Using long-term afflictions in D&D

[lesser_minion]

A trope that sometimes comes up in fantasy and heroic stories is the idea of characters losing their powers or suffering some long-term or permanent injury or affliction.

Like any trope, it seems like something which is quite capable of enhancing a story - and, by extension, a game - assuming that it is used well.

At the same time, I get the impression that a large number of people would seriously consider walking out on a DM who invokes this trope. Or worse.

Why is this? I know that if badly-handled using this trope can make it seem like one character is being picked on, but is it really always a bad idea? And can't any trope wreck a game if invoked badly? Is there any way to make it more palatable? Or am I wrong?

It's something that's started to bug me a little - things like the idea that rust monsters are unfair, or that the DM shouldn't use sunder or disjunction - but also the same thinking that led to 4e's shiny new Extended Rest mechanic.

I'd prefer it if this didn't become a comparison of different games or different editions of games - just a discussion about how best to use this (and related) tropes in games.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The problem is that many of those things are a permanent drawback. Yes, it enhances the story, but if the Fighter loses his +5 Sword of Flaming Dragon-Slaying, it leaves him not weaker, but nerfed. That's 15 points of damage taken off of every strike, as well as losing the 'Flaming' and 'Dragon-slaying' properties. That leaves him weaker than if he died and rolled up a new character at one level lower. That's a bit of an issue. MDJ is worse, because you don't just lose the weapon. It's easier to gain 1-3 levels again than it is to re-earn 760,000 GP. Death is preferable to a loss of items in D&D, where items are so vital.

[lesser_minion]

The problem is that many of those things are a permanent drawback. Yes, it enhances the story, but if the Fighter loses his +5 Sword of Flaming Dragon-Slaying, it leaves him not weaker, but nerfed. That's 15 points of damage taken off of every strike, as well as losing the 'Flaming' and 'Dragon-slaying' properties. That leaves him weaker than if he died and rolled up a new character at one level lower. That's a bit of an issue. MDJ is worse, because you don't just lose the weapon. It's easier to gain 1-3 levels again than it is to re-earn 760,000 GP. Death is preferable to a loss of items in D&D, where items are so vital.

That's actually another thing which kind of bugs me - when people fear rust monsters more than death, death seems to lose its sting a little.

An assumption I made was that the trope would be invoked for no more than an adventure or the equivalent - almost any character can be quite extensively depowered, and in this case it could make the fighter look for new ways to solve his problems.

I don't see it as reasonable for a DM to permanently remove items without ever providing an opportunity for them to be recovered or replaced, any more than a DM would permanently depower a wizard or a paladin.

I'm just not totally sure why people seem to consider it to be so unreasonable to take the item or power in the first place, and I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions for ways to make it more palatable.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

That's actually another thing which kind of bugs me - when people fear rust monsters more than death, death seems to lose its sting a little.

An assumption I made was that the trope would be invoked for no more than an adventure or the equivalent - almost any character can be quite extensively depowered, and in this case it could make the fighter look for new ways to solve his problems.

I don't see it as reasonable for a DM to permanently remove items without ever providing an opportunity for them to be recovered or replaced, any more than a DM would permanently depower a wizard or a paladin.

I'm just not totally sure why people seem to consider it to be so unreasonable to take the item or power in the first place, and I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions for ways to make it more palatable.

What makes it more palatable is the knowlege that you'll get it back. A meleer invests 50% of his wealth in metal items. Loss of them cannot be replaced for several levels unless the DM goes out of his way to help you. A party that gets MDJd at level 20 is on the same level of capability IMHO of the same party at level ~16. That's why people hate it. At least you can come back from level-draining. A Fighter who loses his weapons and armor at level 10 is still down 25K at level 15.

[shadzar]

As a DM I would lop off a characters arm in a heartbeat. Vorpal swords exist for a reason.

If it can happen to the players' enemies, it can happen to the players.

If you live through it, then this long term can be fixed, but it will not be something that can be fixed in the short term. (Unless you are getting a shiny magic silver arm to replace it cause that arm is needed for you to make dragonlances.)

[Starbuck_II]

As a DM I would lop off a characters arm in a heartbeat. Vorpal swords exist for a reason.

If it can happen to the players' enemies, it can happen to the players.

If you live through it, then this long term can be fixed, but it will not be something that can be fixed in the short term. (Unless you are getting a shiny magic silver arm to replace it cause that arm is needed for you to make dragonlances.)

