[Magic Items] Why the shift to a system-hardwired item "economy"?

[AKA_Bait]

And I hope you see why I feel that they're a poor; a lazy mechanic. They accomplish nothing that cannot be accomplished in a thousand other ways, and they accomplish what they do through directly harming the players, in an unfeeling uncaring, and entirely impersonal manner. There is no over-power against which they can fight, no force acting against them towards which they can rail. There is cold, unfeeling, existence; and that's got no place in my games.

... fair enough. The game should be fun for everyone and I can totally understand why that kind of thing would not be all too amusing for you. I'm sorry to hear about your illness. Best wishes.

[nagora]

And I hope you see why I feel that they're a poor; a lazy mechanic.

No, they're a dramatic device, just like a dragon or what have you. Cursed items are a part and parcel of fantasy and myth and leaving them out because of some personal issues is your call, but it's not a judgement you're making on any sort of absolute objective grounds of quality play.


They accomplish nothing that cannot be accomplished in a thousand other ways, and they accomplish what they do through directly harming the players, in an unfeeling uncaring, and entirely impersonal manner.

So what? If a plague is unleashed by some cult of demon-worshippers who know and care nothing about the PCs, does anyone seriously think "oh, that's just a lazy mechanic". No - it's something new and dangerious which will affect the PCs by directly harming them in an impersonal way unless they do something about it.


There is no over-power against which they can fight, no force acting against them towards which they can rail. There is cold, unfeeling, existence; and that's got no place in my games.

Curses can be lifted/broken, so there is something they can fight, and a good DM will make it more interesting than "We'll pay a cleric to fix it".

Storms strike ships, earthquakes smash cities, drought threatens PC's clans/tribes/families. These unfeeling events are just as much valid trials and difficulties for players to face from time to time as orcs, trolls, and Demogorgon.

[Bassetking]

No, they're a dramatic device, just like a dragon or what have you. Cursed items are a part and parcel of fantasy and myth and leaving them out because of some personal issues is your call, but it's not a judgement you're making on any sort of absolute objective grounds of quality play.



So what? If a plague is unleashed by some cult of demon-worshippers who know and care nothing about the PCs, does anyone seriously think "oh, that's just a lazy mechanic". No - it's something new and dangerious which will affect the PCs by directly harming them in an impersonal way unless they do something about it.


Bolded effect my own: The difference between your usual cursed items, and the scenario you just presented? There's a responsible party. The cult may very well not care an iota about the adventurers... Up until the point that a pissed-off frenzied Berserker and his Archmage buddy kick the door open, and start making cultist-soup.

The opportunity for proactivity is presented, and can be tied to the aforementioned reactive adventure. A "Oops, you take dex penalties, guess we better find some way to fix you" Adventure is purely reactive. The options presented to the cursed individual are tantamount to "Do this specific adventure to find the cure" or "Do nothing about the cure, cope with the penalties, and accept that sometimes, even in escapist high fantasy, you're going to get screwed."



Curses can be lifted/broken, so there is something they can fight, and a good DM will make it more interesting than "We'll pay a cleric to fix it".

Storms strike ships, earthquakes smash cities, drought threatens PC's clans/tribes/families. These unfeeling events are just as much valid trials and difficulties for players to face from time to time as orcs, trolls, and Demogorgon.

Right. "There's something to fight against". Except that "Something" is an amorphous concept of "Hardship". You'll excuse me if I find "HAH! Your rogue takes -2 to all dex checks because of the cape he put on, Better go on THIS ADVENTURE I HAPPENED TO HAVE READY" as a Lazy plot device. It is base railroading, and the rails you've fitted the campaign to are the health of one of your players. The only quantity to which I am invested in the storyline is the point to which I get rid of the curse. I don't view it as a trial, or a difficulty, I view it as an inconvenience, as a waste of time.

Storms striking ships? Plagues striking cities? Earthquakes ruining cities? Fantastic! Everyone we encounter is going to be dealing with this. The storyline is going to hinge on how THOUSANDS of people are interacting in the aftermath of these terrible events.

