is something much more along the lines of Dark/Forbidden/Strange and more like something done as a punishment. Like King Maids was cursed with a gold touch. Most later editions of D&D just make ''curses'' a form of ''bad magic'' (but not evil).



Disregarding the part about maturity tests (seriously, what kind of dysfunctional GM tips book is that from?), what exactly is the payoff from a plot arc revolving around getting rid of a cursed -2 longsword? "I should have been more careful handling treasure"? Because that was obvious from the get go as it the curse is noticed. There's no arc in dealing with the sword because the lesson is learned immediately and there's no more real inherent narrative potential to the sword than there is to anything else. There's nothing more to learn or space to grow after you realize it's cursed. The effect is the same were it an instant HP damage curse. But instead you're saddled with a dull uninteresting object that you're now forced to use because reasons. The comparisons to actual plot arcs about tragedy and overcoming loss are entirely inappropriate.

Well, it does depend a lot on the type of game your playing.

You might like the ''nothing bad ever really happens to the characters '' type game.

In general, cursed treasure is a punishment for being greedy. It's saying ''maybe you should not grab every single thing of value you find '' and ''maybe you should be more careful. It is menat to stop the ''kill, loot, repeat'' cycle where after a fight where the awesome character win the players are like ''whatever we take the loot, what is the next roll playing combat encounter!''

In more storytelling type games, you will find items you steal or kill to steal cursed. Or even more general anything that is considered ''wrong''. The quest to remove a curse is classic.

Bogwoppit
2017-08-10, 12:53 PM
A race item, or a alignment or group item is not cursed.

...

Well, it does depend a lot on the type of game you're playing.

...

Can you say "cognitive dissonance" kids?

FreddyNoNose
2017-08-10, 01:19 PM
I think a -2 Longsword is about as bad as a +1 Longsword, maybe worse because nobody likes strict debuffs.

I'd much prefer some kind of Longsword of Mad Rage that disallows the wielder to take actions in combat other than 1) Attack an enemy or 2) Move toward an enemy so you can attack it. I might even give it a +1.

I do think the "Curse" aspect for the wielder should actually be bad, though. Sometimes you can find clever ways to make it still somewhat useful, ie that Necklace of Strangulation, but I find the whole appeal of cursed items to be "You are suffering from this Curse now. How do you deal with it?", Not "Oh this thing is bad, but I guess you can use it on your enemies."

That is my problem. The use of the word clever. It is just a massive ego stoke saying look at me, I am clever when it is just something that people have been doing forever in the game. I understand there are a ton of people with low self esteem that need these types of ego stoke but damn, don't think they are clever and not cliched. JFC.

BWR
2017-08-10, 02:11 PM
Can you say "cognitive dissonance" kids?

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't apply to DU's post. His post is in essence correct, though I'm sure some people could quibble about the 'more storytelling type games' bit.

Actana
2017-08-10, 02:34 PM
Well, it does depend a lot on the type of game your playing.

You might like the ''nothing bad ever really happens to the characters '' type game.

In general, cursed treasure is a punishment for being greedy. It's saying ''maybe you should not grab every single thing of value you find '' and ''maybe you should be more careful. It is menat to stop the ''kill, loot, repeat'' cycle where after a fight where the awesome character win the players are like ''whatever we take the loot, what is the next roll playing combat encounter!''

In more storytelling type games, you will find items you steal or kill to steal cursed. Or even more general anything that is considered ''wrong''. The quest to remove a curse is classic.

Strawman aside, I was replying to the idea that a cursed item like that makes for a great plot arc, not "what the cursed items are there for". And the plot arc of removing a curse can be done so, so much better with a curse that is actually narratively interesting. A -2 longsword is not narratively interesting because there is absolutely no narrative potential in it that any other curse doesn't have. The best I can think of is the arc where a fighter needs to learn that fighting isn't everything, but it can be done so much easier and better with something else than a -2 weapon.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-08-10, 03:04 PM
An important note, I think, about magic with drawbacks: characters shouldn't be forced to rely on it. They should have other abilities they can use in its stead. Less effective ones, certainly, but the choice should be "do I risk magic, or hope my investigation turns up the information in time?", not "do I risk magic, or stand here like a blob?"


It would be an interesting limitation on the "christmas tree effect" if every single item had some kind of drawback or side effect; one or two such items in your posession would be ok, but five? Ten? Just tracking all those little things, let alone the effects themselves, would make the accumulation of such items, or the lack of, self-policing.
Not really. It would both be an inappropriate nerf on two levels: first, assuming you're playing 3.5/4e where the term is most often used, that Christmas tree is necessary to keep up with monsters. At least the boring +x items are. That's a basic system assumption, and you shouldn't tinker with it without a plan to compensate.

