D&D 5E 5E Deck of Many Things - does it ever disappear?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I understand your point, and it makes sense.

To clarify, however...I guess my view is that I wasn't looking at it as a "problem" but more of an opportunity to engages with the player's choices.

Ah, I see. That's a legitimate perspective, and if you are prepared for that kind of campaign it will be lots of fun.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Really? So to you, the guy who gave the supersoldier serum to Captain America was evil? Because it could have killed him instead of empowering him.

Your initial example was about players who were trying to game the system by using "disposable" peasants to protect themselves from bad draws and increase their wealth. If the doctor who gave Steve Rogers powers had done so intending to siphon off half (or all) of Captain America's powers for himself, then I'd definitely consider that an evil act.

Hobgoblin invasion and they outnumber us 20:1? Let's offer draws of the Deck to all the soldiers in the army. Some of them will die horribly, others will turn into Captain America... as long as we're up-front about it that sounds like a good trade, no? Better than dying to hobgoblins anyway.

Everyone in the village is languishing in poverty? Let's let a few people draw from the deck, starting with the old and sick. If they make the (probabilistic) sacrifice with their eyes open, that's their privilege.

These two examples are far more nuanced than players trying to cheat the system. For starters, the people drawing from the Deck are doing so for essentially altruistic reasons, and the party is offering the Deck for effectively altruistic reasons. As such, it's far less likely that those who draw try to wish the party dead so that they can take the party's stuff. Neither side is doing it to get ahead, except perhaps in the larger sense of benefiting the community.

A Deck of Many Things is extremely powerful, arguably even campaign-distorting, even if you can only offer it to other people. It effectively turns you into the Mysterious Old Man who sold Jack the beans for the beanstalk--you become the catalyst for changing other peoples' lives. If I don't feel like playing that kind of campaign with my players, I'm not going to hand out an unlimited Deck.

Of course. But it's also important to consider that the role of the Mysterious Stranger isn't necessarily a safe one, as I showed in my last post. If you don't want the players to have an "unlimited" Deck, then you can put it in the hands of a powerful NPC, or bind it to a particular location, or have it disappear/lose its power after being used. Alternately, if you want the players to be able to sow seeds of chaos, then the Deck could be a lot of fun.

Don't gamble what you can't afford to lose, says I, and that includes "Don't offer something to your players that you're not prepared to let them have."

That's always good advice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, I don't see any good reason to limit the deck to a single person.

On the other hand, I have trouble getting agitated by the argument "just have a random peasant draw the bad cards, then profit".

To me the obvious solution is to "clarify" that:

1) the deck will magically complete itself before each drawing of the deck. That is, it resets itself; it is simply impossible to join in halfway through a drawing
2) more than one person can participate in any single drawing of the deck; they just all state how many cards they want (before the first card is drawn). The total must be equal to or lower than the number of cards in the deck, or no magic will happen. Only truly voluntary calls for cards are heeded (much like you can't fool ressurection magic asking the soul)
3) as soon as the first card is drawn, that starts a "drawing of the deck". Each card that is drawn affects the next person in the current group (regardless of any hijinks they may try)
4) One drawing of the deck must be fully completed before the next may start. Meaning, as a newcomer to the drawing, you can ask the deck for as many cards you like, the effects will still happen to the next person in line, and you will get nothing until that drawing is completed. Then, when you start drawing, you will do so from a complete deck (the deck will be magically reset)
5) per the rules text, each person can only participate in one drawing from any given deck. Ever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Your initial example was about players who were trying to game the system by using "disposable" peasants to protect themselves from bad draws and increase their wealth. If the doctor who gave Steve Rogers powers had done so intending to siphon off half (or all) of Captain America's powers for himself, then I'd definitely consider that an evil act.

Then your quibble was with the examples and not the principle. The principle is that a reusable deck is far more abusable than a one-time deck.

Again, I don't see any good reason to limit the deck to a single person.


On the other hand, I have trouble getting agitated by the argument "just have a random peasant draw the bad cards, then profit".