"You put on a "Cloak of Vermin" and now you're suffering from Con Damage." Focuses on Bob the Rogue, and his bug-filled sheet. Removing the cloak, or curing Bob, focuses on Bob, a few party members, and the necessary MacGuffin stored in the "Kobolds Over There"'s Cave.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Hmm. Well I can concede points to the Basset King.

I've enjoyed Cursed items more often as just another occasional hazard of the game, not as often as a plot hook. To each his own. As a DM, I wouldn't curse an item that basically places a time limit which has death as the other option, thus the cursed types I've passed out haven't been overly serious.

Secondly, like traps, cursed items as a hazard must be used judiciously, preferably sparingly. Most DMs I've played with only popped one on the players occasionally, and I've only lightly seasoned my games with any. Enough that if players get complacent, they'll get hit, but if they are careful it won't be a problem.

Thirdly, as a hazard cursed items should be easily remedied as a trap. A rogue with sufficient skill can bypass a trap, but not always; a cleric can cast Remove Curse, if they have it memorized. If a rogue fails his roll, or a cleric hasn't that spell memorized, the consequences of such things can be overcome with time. If the magic item is a hazard, not a plot element, then it should be something the party can deal with using the tools at their disposal.

If the cursed item is a plot element, I'd suggest a few different restrictions.

First, the Cursed Item should typically not be the plot hook. That is, it can feature in the quest, but it normally shouldn't be the reason the party is questing.

Second, if the item is not remedied easily with a Remove Curse spell, then the party should have foreknowledge of the item's curse. Thus, using it and taking on its negative effects becomes a matter of choice.

Thirdly, the item should serve a useful purpose along with its curse. For example, "The Sword of Zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcba will slay the Balor possessing Prince Eugene in a single blow and without harming the Prince, however, the item has a terrible curse ..."

Fourthly, the useful purpose should have options. The options may not be as simple as the cursed item, but still something so the players do not see using the item as an obligation. "Listen, your Sword of Whatchadinger sounds could, but really we'd rather do this the hard way and not have to deal with terrible curses. Thanks!"

Thus, we can have "nasty cursed items", but the effects on the players becomes a matter of their choice, rather than a surprise plot zinger by the DM. I've used this "Easy Way with Consequences - Hard Way without" method before as a DM in other situations. The parties I've run have gone either direction, and they've enjoyed the process either way. In general, I like hazards in obstacles, but I don't like the party feeling like they have obligations to do things any certain way in any certain plot. Or even partake in any certain plot.

[Shatteredtower]

This will be quite lengthy. Out of consideration, I'll break up my replies with spoiler tags.


A 1/week orb of Control Weather is 5.2K.You priced it based on an item limited to 200 days of use in total. Since that figure is less than twice what you'd pay for a scroll of the same spell, it's more accurate to assign the orb a price closer to the table's norm for limited uses/day (for a spell that lasts days, a weekly limit is close enough), for a cost of 70,560 (1800 gp command word activated/5 limited uses per day x2 unattended item, x 15th lvl caster x 7th lvl spell). One thorp in 60 has a druid of high enough level to make this item over the course of 71 days. Maybe the limitation of use doesn't seem to justify the price, but if it was daily use, the DM should really charge for it as an unlimited use-activated item anyway (420,000 gp).