Second, it's a major Grod's Law violation. You're not weakening the players so much as passive-aggressively irritating them until they grumpily do it for you. Except for the inappropriate powergamer, who carefully keeps track of the downsides, finds ways to minimize them, and gains another edge over everyone else. And the munchkin, who constantly "forgets," downplays, or whines about the downsides. Meanwhile, "good" experienced players move towards less equipment-dependant classes to compensate, suffering from reduced options, and newbies suffer from both the downsides and the increased complexity.

Not to mention that intentionally annoying mechanics have no place in a GAME we play for fun.

Trying to balance in-game power with out-of-game annoyance never works.


What I'm gathering is you feel you are entitled to having a character that never has a setback, never suffers a penalty, never even slows down their smooth, continuous accumulation of power and ability on their path to Godhood.
Really? Because I'm not. I'm getting that they want to

A) Use "cursed" items in creative ways. Ie, the clever, out-of-the-box, old-school thinking we so often want to encourage.

B) Have curses that are more interesting than "lol your sword sucks now lol." Which is eminently reasonable. "You go into a berserker rage when you see blood" is much more fun to roleplay, and more conducive to character arcs, then "you must use this -2 sword."

Both of which seem like... well... kind of the point.

Actana
2017-08-10, 03:14 PM
Personally I've always liked cursed weapons (and other things with significant drawbacks) which are objectively better than the regular stuff you have, but come with just as significant drawbacks. This changes the question into "can I afford not to use this item?" instead of just "which items can I use?" Make the players choose to use those curses as they're meant to, make them explicitly aware of the terrible downsides the curse has, and watch them suffer from the consequences they knew they'd be faced with, but never knowing quite how they would manifest. Make the consequences worse than they expected, but as long as they know deep down that it was their fault alone and the GM did not force or trick the PC into using the weapon. They knew what they were getting into, but never could have prepared for it.

Tricking players to doom them is so passe. Having the players knowingly doom themselves is much better.


Of course, the overall presentation of how this goes is extremely important. If the PC is cursed to murder everyone they see during combat, it's a cheap shot to introduce a friendly NPC that PC cares about in the middle of the combat. Things need to flow well and progress logically, the cause and effect of everything needs to be eminently clear - even if it is only in hindsight (and it really does need to be obvious to the players, not just to the GM). The important part is that the players need to know it was their fault, not that the GM can screw them over. It's all about player perception here.

JeenLeen
2017-08-10, 03:16 PM
Magic with a cost idea
I've been working on a game set in Wildbow's Pact setting (or at least based on that setting.)
One of the interesting magical aspects in that setting is magical contagion, that how you do magic can leak into you if you're not careful.

One contagion aspect I plan to introduce -- it's not part of the default setting -- is that if you have more than 3 magic items on you, your risk of contagion increases. It exists mainly as an in-universe rationale for why someone wouldn't carry around a ton of magic gear in a setting where it's not terribly difficult to make magic gear (e.g., things with bound lesser elementals or ghosts in them). It is also a deterrent to players to try to powergame by focusing on magical styles that magic items instead of other styles. I guess that might be a Grod's Law violation, but it's spelled out clearly in the mechanics and thus it is free for the players to choose to boost their contagion risk in exchange for more options, or to not do so.
Note that the contagion increases as you have magic on your person. You can have multiple magic items, but not on your person. Also, carrying it in your backpack counts as on your person, so no trading out between your dozen or so magic items for whatever best fits the circumstance.

and make that cost a curse?
To port something like this into D&D, maybe say that magic items, when close together, interact in some way, leading to minor to major banes. Effectively, a random curse. You could even have the curses reset every X units of time. That way a player can try to find a creative way to use a cursed item, but the curse will change so it's not a real undoing of the curse. (If you planned to do this in 3.5, I'd recommend letting the number of magic items be higher, since magic gear is assumed. This could keep folk from having like 5 pairs of magic boots they trade between depending on the circumstance.)

DoomHat
2017-08-10, 03:21 PM
Really? Because I'm not. I'm getting that they want to

A) Use "cursed" items in creative ways. Ie, the clever, out-of-the-box, old-school thinking we so often want to encourage.

B) Have curses that are more interesting than "lol your sword sucks now lol." Which is eminently reasonable. "You go into a berserker rage when you see blood" is much more fun to roleplay, and more conducive to character arcs, then "you must use this -2 sword."