To me the obvious solution is to "clarify" that:


1) the deck will magically complete itself before each drawing of the deck. That is, it resets itself; it is simply impossible to join in halfway through a drawing
2) more than one person can participate in any single drawing of the deck; they just all state how many cards they want (before the first card is drawn). The total must be equal to or lower than the number of cards in the deck, or no magic will happen. Only truly voluntary calls for cards are heeded (much like you can't fool ressurection magic asking the soul)
3) as soon as the first card is drawn, that starts a "drawing of the deck". Each card that is drawn affects the next person in the current group (regardless of any hijinks they may try)
4) One drawing of the deck must be fully completed before the next may start. Meaning, as a newcomer to the drawing, you can ask the deck for as many cards you like, the effects will still happen to the next person in line, and you will get nothing until that drawing is completed. Then, when you start drawing, you will do so from a complete deck (the deck will be magically reset)
5) per the rules text, each person can only participate in one drawing from any given deck. Ever.

I don't believe anyone on this thread has proposed that particular abuse, because nobody thinks it would work. There's only a few cards which eliminate themselves after being drawn; the others return to the deck automatically.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Then your quibble was with the examples and not the principle. The principle is that a reusable deck is far more abusable than a one-time deck.

My point was that it's mostly only abusable to the extent that the GM allows it to be.

It's like saying that gold is abusable because you can hire a mercenary company to dog pile the villain. But that's only possible if the GM allows it. The villain might hire the mercenaries to spy on or even turn against the PCs.

Lots of things are abusable, if the GM allows the abuse. What one GM considers an abuse might be considered fun by another.

Since I don't have the kinds of players who would try to cheat with a Deck, I'd be perfectly comfortable with giving them their own Deck.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My point was that it's mostly only abusable to the extent that the GM allows it to be.

It's like saying that gold is abusable because you can hire a mercenary company to dog pile the villain. But that's only possible if the GM allows it. The villain might hire the mercenaries to spy on or even turn against the PCs.

Lots of things are abusable, if the GM allows the abuse. What one GM considers an abuse might be considered fun by another.

Since I don't have the kinds of players who would try to cheat with a Deck, I'd be perfectly comfortable with giving them their own Deck.

And if so, that's fine, because you're doing it on purpose. But I don't think the OP realized that giving players a deck equates to giving them access to functionally-unlimited quantities of gold. And I think it's important to point that out, so he can do it with his eyes open the way you would be doing, instead of realizing only afterwards that he's turned his campaign into something heretofore-unrecognizable.

That is all.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

And if so, that's fine, because you're doing it on purpose. But I don't think the OP realized that giving players a deck equates to giving them access to functionally-unlimited quantities of gold. And I think it's important to point that out, so he can do it with his eyes open the way you would be doing, instead of realizing only afterwards that he's turned his campaign into something heretofore-unrecognizable.

That is all.

Actually, I fully realise the consequences of the Deck, I've introduced the Deck into my campaigns in earlier editions knowing full well the implications. The difference with the 5E version is that it is not clear from the text that the Deck can only be used once per person. The wording states that additional draws after the stated number have no effect but that is open to interpretation e.g. no more draws this particular use of the Deck; no-more draws for this person ever etc.

Hence the need for erratta in the form of additional text to make this clear; erratta and clarification are not mutually exclusive.

I have decided to go with the idea that a particular person may only make use of the Deck once, meaning they are able to pass it to another character. Since I like to stir up my own campaigns once in awhile and I enjoy improvising this is no sweat to me and my experience is players love the Deck. Chaos? Bring it on!

 

[CapnZapp]

And if so, that's fine, because you're doing it on purpose. But I don't think the OP realized that giving players a deck equates to giving them access to functionally-unlimited quantities of gold. And I think it's important to point that out, so he can do it with his eyes open the way you would be doing, instead of realizing only afterwards that he's turned his campaign into something heretofore-unrecognizable.

That is all.

How does "giving them a deck" equate to "unlimited quantities of gold"?

I'm genuinely interested - if you take us step by step through your logic, we can all see if/where we want to tweak the rules language on the item.

Thx

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How does "giving them a deck" equate to "unlimited quantities of gold"?