Size: Hamlet (assuming competent population, making 1 gp/day, with a DC 14 profession check, i.e. take 10, 4 ranks). Population: 40. Earnings/day: 40 gp. Total time needed: 130 days. Note: Food not accounted for. Nor were housing (a 1000 gp home takes awhile to pay off), tools or other equipment, theft (even with a decent lock), taxes, raiders, or conditions that make it diffcult to ply your profession. What circumstance penalty do you apply to Profession (farmer) checks made in winter, for example? It likewise doesn't consider the security costs necessary to keep thorp-raiding from becoming the easiest road to riches for a halfway decent rogue.
Nor is 1gp/day/person actually reasonable, seeing as NPC's are worthless idiots. Seriously, if they put a single rank in any profession skill, they make 5.5gp/day. :smallannoyed: You meant per week -- and not according to the rules, they don't. The rules for Profession state that's what you -- that is, your player character -- earns per week on the job. Meanwhile, pg 105 of the DMG lets you hire a cook for 1 sp/day, an engineer for 5 sp, or a groom for 15 cp. Why the difference? Maybe people will pay extra for a gardener with above average ability scores (25 vs 15 pt buy), more equipment (generally speaking; monks only beat commoners for starting wealth), and special skills (the fighter's bonus feat and extra hit points seem to merit favouritism over the warrior). Or maybe commoners get a better medical plan.


What do commoners put ranks in, anyways? Spot? Listen? :smallyuk: Whatever they find worthwhile: Climb, Listen, and Spot for shepherds, Spot and Swim for fishers, Search for miners. Survival, though cross-class, may also be a good idea if work takes you any distance. Not every hunter gets to be a ranger, nor every would-be con artist a rogue. NPCs are people, not Platonic drones.


Yes, but all these technological marvels are part of a massive interlocking infrastructure that makes the real world an impossible place for most of us to have exciting and heroic adventures in. The same could be said for the bulk of the humanoid population in D&D. To a 1st level commoner, a dragon is simply another force of nature -- exciting to experience, but offering no more heroism than would be afforded by abandoning your seat on the last lifeboat.

As for excitement and heroism here, sure, it's not all shootouts and two-fisted tales, but there's no absence of opportunity for those who look. Two years ago, I was reading about a Hospitaller accompanying emergency supplies into Afghanistan, and the challenges he faced doing similar work in Somalia. Amazing guy, and hardly the only person in the world putting a life on the line for a dearly held cause. Spend six months in an emergency room or with a paramedic team and then talk to me about exciting and heroic adventure -- all without raising a sword. (RPers get the best of both worlds -- hit stuff, but never have to deal with blood or crap as more than words.)


The real world is so full of powerful tools that those tools have come to dominate the character of our civilization.The character of our civilization is still dominated by our interaction with each other.


The purpose of those fantasy RPGs is to construct a world where this is not the case...Who says?


...where tools that grant you powers dramatically beyond what you can achieve with your bare hands and your own mind are rare and precious.Why? What benefit does this offer? How is this more fantastic? Why do people keep erroneously equating the words "rare" and "precious"?
Making magical tools that can duplicate or exceed the functions of real-world technology common undermines this. First, they're not common. You know what the highest spellcasting level typically is for 50% of communities in D&D? It's 1st. In a small town (bringing us to 70% of population centres), it's 3rd, with the rest at 1st level. In large towns (85%), it's 6th, with two 3rd level spellcasters for each of 6th level, and then a bunch of 1st level types. For the remaining 15%, the average is 12th, with 15th being the average in 1% of all communities.

A metropolis (the 1%) has it good, rolling the highest level spellcaster four times per class. Even if that only results in an even split of 16th level spellcasters, that's a community served by twelve 16th level, twelve 15th level, twenty-four 8th level, twenty-four 7th level, forty-eight 4th level, forty-eight 3rd level, ninety-six 2nd level, and a few hundred 1st level casters. Looks pretty good, until you realize that the 168 spellcasters you have above 2nd level (those high enough in level to craft wondrous items) comprise less than a 0.1% of the community's adult population.

Now we have to determine what percentage of those remaining can craft wondrous items and have the resources necessary to use it. Then we have to determine which of them would be focused on churning items out en masse, how much time they'd need to recover after each one is made, and what their sponsors really want from them (personal security often winning out over community concerns). After that, how long will it take before items created for the greater good are stolen or destroyed, and is that worth the trouble? No good showering riches on a village that just make it a target for predators once you've moved on. It might not even work all that well in a city, where the predators might be higher level as well.