Both of which seem like... well... kind of the point.

And so it was, with a crack of thunder, that the nail was hit squarely on the head.

Tinkerer
2017-08-10, 04:24 PM
Part of all this depends on how strong the curse on the item is. If you've got an item like the dust of sneezing and choking (which I don't even consider to be a cursed item) which radiates a faint aura of conjuration and when you try and use it in a creative way it always finds a way to rebound on you that is some potent magic that's being thrown around. Like, almost artifact level magics. I cannot think of the slightest bit of in game rational which could be used to try and justify that level of GM dickery.

Now if you are dealing with a cursed artifact then that level of screwing over is perfect legit and may be called for as you have a sentient malevolent mystic force working against you. Much like the Dark Fate flaw from VtM your character is doomed (unless you can find a way to completely rewrite fate). Of course in those cases a PC should be warned about what they are getting into so it is their choice/their weakness which causes them to walk that dark path. Stealing the Avatar of Dispair's shoes is most likely not a smart move.

IIRC the idea of the items being failed attempts at creating normal items was first put forward in AD&D 2nd ed and I thought that it was brought up in 3X however I could be mistaken there. In my games I tend to put "cursed" items into one of the following categories.

1) Quirk/Failure - This is the case when someone screws up creating a magic item. Usually either an odd side effect or a % chance of failure or sometimes a complete inversion of it's intended purpose. Healing shivs fall into this, as do items from Akbar's discount magic emporium. These are the most likely candidates for unintended purposes and they are also often quite unique since, being an accident, they generally can't be recreated.

2) Trap - This is either an item which is put into a treasure trove to deliberately screw over thieves or an item which is meant to be used offensively in a non-intuitive way (think Sleeping Beauty's apple). Not terribly common, but depending on the owner of the treasure may be perfectly in character.

3) Not For You - This item is designed for a specific race/alignment/purpose/person. Pretty self explanatory as to why people would have them created. I would have to say that these are the most common type of "cursed" item in my worlds (excluding world where magic is particularly fickle where the Failure type is more common) although as DU pointed out cursed may not be the best term for them. Generally though they are easily identified since they normally aren't very subtle. Which makes sense, if you are fighting someone and they get your sword you don't want them to keep holding onto it.

4) Intelligent Cursed - Now we start to get into the real gritty items. These items are often powerful enough to be the central focus of a campaign, generally artifact level or slightly below. They are intelligent, they are normally evil, and they do not like you. They can warp your senses, your reality, your very personality. What's more they know all of your plans, and they have designs of their own. Even here though I would argue that you shouldn't always have it working against the player. With clever thinking they MAY be able to outwit it and get it to do something for them, assuming that they know it is intelligent at all.

5) Fate Cursed - Just the absolute worst(/best). This is the only place where I would encourage a no win scenario with the item. In terms of power it is like an ongoing Wish spell, and if you ever think that you've gotten the better of it it'll just hit you back twice as hard. It is a force of nature created with the express purpose of screwing you over. Generally the only things which can create it are the gods or a suicide spell which consumes the casters life force (because what else are you going to do with your dying breath). So why inflict it on your players? Normally it's as punishment for some extremely stupid action such as angering a powerful god or stealing an artifact which has in bright letters above it "ANYONE WHO STEALS THIS ARTIFACT WILL DIE". However as with all good fiction there should be a way to lift the curse, albeit though a monumental task.

6) Not Cursed in the Slightest - This is an item which has drawbacks which are inherent in it's use. A sword which puts you into a berserk frenzy for instance puts you in a berserk frenzy. Duh.

Should a cursed item normally be bad? Yes, definitely. Should it always be bad? Kinda depends on the "curse". Mythic tales are full of stories where the hero is granted some magical artifact which would appear either useless or detrimental only for the hero to use it in an unexpected way to gain an advantage. I think that the real problem is in AD&D they started using the term "cursed" to refer to any item with a downside. I should note that I don't use any of these with any real regularity. Items in category 1 tend to pop up in very low level play, category 2 tend occur on occasion when dealing with vindictive treasure hoarders, 3 shows up sometimes in mass produced enemy troops, 4 and 5 usually have good chunk of the campaign based around them, and 6... is just a magic item.

EDIT: SMH and I completely forgot to talk about the power with a price aspect which was why I started typing. Out of time oh well.

Jormengand
2017-08-10, 06:25 PM
What I'm gathering is you feel you are entitled to having a character that never has a setback, never suffers a penalty, never even slows down their smooth, continuous accumulation of power and ability on their path to Godhood.