I'm genuinely interested - if you take us step by step through your logic, we can all see if/where we want to tweak the rules language on the item.

Thx

Here's the context.

We've already discussed the fact that the Deck allows you to be a Mysterious Old Man catalyst.

Fanaelialae says, "It's like saying that gold is abusable because you can hire a mercenary company to dog pile the villain. But that's only possible if the GM allows it. The villain might hire the mercenaries to spy on or even turn against the PCs."

Hemlock says, "I don't think the OP realized that giving players a deck equates to giving them access to functionally-unlimited quantities of gold." In context this refers to "things you can do to dogpile villains."

If you do a random draw of (say) six cards from a Deck of Many Things by a random peasant-in-distress, especially one protected by mid- or high-level adventurers, you'll see a bunch of stuff that the peasant just doesn't care much about (you lose all your possessions and magic items, boo hoo), some game-enders, and some extremely generous gifts of huge rewards. A reward distribution that is roughly "balanced" for wealthy adventurers is skewed steeply toward the positive for penniless paupers and peasants, especially if you have some adventurers around to protect you from the Avatar of Death by simply killing it. (Yes, an adventurer will have to kill two copies of the Avatar of Death because he gets his own copy once he enters the fight, but still, it's pretty wimpy.) I haven't done the math but let's say on average each peasant will get 17,000 gold pieces from a six-card draw. By introducing the Deck into your campaign you are then effectively introducing 17,000 gold per peasant into the campaign, which is plenty of resources to dogpile all kinds of villains. Of course it won't really be just gold--it will be supercharged 9th level peasants with magic items, too. The PCs won't be doing much of the fighting, but then they wouldn't be doing much of the fighting if they hired a mercenary company either. Functionally these two approaches are pretty much equivalent: in one you solve problems by throwing gold at them, in the other you solve it by throwing peasants at them. Since a standard D&D trope involves peasants in distress you are unlikely to be limited by the supply of peasants, hence "functionally-unlimited."

Capiche?

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Here's the context.

We've already discussed the fact that the Deck allows you to be a Mysterious Old Man catalyst.

Fanaelialae says, "It's like saying that gold is abusable because you can hire a mercenary company to dog pile the villain. But that's only possible if the GM allows it. The villain might hire the mercenaries to spy on or even turn against the PCs."

Hemlock says, "I don't think the OP realized that giving players a deck equates to giving them access to functionally-unlimited quantities of gold." In context this refers to "things you can do to dogpile villains."

If you do a random draw of (say) six cards from a Deck of Many Things by a random peasant-in-distress, especially one protected by mid- or high-level adventurers, you'll see a bunch of stuff that the peasant just doesn't care much about (you lose all your possessions and magic items, boo hoo), some game-enders, and some extremely generous gifts of huge rewards. A reward distribution that is roughly "balanced" for wealthy adventurers is skewed steeply toward the positive for penniless paupers and peasants, especially if you have some adventurers around to protect you from the Avatar of Death by simply killing it. (Yes, an adventurer will have to kill two copies of the Avatar of Death because he gets his own copy once he enters the fight, but still, it's pretty wimpy.) I haven't done the math but let's say on average each peasant will get 17,000 gold pieces from a six-card draw. By introducing the Deck into your campaign you are then effectively introducing 17,000 gold per peasant into the campaign, which is plenty of resources to dogpile all kinds of villains. Of course it won't really be just gold--it will be supercharged 9th level peasants with magic items, too. The PCs won't be doing much of the fighting, but then they wouldn't be doing much of the fighting if they hired a mercenary company either. Functionally these two approaches are pretty much equivalent: in one you solve problems by throwing gold at them, in the other you solve it by throwing peasants at them. Since a standard D&D trope involves peasants in distress you are unlikely to be limited by the supply of peasants, hence "functionally-unlimited."

Capiche?

Any DM who allows his players to get a peasant to take the risks involved with the Deck without consequences should hang his head in shame. The peasant could equally draw the enmity of a devil who may scheme against the peasant through his protectors (the players) or draw the Void or Donjon.

Relying on the Deck to make tons of money makes sub prime mortgages sound like a rock firm investment!