It becomes hard to explain why any village would ever suffer a famine...One in four lack both a cleric or druid of 3rd or higher level. They'll do well recycling spoilage, but not to the degree necessary to feed hundreds per day. One in six (assuming a cleric with 16 Wisdom) can create food for 30 humans per day, which still falls far short of the demand. Even a wand of create food and water would last out a day in the smallest village, so kill the remaining horses and dogs first. Murlynd's spoon isn't going to cover it either.

...why anyone would ever die of injury...For the same reason they're still killed by hunting accidents or falls in our world, even when prompt medical attention could have saved them. You're less likely to linger long enough for it to matter in D&D, though the average commoner with no ranks in Heal has a 25% chance of stabilizing a dying individual per round without any form of assistance.

...or disease... Pretty good among both the young and the elderly, especially in a smaller community. In a larger community, an epidemic could still be a problem.

...why the world isn't interconnected by circles of teleportation... Most nations would consider such a thing a security breach. They might even pay adventurers to address the issue. Why do some nations spend more on arms than medicine, on sports than scientific research, on subsidies for corn, cotton, and beef instead of fruits and vegetables? The answers aren't so different.


But since so many DMs don't feel like creating a backstory for every magic item, and since magic items and money are widely treated as totally interchangeable in most of the D&D 3.x product literature, the 'Magic R Us' feel is hard to escape within Third Edition. No, it's not. Backstory is nice, but it's not always essential. How many DMs have draw up individual statistics and personality for the entire population of a small village, let alone a metropolis? You've got some prepared in advance and can ad lib a few more as needed, but you don't have thousands of names, let alone personalities, even if the party socialite has a +30 Knowledge (local) modifier.

Same with magic. You don't have to have a complete Greenwood-style rundown of every sword, pick, and halberd the party finds for there to be one, just as you don't need a unique means of selling off such loot (or art objects) unless the party sometimes enjoys such interactions -- as long as it's clear that what's happening is more than a pawn shop visit.

"You spend the better part of the day tracking down potential buyers for the armor and the hooked hammer, keeping an ear out for anyone willing to part with some means of defending yourself from electricity. It might take a few days to resolve this. Do you want to wait or try for alternate arrangements?"

There are hooks inherent in doing things the long way, but you don't need to play like that. If your party considers such things a distraction from their enjoyment (perhaps they are single-minded about a specific campaign goal), leave it be. Just don't hesitate to let the party negotiator know how well the last few days of wheeling and dealing went.

I thought all the Montoyas got passed off as Yentes... :smallfrown:All but one, anyway -- and notice that at least one patron was aware of the difference.


What happens in reality bears no significance to what I choose to do in imaginary games of make-believe. What you choose to do is limited by several very realistic parameters. Your imagination doesn't dictate whether or not a humanoid character must address the needs for air, food, water, or sleep. There are ways around each of these, but they are default needs for most creatures found in a core D&D game. Likewise, your imagination doesn't allow you to ignore death as a limiting factor -- even when there's an expensive toll bridge installed for return traffic. But to equate choices unbound by reality with a dearth of magic? :smallconfused:

[Zel]

[Scrubbed]
My 2 cents: It would be great if D&D were so customizable that a skilled smith could create non-magical armor/weapons that were on par with +1 items. However in the spirit of brevity and ease of play, 4E should simplify the rules for crafting and parity with magical equipment. I would expect a small revamp of the economy such that a careful calculus is not required on-the-fly by the DM in order to cook up a custom katana.

[Kiero]

What you choose to do is limited by several very realistic parameters. Your imagination doesn't dictate whether or not a humanoid character must address the needs for air, food, water, or sleep. There are ways around each of these, but they are default needs for most creatures found in a core D&D game.

My imagination allows us to simply ignore those things and consider them dealt with and needing of no in-game focus.


Likewise, your imagination doesn't allow you to ignore death as a limiting factor -- even when there's an expensive toll bridge installed for return traffic.