No, so much as I don't want to be killed outright because I forgot to use wish to identify an item when wish isn't a spell I know/can learn/whatever, and I don't want uninteresting downsides. The intellectual dishonesty of your charicature has already been noted, however.

Psyren
2017-08-10, 06:46 PM
My three favorite classic D&D magic items are The Sword of Berserking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordBerserking), The Backbiter Spear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#spearCursedBackbiter), and The Mace of Blood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#maceofBlood). I'll take any of those three or items like them over a boring no frills [+X Weapon] at every opportunity.

I've mused for a long time and occasionally embarked on writing exercises to try and figure out how to make the rest of the usual catalog of cursed items as or more practically useful as the above examples. I've always wanted to play a game that had a magic system where all spells were similarly weird and costly (though not necessarily as tonally dark).

I just wanted to know how alone I am in this preference. Does anyone else prefer their magic and blessings to come with strange caveats?

Caveats yes, griefing no. Two of those items turn you against the party (unless it's an evil campaign) and so I would destroy them at the first opportunity whether you wanted to keep them or not. The spear is the most innocuous of the three as it only presents an inconvenience/danger to you, so knock yourself out.

Psikerlord
2017-08-10, 07:50 PM
In a high magic game I thikn cursed items are cool.

In a low magic game I dont like them, as they're too rare/unique already.

Overall I prefer magic to be uncertain/unpredictable/wild magic/dark & dangerous magic or similar. Always work normal magic is ... kinda boring. Just not as wonderous or mysterious when it works the same every time.

LaserFace
2017-08-10, 09:28 PM
That is my problem. The use of the word clever. It is just a massive ego stoke saying look at me, I am clever when it is just something that people have been doing forever in the game. I understand there are a ton of people with low self esteem that need these types of ego stoke but damn, don't think they are clever and not cliched. JFC.

Well, I'm simultaneously saying "clever" tongue-in-cheek (for people doing the obvious thing) while genuinely reserving space in my imagination for hypothetically clever players doing something unexpected with a DM's custom curse. But yeah, I really don't think this is all that clever. Clever might require use of a magic item, but the clever thing isn't simply activating it under the right circumstances. It's gotta be part of something bigger.

Like, fooling an enemy with a strangulation amulet is nothing. Fooling the Duke at his Masquerade where he and all the guests wear random jewelry from his Deluxe Bag of Fun, however.

Or, maybe using illusions to make yourself look like the King, and then you Knight some guy, but you hand him the Berserker's blade knowing full well the next time he even unsheathes his sword he's just going to murder people. Or something. That would maybe take a lot of Deception checks. Whatever, I'd roll with it.



Second, it's a major Grod's Law violation.
I'm just curious ...are you citing a "law" you made up yourself?


Personally I've always liked cursed weapons (and other things with significant drawbacks) which are objectively better than the regular stuff you have, but come with just as significant drawbacks. This changes the question into "can I afford not to use this item?" instead of just "which items can I use?" Make the players choose to use those curses as they're meant to, make them explicitly aware of the terrible downsides the curse has, and watch them suffer from the consequences they knew they'd be faced with, but never knowing quite how they would manifest. Make the consequences worse than they expected, but as long as they know deep down that it was their fault alone and the GM did not force or trick the PC into using the weapon. They knew what they were getting into, but never could have prepared for it.

Tricking players to doom them is so passe. Having the players knowingly doom themselves is much better.


Yeah, this is the good stuff. You're reminding me of the Dark Powers in Curse of Strahd.

I think this vein of Curses is most interesting, because maybe the players have ready access to a plain old path, but it could appear insufficient as your enemies close in around you, or the healer is down, or whatever. The price you pay for giving in vs the fear of being unable to change an outcome can make for some really cool decisions.

Tying this back to the original discussion, I think what makes power-at-a-cost so worthwhile adding to a game is the tension driven behind a player's choice.

I don't like it being the only avenue; I probably wouldn't want to play a game where everything my character does is bogged down by misfortune. Honestly, I'd be annoyed if my only job was to be a Wizard and cast spells, but every last spell had weird and dangerous repercussions. Maybe some would be acceptable, sure, but not all.

I do think it's cool to potentially have it be the strongest choice in the short term to accept a demonic pact, or wield a cursed object, or invoke powers that otherwise imperil you and your party. That decision can make a party's story very interesting.

Jormengand
2017-08-10, 09:31 PM
I'm just curious ...are you citing a "law" you made up yourself?

To be fair, it's kinda like if Oberoni or Tempest_Stormwind referred to the oberoni or stormwind fallacies. They're actually well-known enough that the person can mention them relatively confident that most regulars will know what it means.