Has this actually happened in a game or are you exaggarating? BTW, vorpoal only affects heads in 3.0/3.5.

I mean, it is fair for DMs to do it back if the players do it: I agree.

But till the players do it it seems vendictive.

[Stormthorn]

That's actually another thing which kind of bugs me - when people fear rust monsters more than death, death seems to lose its sting a little.

Make rez magic have 10x to 100x the normal cost.

Now its cheaper to replace the sword and players can start RPing realistic reactions to death.

[Kylarra]

Has this actually happened in a game or are you exaggarating? BTW, vorpoal only affects heads in 3.0/3.5.

I mean, it is fair for DMs to do it back if the players do it: I agree.

But till the players do it it seems vendictive.

He's probably thinking of the Sharpness weapons which do lop off limbs on crits. OTOH, a DM using that on a player has only a 5% chance of it being relevant when he introduces it and thereafter that power is in the hands of the players (barring use of DM Fiat/Schrodinger's equips) so yeah, until I actually want it in my campaign, I wouldn't bother to use it on a player.

I think that the idea could be used effectively in very small doses and only if you have a plan to make up for it afterwards. IE if your weapon gets sundered, there will be starmetal hidden in the cave of a black dragon guarded by ogres for you to reforge it. and similar effects. Otherwise you're just making characters useless, and while the roleplaying opportunity may be there, it leads to them sort of twiddling their thumbs or being marginally ineffective (see Roy) until it is fixed, which is very boring/frustrating gameplay from a player perspective.

[Nightson]

If you're going to impose some sort of long term penalty on the player then talk to the player.

Getting something bad sprung on you almost always leads to bad reactions, even when normally you'd go along with it.

[shadzar]

Has this actually happened in a game or are you exaggarating? BTW, vorpoal only affects heads in 3.0/3.5.

I mean, it is fair for DMs to do it back if the players do it: I agree.

But till the players do it it seems vendictive.

Well when I DM I tel them outright that death is harsh and present, as well as all states in between it and life.

Does a Sword of Sharpness exist in 3.x? (Can it only remove heads as well?)

Yes, as a DM I have severed limbs from PCs. Magic items are often found form the corpses of the enemies you fight. I found it more fun for players to vindicate themselves on their foe after killing them by taking their superior gear; or even leaving them alive nekked.

Also yes losing an arm is required for gaining the silver arm that in conjunction with the hammer, is used to make dragonlances.

I treat HP as physical damage, not mental illness that doesn't allow you to continue form being disheartened.

Gaining back an arm isn't that hard, but is time consuming.

Also such a thing helps set pace for a game, and let players know that monsters aren't just trying to slap you around, but use tactics in cases just as well as the players do if not better at times.

Not sure how causing loss of limb to a character prior to a character causing loss of limb to a monster is vindictive. That would be the other way around where the DM wants to get revenge....but then that would be a bad DM wanting to get revenge on the characters for something done to a monster.

[TheCountAlucard]

Speaking of which, one of the players in my PbP game has a long-term affliction as part of the character's backstory - the character in question has had one of her arms drained of all of its strength, so that it is little more than arm bones wrapped in skin.

[imp_fireball]

That's actually another thing which kind of bugs me - when people fear rust monsters more than death, death seems to lose its sting a little.

An assumption I made was that the trope would be invoked for no more than an adventure or the equivalent - almost any character can be quite extensively depowered, and in this case it could make the fighter look for new ways to solve his problems.

I don't see it as reasonable for a DM to permanently remove items without ever providing an opportunity for them to be recovered or replaced, any more than a DM would permanently depower a wizard or a paladin.

I'm just not totally sure why people seem to consider it to be so unreasonable to take the item or power in the first place, and I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions for ways to make it more palatable.

It's always easy to allow the players to 'figure out' a way to treat weapons with rust monster immunity.

Even easier to just homebrew 'rust immunity' oil - description would be, "This oil is proven not only to render whatever is treated immune to rust, but magical rust as well! 30 day money back gaurantee. If you are still not satisfied, you may commit cold blooded murder on one my minimum wage employees free of GM wrath!"

[shadzar]

Speaking of which, one of the players in my PbP game has a long-term affliction as part of the character's backstory - the character in question has had one of her arms drained of all of its strength, so that it is little more than arm bones wrapped in skin.

That sounds interesting, how does this player operate then? What is done to express this seemingly debilitating ability? How do they get around it?

[TheCountAlucard]

That sounds interesting, how does this player operate then?

As a sorcerer.