Similarly, we can and do ignore death, by making it something that only happens through player choice at dramatically appropriate times (though in my games it's always final). It's a play style in adhering to certain genre tropes.


But to equate choices unbound by reality with a dearth of magic? :smallconfused:

Because there are a plethora of ways you can be unbound by reality that doesn't mean you have to have lots of magic. There's no dichotomy here, except the false one you're erecting.

[hewhosaysfish]

On the subject of cursed items, I'd like to share with you an anecdote about one campaign I'm in where the dwarven Wizard/Runesmith (about 9th level?)was unfortunate enough to don a cloak of powerlessness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#robeofPowerlessness): this left him with a Str of 3 and an Int of 10. He was unable to unable to cast any spells other than cantrips, to move if he wore his armour or to do anything meaningful with his hammer. We were able to cast a Remove Curse for him, I think, off a scroll we had knocking around, but didn't know where to go from there. As for the nearest "Healers R Us" temple, well, there wasn't one. The eventual route the party ended up taking home led them through the Abyss.
At the request of that player, rocks fell and he died, and a new character was introduced.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Regarding Cursed Items:
I like to add nice race or class or alignment or religion (or other) specific benefits to any cursed magic item that randomly shows up - that way one can suggest that the item was created for a purpose, but penalises those who do not meet that purpose. The cursed effect can be removed with an additional use of the Remove Curse spell, targeting the item, so that the positive benefits are available to all.

Regarding Purchase of Items:
The Spell Compendium (WotC) has rules for not allowing PCs to go to a "Magic Item Shop" (something I've never done, anyway), and for restricting the maximum cost of available items - it's unlikely that you'll find items of the full GP limit of a town available to buy.
Compare this to the real world: while London might have a Pound Coin limit of several trillion, you can't expect to just purchase your own aircraft carrier from a store that sells hunting rifles. Getting that aircraft carrier is a quest in itself.

[Sebastian]

Gee, and here I thought I got it from ... (http://www.toonarific.com/show_pics.php?show_id=1389) Not to mention Timmoth Eyesbrite from back in 1st edition.

Eh, I don't mind if things like potions are purchasable. That always struck me as odd back in the day. Why weren't those more common? Stuff like the enchanted armour I understood. Those whole -1 con penalties ment nobody wanted to make permanent items. Course, then the problem became, what kind of a **** would waste 1 con to make a cursed item?

Does 3.x still have cursed items? You never hear about those anymore.

Actually that is a common misconception, at least in 2nd edition (iI don't know in previous one) if you read the "Enchant an item" spell text it say that you have only a 5% chance to lose a point of constitution when used to create a permanent magic item.

[Journey]

Actually that is a common misconception, at least in 2nd edition (iI don't know in previous one) if you read the "Enchant an item" spell text it say that you have only a 5% chance to lose a point of constitution when used to create a permanent magic item.

Casting the Permanency spell results in a loss of 1 point to Con. The chance you mention applies only the Enchant an Item spell, at the time the Permanency is cast.

[Sebastian]

Though on the other hand, Boots of Dancing are nothing more but a hindrance.


The trick is to make cursed items interesting and not just an instadeath, for example, what if they are not just boot of dancing but, for example, boots of speed and dancing? They works as boots of speed except that when you hear music, they make you start dancing, as long as you wear them when you don't risk to hear music you should be fine but there is always a risk.

[Sebastian]

Casting the Permanency spell results in a loss of 1 point to Con. The chance you mention applies only the Enchant an Item spell, at the time the Permanency is cast.

Yes, exactly what I said.
When used to create a permanent magic item Permanency have only a 5% chance to reduce the wizard CON, so it is not one +1 sword= -1 CON.

from the Enchant an item spell, PHB 2ed


No magic placed on an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch. This always runs a 5% risk of draining 1 point of Constitution from the wizard casting the spell.

You can read it as you want, I read it as an exception to the general rule of the permanency spell. i.e. used to make a spell permanent Permanency always reduce the wizard CON, but if used to create a permanent magic item the spell reduce the wizard CON only 1 time out of 20.