LaserFace
2017-08-10, 10:14 PM
To be fair, it's kinda like if Oberoni or Tempest_Stormwind referred to the oberoni or stormwind fallacies. They're actually well-known enough that the person can mention them relatively confident that most regulars will know what it means.

I once had a professor who refused to call a thing with his name on it by that name. He just called it "eh this thing" and would shrug awkwardly about it.

My research mentor, also a professor, once told me about properly addressing him, "I'm indifferent about titles. Except for this one student who refused to hand over his exam when time was up. I told him, "That's DOCTOR ******* to you!""

I've shared lab space with world-class scientists who know to leave ego at the door. They're minded about what they do, not who they are.

Am I supposed to be impressed by a would-be D&D Forum Celebrity for attaching his name to a basic concept already apparent to basically everyone who isn't freshly new to roleplaying? Does the new player need to know somebody's name had to be attached to a piece of general advice? Is there something of historical significance that demands we think upon a particular username whenever we ponder the concept?

It's dumb.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-10, 10:23 PM
I take the whole self-reference thing as kinda tongue-in-cheek, certainly nothing to get worked up about.

And from what I've seen, there are plenty of people who get paid to design games for publishing who don't understand Grod's Law, so maybe it does need to be said.

JNAProductions
2017-08-10, 10:28 PM
I once had a professor who refused to call a thing with his name on it by that name. He just called it "eh this thing" and would shrug awkwardly about it.

My research mentor, also a professor, once told me about properly addressing him, "I'm indifferent about titles. Except for this one student who refused to hand over his exam when time was up. I told him, "That's DOCTOR ******* to you!""

I've shared lab space with world-class scientists who know to leave ego at the door. They're minded about what they do, not who they are.

Am I supposed to be impressed by a would-be D&D Forum Celebrity for attaching his name to a basic concept already apparent to basically everyone who isn't freshly new to roleplaying? Does the new player need to know somebody's name had to be attached to a piece of general advice? Is there something of historical significance that demands we think upon a particular username whenever we ponder the concept?

It's dumb.

So you're saying Grod should not call Grod's Law Grod's Law?

Because that's what I know it as. He wasn't stroking his ego or anything-it's not like he went "You're violating the most sacred and important of all roleplaying roles-named after the most handsome and devilishly intelligent of roleplayers themself!"

He just mentioned it when it was appropriate to.

LaserFace
2017-08-10, 10:31 PM
I take the whole self-reference thing as kinda tongue-in-cheek, certainly nothing to get worked up about.

And from what I've seen, there are plenty of people who get paid to design games for publishing who don't understand Grod's Law, so maybe it does need to be said.

Okay, maybe. I've just encountered a handful of people on these forums who seemed very serious about immortalizing themselves through "I put my name on it", so, yeah.

I'm fine with people saying things, but I don't think "Stormwind Fallacy" has improved anything about the D&D community. If anything, I just see people confusing the accusations against a person of being a poor roleplayer and a powergamer as being a causative argument, when those remarks are really just meant to call somebody else scum.

Edit: Actually, wait, I didn't realize it was summed up in the signature. I just tried to measure what it was from comments and filled in the gaps.

Seems kinda vague anyway? So I'll take back that bit about 'how everyone ought to already know about it', because I'm not even sure how to classify "annoying to use".

Although if it is all tongue-in-cheek, ha, yeah that did go over my head.

Cybren
2017-08-10, 10:51 PM
Ah, another self-titled "law" that states nothing of value by being both entirely subjective and overly broad.

TeChameleon
2017-08-11, 12:54 AM
*shrug*

I honestly don't have any problem with the whole 'whoever's law' thing, and it seems to me to be heading somewhere between kind of an irrelevant tangent and an ad hominem.

Anyways, the whole 'power with a price' side of the argument has, I think, slid past something fundamentally built into D&D- if you are playing a caster (barring some kind of prestige class thing or whatever), you are squishy. The price is kind of built-in (to a point, obviously- at higher levels, you run into the whole Linear Warriors/Quadratic Wizards thing which is an entirely different problem); sure, you can shape the fabric of reality by wiggling your fingers and chanting at it, but you get turned into a thin red smear by hits that would just sort of bounce off the warrior.

Granted, that's not a 'price' with a lot of narrative potential built in, but it's still there, and something to take into consideration before you start saddling casters with living in Interesting Times every time they try to light their pipe without a match.