What is done to express this seemingly debilitating ability?

She can't hold anything in her off-hand, nor can she wear a shield. We haven't really worked out anything more specific than that.

How do they get around it?

You only need one free hand to cast spells.

[shadzar]

As a sorcerer.

She can't hold anything in her off-hand, nor can she wear a shield. We haven't really worked out anything more specific than that.

You only need one free hand to cast spells.

Perfect! So its like the arm doesn't even matter. I like. Not having a shield kind of sucks, but oh well.

Good luck with it, sounds like you both will have fun.

[Worira]

Similarly, I have a character who's right hand was chopped off for theft. In his case, it doesn't matter because he has telekinesis at will, and, while he can't pick locks anymore, he can walk through walls.

[Panda-s1]

That's actually another thing which kind of bugs me - when people fear rust monsters more than death, death seems to lose its sting a little.

An assumption I made was that the trope would be invoked for no more than an adventure or the equivalent - almost any character can be quite extensively depowered, and in this case it could make the fighter look for new ways to solve his problems.

I don't see it as reasonable for a DM to permanently remove items without ever providing an opportunity for them to be recovered or replaced, any more than a DM would permanently depower a wizard or a paladin.

I'm just not totally sure why people seem to consider it to be so unreasonable to take the item or power in the first place, and I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions for ways to make it more palatable.

Uh, have you seen the 4e rust monster?

Oh, but that's a story for later. I haven't come across this problem as a DM (yet), but in my current campaign I have a player whose dump stat was Wis. He was a halfling sorcerer who got his powers one day when he was struck with a lightning, and might very well qualify as insane. To this, I told him he should lower his Wis down to a 7, despite going against the rules, only for entertainment purposes. So he did, and I gave him two more points to put somewhere else.

My point is, I think it really just comes out of what we expect from the game, and what everyone generally agrees upon. In a game like Dark Heresy losing a limb is very much a game to game reality. But in D&D losing limbs isn't really specified in the rules, so it generally never happens. If however I say "Okay guys, if a monster crits, you stand a chance of losing a limb," and nobody groans then it's established that this could happen, and they better damn well accept it if it ever happens. My character (my first RPG character, come to think of it) actually lost a limb in a Star Wars campaign once, and on the one hand I was a bit miffed since the GM pulled a rule I had no idea about. At the same time, it was written somewhere, so it's not like the GM was just being a douche out of nowhere. It's really a player expectation issue more than anything.

[lordhack]

While I wouldn't use it mid-campaign, it might be fun to play a character built around that concept. Perhaps a Wizard who is cursed to forget magic, and becomes a level one character. As he gains experience and levels up, his power returns. It would work with any class really, I had an NPC like that once, though that's very different than a player character.

[lesser_minion]

Uh, have you seen the 4e rust monster?

I haven't yet looked at it, but I have seen WotC's 'fix' of the 3e version.

It's an overpowered monster, but I'm not sure if it really needed to go that far.

[Quietus]

I think that in SOME groups, invoking this particular trope would just annoy everyone. Those tend to be the hack-and-slash, kill-and-loot groups, though. In a roleplay-heavy group, this could be much more interesting, because it's more than just numbers. A lost arm isn't a -2 penalty to anything requiring both hands, and the inability to use two handed weapons/sheilds. You're MISSING AN ARM. People *notice* that kind of thing, and shy away from you, even if they don't intend to.

A broken weapon? The rust monster ate the blade, but you can still feel the familiar thrum of power in the hilt. The BBEG may have shattered Narsil, but the pieces are all still there, waiting to be reforged. Replacing important things should be difficult, but not impossible. Perhaps to reforge the blade the rust monster ate, you need to create a new masterwork blade, and invest experience into it equal to what was needed to forge those enchantments in the first place - no Create Arms and Armor needed. Narsil's shattered remains can be reforged, but you have to take them to the forge that originally created the blade in the first place.

Sure, the destruction of items or the blocking of powers can be a short-term hindrance, but handled well, it can add to the story rather than simply be a "screw you" moment.

[hewhosaysfish]

Imagine a children's party. Some of the kids are playing musical chairs. Others are playing on the bouncy castle.
Compare some of the assumptions in both forms of play:

A child who loses at musical chairs is expected to not take any further part until the next game starts. They have to stand to the side and watch and wait for the other children to finish (or go off and do something else, if there are other activities running simultaneously). They will be slightly irritated when they lose but (ideally) only at themselves; if they are angry at the other children or at the adults in charge, if they complain that it is "unfair" to be make to sit out of further rounds, then it's a sign that they are self-centred and immature. The rules are clear, simple and widely known: those who get a seat stay in, those who don't go out. A child who doesn't get that has either failed to understand the basic premise of the game or is deliberately attempting to subvert it because they consider their winning to be more important than the fairness of the game or the enjoyment of the other children.