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

On the subject of cursed items, I'd like to share with you an anecdote about one campaign I'm in where the dwarven Wizard/Runesmith (about 9th level?)was unfortunate enough to don a cloak of powerlessness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#robeofPowerlessness): this left him with a Str of 3 and an Int of 10. He was unable to unable to cast any spells other than cantrips, to move if he wore his armour or to do anything meaningful with his hammer. We were able to cast a Remove Curse for him, I think, off a scroll we had knocking around, but didn't know where to go from there. As for the nearest "Healers R Us" temple, well, there wasn't one. The eventual route the party ended up taking home led them through the Abyss.
At the request of that player, rocks fell and he died, and a new character was introduced.

Yikes. Yeah, seeing from these points, I can understand why there's that much antipathy for an aspect I've enjoyed.

[Journey]

Yes, exactly what I said.
When used to create a permanent magic item Permanency have only a 5% chance to reduce the wizard CON, so it is not one +1 sword= -1 CON.

from the Enchant an item spell, PHB 2ed

You can read it as you want, I read it as an exception to the general rule of the permanency spell. i.e. used to make a spell permanent Permanency always reduce the wizard CON, but if used to create a permanent magic item the spell reduce the wizard CON only 1 time out of 20.
Yes, I know what the "Enchant an Item" spell says. I just don't read it as an exception to the Permanency CON payment. I read it as a chance to lose an additional point of Constitution. The Permanency spell description does not contain any exceptions for the "Enchant an Item" spell description, so the penalty to Constitution applies every time the spell is cast, regardless of the purpose.

[Dausuul]

On the subject of cursed items, I'd like to share with you an anecdote about one campaign I'm in where the dwarven Wizard/Runesmith (about 9th level?)was unfortunate enough to don a cloak of powerlessness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm#robeofPowerlessness): this left him with a Str of 3 and an Int of 10. He was unable to unable to cast any spells other than cantrips, to move if he wore his armour or to do anything meaningful with his hammer. We were able to cast a Remove Curse for him, I think, off a scroll we had knocking around, but didn't know where to go from there. As for the nearest "Healers R Us" temple, well, there wasn't one. The eventual route the party ended up taking home led them through the Abyss.
At the request of that player, rocks fell and he died, and a new character was introduced.

That's like using Tomb of Horrors as an argument for removing all traps from D&D.

[Jayabalard]

... Alrighty, I'm going to try to clarify my comparison without turning the Sarcasmotron back on.

Let's say, after a long day of work, you decide to play a few rounds of Wii Bowling once you get home.

Now, you can stand in front of your screen, actively mimicing the bowling stance and actions, perhaps lifting a foot up after you bowl in some vain attempt to encourage your ball to move in a certain manner....

Or you can sit on your couch, and flick your wrist back and forth.

Both efforts will accomplish the same actions, both require the same motions to cause the same result.

One is active, involved, and requires interaction.

The other is the player being a complete Toolbox. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/13)

Just so we're clear, Jaya? The Cursed Item? Toolboxery.I don't see any relevance to this. It has nothing to do with how good of a plot hook a cursed item is. It doesn't do anything to back up your assertion that they are a sign of lazy DMing/Storytelling. Nor does it give any credence to your claim that "using the players ability to contribute to the game-play as the plot-hook is reprehensible."

Sure, we understand, you've had some Bad DM's and they've done a poor job of dealing with cursed items. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with cursed items in and of themselves.