That being said, I don't have a problem with 'power at a price' as a general concept, and think it can make for some great storytelling and gameplay opportunities, it just doesn't seem to be applied very well a lot of the time. A lot of GMs get a little too carried away with the 'price' end of things, and the 'power' end of things ends up as a sort of depressing afterthought.

"So if you fail your concentration check, the Veil is torn asunder and a thousand screaming devils drag your still-living body into the terrors of the beyond!"

"... so what happens if I succeed..?"

"Oh, right. You get +2 on your damage rolls for your next turn."

General rule of thumb I would use is that the character should still be able to function adequately in their chosen role without needing to risk their intestines being torn out through their ears every time they try to perform a simple task.

Dimers
2017-08-11, 01:25 AM
The necklace of strangulation, on the other hand, can't be used as anything but a DM "Screw you."

A dead webcomic I used to follow had a character save himself from a poison gas trap by putting on a necklace of choking (presumably a bit different, it was AD&D). But, yeah. Pointless death is pointless.


Does anyone else prefer their magic and blessings to come with strange caveats?

Hells to the yeah. Wu jen with their taboos, blood mages with their self-damage, priests making you take a magic oath before they'll bless you, fatigue or nonlethal damage from casting, magic attracting fairies that steal your equipment while you're sleeping, Raistlin's eyes seeing deathdoomdecay -- good stuff. Makes the world more present and less a numbers game.

Earthwalker
2017-08-11, 05:19 AM
I very much like unique items and magic items to feel special. I find the best system I have played that does this is Earthdawn where magic items are rarer and require finding our knowledge / performing deeds to make them stronger and increase their effects.
The system isn’t balanced on a Christmas tree effect and so it works very well. As owning magic items means you will want to raid old ruins to find information to make your items stronger.

As for cursed items. What are they in the game for? What do you want the PCs to learn from their inclusion?

Say the characters have a way to identify cursed items. This can then be handled by one player saying at the start of the campaign. We won’t use items until they are identified to the GM and there cursed items handled.
If the characters can’t identify them then there’s nothing required from the players, the GM can just choose if he wants to mess with the players or not.
GM drops a sword of berserking into the loot pile. The group have no idea what it is but the fighter takes it. Next fight becomes a TPK what have the players learned? Don’t loot anything?

Not that I don’t like the cursed items being talked about. I just wonder what purpose they serve in the game. Different people get different things from them. For me the sword of berserking wouldn’t be random loot that the PC can’t identify.
Instead they find it on a knight who for one reason or another was tricked in taking it.
He wants to protect his family but can’t, so he is stuck needing help. What will the PCs do to help him is then on him, one answer is “nothing” the PCs just ignore him and go on their way. They aren’t interested in knights or cursed items so ignore it.
Of course there are many other ways to deal with this. And I would hope that the PC don’t just ignore everything and everyone they encounter.


On Curses

ALL WHO TRY TO RAID THIS TOMB WILL BE CURSED

As the players read this above the entrance of a dungeon what are they supposed to do? I always like this one.
Does it mean don’t go into the dungeon and find something else to do?

Darth Ultron
2017-08-11, 08:10 AM
Can you say "cognitive dissonance" kids?

It is not a curse to say ''if any non elf touches this sword it will shock them''. There is a fuzzy line between trap/defense/security measure and curse, but in general a cure is a much bigger thing then a ''simple effect''. So like a negative level or some damage is not a curse...but slowly and painfully polymoprhing into a tree is.


Strawman aside, I was replying to the idea that a cursed item like that makes for a great plot arc, not "what the cursed items are there for". And the plot arc of removing a curse can be done so, so much better with a curse that is actually narratively interesting. A -2 longsword is not narratively interesting because there is absolutely no narrative potential in it that any other curse doesn't have. The best I can think of is the arc where a fighter needs to learn that fighting isn't everything, but it can be done so much easier and better with something else than a -2 weapon.

Well, again, depends on the type of game your playing. If it's a roll playing combat game then the -2 is just annoying and the player won't like that their character is not at 100% all the time.

But consider another type of game, the role playing game. You have the fighter type Zaz, who is a murderhobo. Then he gets a cursed sword and can no long just wildly kill everything that moves (in 3.5 this is even better if the sword is not his normal melee weapon for the characters awesome roll playing optimized combat build). So now Zaz has to do something else: learn how to fight smarter or use tactics. In stead of just ''My character attacks'', the player might open the section on combat and read it, and do other things then just ''Attackz''. This is a typical quest type teachable moment.

Nifft
2017-08-12, 01:14 AM
My three favorite classic D&D magic items are The Sword of Berserking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#swordBerserking), The Backbiter Spear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#spearCursedBackbiter), and The Mace of Blood (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#maceofBlood). I'll take any of those three or items like them over a boring no frills [+X Weapon] at every opportunity.

