Curses, Foiled Again!

[molonel]

I prefer cursed items with story-enhancing capabilities. A cursed sword -1 that won't let you wield anything else is an old saw without a whole lot of interest to a bunch of D&D old skoolers who've been playing for years. It's like that loud, abrasive uncle who doesn't understand why everyone doesn't think his farting at inappropriate moments or using a joy buzzer in his palm when he shakes your hand is funny.

Girdle of gender reversal? Yay, your character has boobies! Been there, done that.

On the other hand, we had an axe in our evil campaign named Mahrhaveen (named after Carvin' Marvin) that stored the souls of those it killed in a hivemind. It was a powerful weapon, but there was a chance every time you wielded it of it taking your character over - Will save - and forcing you to kill everything in sight.

That was story-enhancing, and interesting.

I enjoy cursed items like that. Gag gifts, not so much.

 

[ThirdWizard]

On the other hand, we had an axe in our evil campaign named Mahrhaveen (named after Carvin' Marvin) that stored the souls of those it killed in a hivemind. It was a powerful weapon, but there was a chance every time you wielded it of it taking your character over - Will save - and forcing you to kill everything in sight.

That was story-enhancing, and interesting.

I enjoy cursed items like that. Gag gifts, not so much.

It's almost impossible for me to get PCs to use intelligent items with an ego higher than 3, even if they share the same alignment. They don't even like the prospect that maybe some circumstances somehow would cause them to lose control of their actions. I would understand if in the past a PC had ever been forced to do something that was against their character, but that has never happened. At worst, once an axe that hated giants made a PC kill a frost giant who was in the immediate vacinity. And, it wasn't even a difficult fight!

 

[atomn]

One time I gave my players a cursed ring with the head of a ram engraved on it because they kept making decisions based on things they knew and not things their characters knew, so I figured one of them would go "hey, ring of the ram!" and not bother with identifying it. The ring forced the wearer to throw himself against every wooden door he saw in an attempt to ram it open unless he succeeded on a will save. The party rogue equipped it so he very rarely succeeded on his will save.

Similarly, in a storebought module I ran there was a girdle in the pile of treasure that the party found. Within a second after mentioning the girdle before anyone could act, one of the players' eyes brighten and he excitedly tells me he takes it and puts it on. It was sweet justice for his metagaming, greedy reaction that it was actually a Girdle of Gender Change instead of the Girdle of Giant Strength that he thought it was!

 

[Umbran]

My problem with cursed items has always been the "why?" Why would anyone create a cursed sword?

They wouldn't, usually.

What I would like to see is a method where cursed items can be created by accident - a very low chance, of course.

As noted above, I don't like these, simply because the time you use the mechanic (when the PCs are making items, or having items made for them) is perhaps the time they matter least - when the PCs are going to come by the item under semi-controlled conditions. Plus, item creation already costs feats, gold, and XP. Adding a disaster-failure cost doesn't seem fair.

I expect usually cursed items are going to be introduced by the GM, so the players aren't going to see the mechanic anyway. Now, if the reason for the cursing is plot-relevant, that's another matter.

For me, cursed items are often the way they are because of their history - they were created or used in some fashion that led to them becoming... tainted.

Or, you introduce a spell or spells that allow casters to place cruses on items after creation. This may be a route for those who don't like Disjunction spells - so, you don't destroy items, you just muck with them some...

 

[Korgoth]

They wouldn't, usually.

Unless they're found in the bizarre underworld created by the insane Wizard, since he has made a hobby out of torturing surface-worlders.

 

[Umbran]

Unless they're found in the bizarre underworld created by the insane Wizard, since he has made a hobby out of torturing surface-worlders.

Well, if the bizarre underworld isn't unusual, then it isn't really bizarre. And if the wizard's mental stat is usual, he isnt really insane, now is he? So, as I said, usually, they won't. There are always exceptions.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

As noted above, I don't like these, simply because the time you use the mechanic (when the PCs are making items, or having items made for them) is perhaps the time they matter least - when the PCs are going to come by the item under semi-controlled conditions. Plus, item creation already costs feats, gold, and XP. Adding a disaster-failure cost doesn't seem fair.

That's why I've been thinking it would be tied to a reduction of cost or time. Pay the normal costs and timeframe and there is no risk, otherwise;

"It's going to take 10 days to make? Our foe will have completed his nefarious plot within a week - I need it sooner."
"I can do it, but there are risks to rushing the process..."

I would probably introduce a scale of mishaps, most of the time ending up where the item works as planned, but with an unexpected side effect. Much less often, the item does not work as expected, and extremely rarely the item does something nasty instead.

Or, you introduce a spell or spells that allow casters to place cruses on items after creation. This may be a route for those who don't like Disjunction spells - so, you don't destroy items, you just muck with them some...

I like that idea.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think that for a low-magic setting, or a setting that is magic-rare, the introduction of mishaps during item creation, perhaps scaled with the level/strength of the item, might go a long way toward explanation of the setting's basic premise.

 

[Slife]

It's almost impossible for me to get PCs to use intelligent items with an ego higher than 3, even if they share the same alignment. They don't even like the prospect that maybe some circumstances somehow would cause them to lose control of their actions. I would understand if in the past a PC had ever been forced to do something that was against their character, but that has never happened. At worst, once an axe that hated giants made a PC kill a frost giant who was in the immediate vacinity. And, it wasn't even a difficult fight!

Because in RPGs the players only control their character, and nothing else. If you don't control anything, the game isn't any fun. And it's never going to be something you'd normally do (the item wouldn't take control otherwise), so this is the same kind of thing as a video game cutscene where you give up the macguffin.

 

[Mark CMG]

I had a cursed helm in a game, once, that helped someone translate any written language but also made them speak only gibberish. It was on an NPC who the PCs thought was a mute (he only refused to talk). When he was later found dead, the PCs detected the helm was magical, tried it out, only to discover the gibberish/cursed part, and got rid of it before finding out its useful qualities.