[Randalor]

For cursed items, I have no problem with them as long as they're cursed for a reason. A lich, for example, might make a cloak that pumps negative energy into him constantly, and was enchanted to be permanently affixed to the wearer *So he couldn't be forced to remove it himself, for example*. It serves a very good purpose, and yet if a PC were to wear it, he/she would suffer a long, slow, painfull existance *or maybe just 1 damage a minute, depending on how you choose to use the ability.*

The perfect example I can think of, for a well thought out cursed item, is the Witchfire from the Witchfire trilogy. The sword is evil. It raises dead in a very large area, and it eats spellcasters for lunch. It's also one of the most powerful weapons in all the Iron Kingdoms. It penalizes you for using it, but offsets it by giving you a large array of new abilities that you probably wouldn't have if/when you run across it *and it's completly insane owner.* Granted, it's also a cursed weapon which, surprise surprise, has 3 whole quests dedicated to it *hence the name of the compilation* but is also more than quests about the sword.

[nagora]

Bolded effect my own: The difference between your usual cursed items, and the scenario you just presented? There's a responsible party. The cult may very well not care an iota about the adventurers... Up until the point that a pissed-off frenzied Berserker and his Archmage buddy kick the door open, and start making cultist-soup.

Perhaps they've already all died of the plague. Maybe killing them doesn't undo or recall the plague.


The opportunity for proactivity is presented, and can be tied to the aforementioned reactive adventure. A "Oops, you take dex penalties, guess we better find some way to fix you" Adventure is purely reactive.

So what?

"Quick, quick! A demon has been unleashed and is destrying the town!"
"Oh, we make it a rule never to REACT to anything."
"Yeah, we see ourselves as modern, PROactive, adventurers working in a synergistc way with the local 'adventure milleu'. Reacting to events is just SO Gygaxian, man."


The options presented to the cursed individual are tantamount to "Do this specific adventure to find the cure" or "Do nothing about the cure, cope with the penalties, and accept that sometimes, even in escapist high fantasy, you're going to get screwed."

Yep. And in this escapist high fantasy you can almost always do something about it.


Right. "There's something to fight against". Except that "Something" is an amorphous concept of "Hardship".

That's what determination is all about. You know, determination - one of the things heroes have. I know it's not more Xp or a fancy feat to give diddums another +2 against the next bug-eyed-monster, but it is a perfectly respectable plot device if handled well by DM and players alike.


You'll excuse me if I find "HAH! Your rogue takes -2 to all dex checks because of the cape he put on, Better go on THIS ADVENTURE I HAPPENED TO HAVE READY" as a Lazy plot device.

It is; I would never have bothered with dreaming up a specific adventure to solve the issue - it's the player's job to work out and as DM I would simply be open to intelligent suggestions and attempts to find the solution. I MIGHT have an idea about some particular method or solution, but I'd not breath a word of it to the player until they'd actually put some effort into it. If that takes weeks or years then that's the player's lookout.


It is base railroading, and the rails you've fitted the campaign to are the health of one of your players.

Big deal. Dry your eyes. Do you want the next dragon to fall down dead when to meet it? After all, it's only there as a DM's railroading notion of an obstacle to your character's otherwise uninterrupted journey to a difficulty-free nirvana of wish-fulfilling escapist bland-o-vision.


The only quantity to which I am invested in the storyline is the point to which I get rid of the curse. I don't view it as a trial, or a difficulty, I view it as an inconvenience, as a waste of time.

Tough luck; grow up.


Storms striking ships? Plagues striking cities? Earthquakes ruining cities? Fantastic! Everyone we encounter is going to be dealing with this. The storyline is going to hinge on how THOUSANDS of people are interacting in the aftermath of these terrible events.

Why? I've thrown an earthquake in the wilderness and a consequent landslide at players. They had to work around the problems this caused for them, and they did. It's no different from a cursed item, really. Likewise, a shipwreak need not concern many people other than the PCs. They loose some equipment and money and are stuck in the middle of nowhere; that's an adventure and if you dismiss it as mere railroading then you're dismissing, amongst other things, the Fourth Voyage of Sinbad. And, frankly, if the idea of playing a scenario like the 4th voyage turns you off then you should get on the phone to your nearest Fischer-Price stockest and order something more at your level.


"You put on a "Cloak of Vermin" and now you're suffering from Con Damage." Focuses on Bob the Rogue, and his bug-filled sheet. Removing the cloak, or curing Bob, focuses on Bob, a few party members, and the necessary MacGuffin stored in the "Kobolds Over There"'s Cave.