I've mused for a long time and occasionally embarked on writing exercises to try and figure out how to make the rest of the usual catalog of cursed items as or more practically useful as the above examples. I've always wanted to play a game that had a magic system where all spells were similarly weird and costly (though not necessarily as tonally dark).

I just wanted to know how alone I am in this preference. Does anyone else prefer their magic and blessings to come with strange caveats?

Yes, I love this sort of thing.

But it needs to be system-wide -- you can't have the standard D&D ("all plus, no-brainer") items, because they're strictly better, and better-but-boring will dominate.

I think you could make a great game with magic items that are potent, but rare -- if they're more complex to interact with, then you can't put too many of them on a character -- and in that system, maybe having a magic ring would be a big deal, that shaped your character around the abilities and drawbacks of the item.

ATHATH
2017-08-13, 03:53 AM
Personally, I am of the camp that if your players can figure out a way to exploit or benefit from a cursed item, you should let them/reward them for their ingenuity (unless the exploit/benefit breaks the game, in which case you should resolve how to fix the problem/restore the power level of your game to something resembling its normal state with your players OOC).

If you just smack down any attempts to benefit from the item, it just becomes a "challenge" with a "reward" of minor vendor trash; placing 100 GP in a heavily-trapped room would have a similar effect.

Doorhandle
2017-08-13, 04:48 AM
It would be an interesting limitation on the "christmas tree effect" if every single item had some kind of drawback or side effect; one or two such items in your posession would be ok, but five? Ten? Just tracking all those little things, let alone the effects themselves, would make the accumulation of such items, or the lack of, self-policing.

Gah. And make managing my inventory more of a pain than it already is...
It's an interesting idea, but in addition to the problem of book-keeping I think it could still be min-maxed. Like a belt of giant strength that make you shatter every weapon you wield...around the waist of a monk.

Aside from being a good source of plot hooks, the appeal of a cursed item is that it's more than just a minor stat bonus...but even then you won't need cursed items for that.

goto124
2017-08-13, 08:38 AM
Like a belt of giant strength that make you shatter every weapon you wield...around the waist of a monk.

Clearly, you shatter your own fists :smallbiggrin:

If it's fluffed as 'barely controlling the newfound strength' or something, it might even make some sense.

Grim Portent
2017-08-13, 08:53 AM
I prefer cursed items/magic to be the great power at a great price type deal, the price generally being your moral free will. Direct curses I prefer to be grandiose and spiteful, like the curse Poseidon cast on Minos' wife to make her fall in love with a bull and then birth the minotaur, or the curse on Medusa that made her extremely dangerous but also a monster, or the sleeping curse Maleficent cast on sleeping beauty. Or Midas' gold touch.

Stuff like;

A cursed crown which grants you great power to command mortal men but also requires you sentence any who defy you to death or it will vanish to find a more suitable bearer.

A magic sword so mighty that you cannot be defeated in battle by mortal means, but you also cannot spare the lives of any who draw arms against you or the sword will take your hand in payment for the lives you refuse to give it.

An enchanted figurehead that allows any fleet whose flagship bears it to sail unhindered by tide or storm but requires regular human sacrifice or it will wrack their owner's coastland with a terrible tempest until it is sated.

Basic gist is custom cursed items I make are of the 'sell your soul for ultimate power' type deal. Stay wicked and cruel enough to use them and you can do just about anything with them, but if you falter they will leave/harm you, and you risk someday having to make a terrible choice between your power and those you care about. None work well in a D&D game because of the inherent assumptions of the system as levels go up and magic becomes common, but in more low magic high lethality games they work pretty well. They're the work of wizards, gods and sages who want to punish people for being good, so they make an item that can fulfill their current needs and desires, but will require that they stop being good.


As for more personal curses, I like stuff like.

Your next child will be a twisted and monstrous creature that will seek to destroy you and all you hold dear.*

Your kingdom is cursed to sleep until until your throne rests atop a mountain's peak.

Until you make recompense for your misdeeds all the lands of your people will be stricken with plague and famine.

Odysseus style you can't go home curse where every time you try you are instead cast adrift by circumstance.




*The origin of dragons and a few other monsters in my WIP homebrew setting. Generally not a PC applicable curse, unless you get players willing to go along with such a tale. Makes a fun background element for monsters and kings though though. But then most actually interesting curses don't suit PCs unless they're landed nobility of some kind, why else would they care about a slumbering kingdom, being forced away from their homeland or a localized plague?