In contrast, the bouncy castle has neither a defined win condition nor a defined loss condition: everyone just bounces eround anjoying themselves. Depending on the number of children and the capacity of the castle, it may be necessary for the amount of time any one child spends on it to be limited to allow others a turn. Outside of this case, however, there is no reason why a child should be stopped playing before they are ready (ok, if they're misbehaving, or have to go home... but the are all interruptions to play rather than part of the normal course of play). If an adult, used to the rules and expectations of musical chairs, was to (in the belief that this was the proper was to manage the activity) remove a child from the bouncy castle and tell them they couldn't play on it for the next 5 minutes but had to just watch the others play; then that child would be upset by this turn of events and rightly so. There fun has been spoiled for no reason.

[Panda-s1]

I haven't yet looked at it, but I have seen WotC's 'fix' of the 3e version.

It's an overpowered monster, but I'm not sure if it really needed to go that far.

Well, if you hit the new rust monster with a metal weapon, the weapon starts rusting, getting a cumulative -1 penalty to damage with that weapon (up to a -5), same with armor when the rust monster attacks a character with heavy armor (which is usually metal). However, they have an encounter power that vs. Reflex that basically lets it "eat" a rusted piece of equipment.

However, if you kill the rust monster, you can find residuum equal to the magic item it ate in it's stomach. So you have the opportunity to get your thing back, but considering you find rust monsters in caves and dungeons far out of town it's kinda really annoying.

I ran the adventure at the last Game Day (which features rust monsters), and one of the players loved 3.0, but had never played 4e before. He avoided them like the plague. Making the dwarf paladunce with no Dex or Int modifier lose his 1+ plate armor didn't help change his opinion

Really Long Analogy! :D

Yeah, I like that analogy a lot. GM's shouldn't be the mean, nasty adults who make children not have fun for no good reason.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Why is this? I know that if badly-handled using this trope can make it seem like one character is being picked on, but is it really always a bad idea? And can't any trope wreck a game if invoked badly? Is there any way to make it more palatable? Or am I wrong?

This is a culture clash between TSR D&D and WotC D&D.

Rust Monsters, Item Saving Throws and the like existed in TSR D&D for the very reasons you've noted - the risk of loss enhances the danger of the story. Since the characters in TSR D&D were not intended to live past the adventure (much less until level 10), things like permanent level drain, rust monsters, and losing your magic armor to a failed saving throw were reasonable mechanics.

In WotC D&D, you are supposed to be building up a single character over the course of 20 levels. Every item, skill, or power you accumulate is another piece of the final character; losing them causes you to "move backwards" along the power track. Since character abilities are so much more important in WotC D&D than player abilities, players can rightfully get annoyed when the DM starts taking away their hard-earned character bits.

4E prunes the legacy rules that 3E tried to import, despite being contrary to WotC's design philosophy. Now you can be deprived of items or powers through normal play, but you know that this is a temporary difficulty (like being Dazed) and that if you survive the adventure, you can get it back.

[MissK]

A long-term affliction, IMO, is more fun if it is psychological and/or provides roleplaying/adventure hook opportunities. For example, in my last game, my character got PTSD from another character's Screaming Hellsword of Death and Destruction, so any time he used it she would run screaming from the room, or hide in a corner. Then the same character got infected with lycanthropy. Even more roleplay goodness! Eventually, she was kidnapped and eaten by vampires. Ah, Ravenloft.

Of course, the characters in your game don't have to be so unlucky. But having characters become slightly crazy or mildly cursed can really give a campaign more depth. Obviously, with hack-and-slash types, this won't be as popular.

[Cyrion]

I think paying attention to the power curve is the key. If it's a small step back your players will be much less annoyed than if it seriously affects what they can accomplish.

I once had a player's swashbuckler character in a renaissance game have a leg crippled. It didn't affect his sword fighting skill, but it very severely hampered his movement, so he had to come up with some new strategies in order to compensate. It became a fun challenge instead of nerfing, and he was the alchemist's best friend until she was able to collect the things she needed to deal with the problem.

It also didn't hurt that it was another party member's fault that it happened- broken crystals, escaped demons, etc...