Deck of Many Things, changing alignments and a negative level

[Shadeus]

I never draw from it any more. I always seem to get the Void. I can't seem to aVOID it! (I crack myself up.) After losing two great characters that way, I try to avoid it. In both instances, it ruined the campaign. I can think of only one instance where introducing the deck hasn't drastically changed a campaign for the worse. They should call it the deck of campaign endings.

 

[Amal Shukup]

I should have known better than to bring the Deck.

Yup

It's a real campaign killer...

As for the original concern - I too think it ought to work like holding a holy/unholy sword - the Negative Level persists until the character once again acts according to the enforced alignment.

There's a trend towards letting the PC off easy wrt getting his old alignment back. I wouldn't make that TOO easy (although forcing a player to play a character they don't want to play isn't desireable). The negative consequences of the Deck are what balances the amazing cool stuff you can get from using it, so softening the bad stuff creates consequence free artifact...

Perhaps with the judicious application of magic to get him back where he wants to be (Wish, Miracle, Limited Wish or even Break Enchantment and/or Atonement). Perhaps make him research a unique ritual that must be conducted. Of course throughout this process he's functioning with a Negative Level (I imagine that trying to wiggle out of an alignment is a violation of that alignment).

A'Mal

 

[shilsen]

Have I mentioned 'I hate that damned thing'?

-Hyp.

Join the club. As Amal Shukup said, that item has campaign killer written all over it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think that the 1e version was close enough to fair -- gaining ability points or a level was extremely valuable in that game system. (Whether it is a campaign killer is another issue entirely.)

The 3e version is not IMO. The bad effects are slightly worse than before. The good effects are less valuable than before.

Examples:

Lose d4+1 Int sucks for everyone now when it meant almost nothing in 1e to most characters.

A +2 Inherent bonus is handy, but it is much weaker than the 1e version.

Gain 50,000 xp: Lucky you! Your character gains 4 levels and you have to create a new PC!

 

[Saeviomagy]

DM "you find a deck of cards"
PC "does it radiate magic?"
DM "Yup, overwhelming magic!"
PC "we identify it"
DM "Your identify fails!"
PC *Gets out DM screen, asks other players to roll 4d6 drop lowest*
DM "What are you doing?"
PC "Well, I figured that you must have gotten bored, so I figured I'd take over DMing"

Either that or walk out. Player knowledge be damned. If that was the rule, then who the hell would make or keep a deck of many things? It'd be imprisoned or permanently sequestered by the first high-level character to find it and know it for what it was...

 

[Fieari]

I've made a DoMT-like artifact in one of my games that worked to great effect, and really enhanced the gameplay. The first thing I did was make it so that you can draw as often as you like. The fear of getting something bad is good enough to keep players from unfettered drawing. The second thing I did is scrap the effects listed in the DMG, and make up my own. I used a full 52 card deck... red cards do something good, black cards do something bad. The higher the card, the more powerful the effect, and I'd base the effect sortof on the suit of the card... hearts would do something intangible or spiritual (like raise a stat, or change someone's mind), diamonds would do something physical (like create an object or summon help), and likewise with spades and clubs.

The effect would ALWAYS be -relevant- to the situation at hand, or do something that alters the current situation somehow, either for better (red cards) or worse (black cards). The entire thing was up to DM adjucation, but since I was the DM, I had a blast with it, and my players loved it as well. It was like being given 52 "fate" or "action" points, half of which are BAD fate points, half of which are good, and the intensity of each point varied. And it never broke the campaign, because anything campaign breaking wouldn't happen (since I decide the effect) and it was never overused, because my players were terrified of the bad things happening.

To make things even more interesting, the deck changed hands a few times during the campaign, it would be stolen by the enemy, who would use it, and then the players would steal it back, and it went back and forth about 4 times. Every time the deck was used, the game changed somehow, but always in a way that was fun and enjoyable for everyone (even when bad things happened, because the bad things happening represented new challenges to overcome).

It's a tricky way to handle a magical item since it relies on DM adjucation so heavily, but it can work, and it can work well. Consider giving it a try if you ever feel the urge to put one of the bloody things in your game.

 

[Morrow]

Someday I'd like to run a campaign that begins with the party finding a Deck of Many Things. The entire campaign would be driven by the characters having to deal with the consequences of drawing from the deck. When the party is done reclaiming souls, securing keeps, saving friends from hell, thwarting new enemies, protecting newfound wealth, and flaunting their newfound power, the campaign ends and the characters live happily ever after secure in the knowledge that they've overcome the most dangerous, weirdest thing they're ever likely to encounter.

Or they all draw the void and we spend the rest of the evening playing poker.

Morrow

 

[Darkness]

Or they all draw the void and we spend the rest of the evening playing poker.

If they all draw the void, have them make new characters who are friends and relatives of the original characters. These new characters then find the "voided" PCs and set out to get them back. Maybe they even draw a few cards too.

 

[Li Shenron]

You don't have to draw cards from the deck, right?

So is it really the DM's fault, or not rather the player's?

 

[apesamongus]

You don't have to draw cards from the deck, right?

So is it really the DM's fault, or not rather the player's?

Well, it depends on that whole player/character knowledge thing that was mentioned earlier. If the player would rather not draw one, but does so anyway because his character wouldn't know that it's the worst item in D&D, then it's entirely the GM's fault.

Personally, I agree with the "GM must be bored" theory. I'd even say that a player who knowingly draws from it is probably pretty bored with their character as well.