Dimers
2017-08-13, 10:52 AM
Odysseus style you can't go home curse where every time you try you are instead cast adrift by circumstance.

That reminds me of a good novel about a very potent item that happens to be cursed, The Misenchanted Sword by Lawrence Watt-Evans. When the owner tries to just throw away the blade, "circumstances" bring it back over and over. For anyone who likes a good curse tale, that's a book worth looking for.

TeChameleon
2017-08-13, 02:36 PM
It's an interesting idea, but in addition to the problem of book-keeping I think it could still be min-maxed. Like a belt of giant strength that make you shatter every weapon you wield...around the waist of a monk.

Speaking for myself, that's something I'd consider a legitimate workaround.

Of course, knowing the guys I play with, that belt would get tucked away until we ran across a cursed sword, and then on would go the belt and we'd see which curse 'won' :smalltongue:

Nifft
2017-08-13, 03:25 PM
Gah. And make managing my inventory more of a pain than it already is...
You'd want to have each player get FEWER items, and each item ought to be more powerful and more interesting.


I prefer cursed items/magic to be the great power at a great price type deal, the price generally being your moral free will.
IMHO the best of these are the ones that effectively reward power for role-playing into the curse.

Regarding Dragons, that's a cool origin. I bet you could find a way to work standard PC behavior (optimize, murder, loot, hoard) into a Draconic curse.

Grim Portent
2017-08-13, 04:12 PM
Regarding Dragons, that's a cool origin. I bet you could find a way to work standard PC behavior (optimize, murder, loot, hoard) into a Draconic curse.

The basic idea is that when someone is a **** to a spellcaster or earns the ire of a god they get cursed to have a child that literally embodies their evil.

Curses like that could be applied to PCs very easily, but a lot of PCs aren't married, or might be infertile, or would just kill their cursed offspring the moment it was born. A curse that makes a dark mirror of their soul might be good provided it's not the boring 'appears in front of you and duels you to the death' type, but instead spawns a version of yourself dedicated to working against your long term goals and ethics. Would work especially well in a politics scenario.

One thing I want to do is figure out a good mechanical system to make grand scale curses available to the PCs so that they can curse each other and NPCs as whim and spite dictate provided they are magical enough, but such magic tends to be grand in scale and narrative in undoing, so deciding quite how to do it mechanically is a touch awkward.

ATHATH
2017-08-13, 08:29 PM
The basic idea is that when someone is a **** to a spellcaster or earns the ire of a god they get cursed to have a child that literally embodies their evil.

Curses like that could be applied to PCs very easily, but a lot of PCs aren't married, or might be infertile, or would just kill their cursed offspring the moment it was born. A curse that makes a dark mirror of their soul might be good provided it's not the boring 'appears in front of you and duels you to the death' type, but instead spawns a version of yourself dedicated to working against your long term goals and ethics. Would work especially well in a politics scenario.

One thing I want to do is figure out a good mechanical system to make grand scale curses available to the PCs so that they can curse each other and NPCs as whim and spite dictate provided they are magical enough, but such magic tends to be grand in scale and narrative in undoing, so deciding quite how to do it mechanically is a touch awkward.
Idea for how to work that: Each curse has one or more effects, and one or more ways to break it. Adding in ways to break the curse gives you extra "curse points" (or CP) to spend on effects of the curse. The number of CP granted by adding ways to break the curse/spent to add effects to the curse depend on the difficulty of breaking the curse/power of the effect, respectively. Gaining power means that you get some "free CP" for each of your curses, although curses should (must?) always have a breaking condition. Whether you want to give your players access to any effects and breaking conditions they can think of or require them to learn each individual effect and breaking condition individually from spellbooks, tutors, and such is up to you.

Cybren
2017-08-14, 08:31 AM
Gah. And make managing my inventory more of a pain than it already is...
It's an interesting idea, but in addition to the problem of book-keeping I think it could still be min-maxed. Like a belt of giant strength that make you shatter every weapon you wield...around the waist of a monk.

Aside from being a good source of plot hooks, the appeal of a cursed item is that it's more than just a minor stat bonus...but even then you won't need cursed items for that.

I'm pretty sure the entire idea is that it can be min-maxed. It makes your item choices more thoughtful, you don't ever just go "eh I have these open slots, so I'll use this and that and this even though I don't particularly need or care about their effects". In Magic parlance, it's clearly a Spike house rule, (or, if you're one of those players trying to exploit the drawback and turn it into a strength, a Johnny), while players that just want their gear to function and hate even irrelevant drawbacks are more Timmy.