No man is an island. What affects Bob affects the whole party. I assume that you object to traps, and intelligent monsters that attack the spell casters first, on the same grounds.

Cursed items can be done well or badly; they are not inherently lazy or bad, unlike some players.

[Thinker]

No man is an island. What affects Bob affects the whole party. I assume that you object to traps, and intelligent monsters that attack the spell casters first, on the same grounds.

Cursed items can be done well or badly; they are not inherently lazy or bad, unlike some players.

I object to traps, but not on those grounds. They're just annoying:

Roguey McRoguerton: Every other dungeon we've been in has had traps, I'm going to search around where I'm walking to look out for any.
DM: After searching for hours and progressing 200 ft you discover an arrow trap.
Roguey: I disable it.
DM: Okay! That was a fun encounter. Everyone gain (CR appropriate) XP!

I'm much more in favor of traps where the rogue might actually have to do something. He still gets to use Disable Device, but it is much more complex than the above.

As far as cursed items go, I am against them being common place. I am against them being a huge surprise. I am against them lasting more than a session or two. In general, the PCs should be aware that something is potentially cursed. Knowing that undead are prone to having cursed items (with a knowledge(religion check) seems acceptable. Before venturing to the Palace of Pain, the village serfs mention a sword that weakens the wielder seems acceptable. The problem with common place cursed items is that they cause the PCs to wait and identify every piece of gear, which can slow down the game and storytelling unnecessarily.

[AKA_Bait]

I object to traps, but not on those grounds. They're just annoying:

Roguey McRoguerton: Every other dungeon we've been in has had traps, I'm going to search around where I'm walking to look out for any.
DM: After searching for hours and progressing 200 ft you discover an arrow trap.
Roguey: I disable it.
DM: Okay! That was a fun encounter. Everyone gain (CR appropriate) XP!

I'm much more in favor of traps where the rogue might actually have to do something. He still gets to use Disable Device, but it is much more complex than the above.

That just seems to me that you are saying 'DM's should use traps well". I think everyone can agree with that.



As far as cursed items go, I am against them being common place. I am against them being a huge surprise. I am against them lasting more than a session or two. In general, the PCs should be aware that something is potentially cursed. Knowing that undead are prone to having cursed items (with a knowledge(religion check) seems acceptable. Before venturing to the Palace of Pain, the village serfs mention a sword that weakens the wielder seems acceptable. The problem with common place cursed items is that they cause the PCs to wait and identify every piece of gear, which can slow down the game and storytelling unnecessarily.

I must disagree here for several reasons.

1. The PC's should not be able to anticipate everything. Sometimes bad things need to happen to good people in a way they could not have anticipated. It makes the world more realistic for the players imho in that case and removes questions like: why on earth would the serfs know the properties of a magic sword? Did one of them wield it? Why is it in the dungeon then? Sure, the questions can be answered but the world seems more reasonable if they never have any place being asked.

2. Making the PC's identify everything or run the risk (which they still do even with an identify spell) of putting on a cursed item doesn't really need to slow down gameplay. It just means that PC's, unless they want to risk it, aren't going to go around using gear they find as soon as they get it. They will stick it in their packs and continue through the dungeon, checking it later during downtime that needen't be RP'd unless there is some reason for it. Typically, the folks who want to check everything in the middle of a dungeon back off that idea when they are reminded that identify has a one hour casting time.

[JaxGaret]

"Quick, quick! A demon has been unleashed and is destrying the town!"
"Oh, we make it a rule never to REACT to anything."
"Yeah, we see ourselves as modern, PROactive, adventurers working in a synergistc way with the local 'adventure milleu'. Reacting to events is just SO Gygaxian, man."

Thread resurrection! Just wanted to give this the cookies that it deserves.

Also, the only run-ins I've had with cursed items as a player were totally awesome and fun. It all depends on the DM and gaming group.