Players Vs. DMs

[pogminky]

Hmmmm...... I guess it's too late now, but if a whole plotline revolved around a cursed item I'd talk to the player first and see if they would run with it for the sake a great story.

Occasional cursed items as a part of a treasure hoard - sure, why not. So long as they're not too damagaing, fun and can be got rid of within an adventure or two.

 

[jensun]

Being the invincible DM that I am, I didn't let it bother me. The cursed item is the plot of my currand adventure path... so if he doesn't like it, all he has to do is follow the adventure.

I would say that you have a bad case of the Viking Hat syndrome.

As a GM I find that makes for a poor play experience, as a player I would walk away from such a table.

 

[jdrakeh]

I would say that you have a bad case of the Viking Hat syndrome.

As a GM I find that makes for a poor play experience, as a player I would walk away from such a table.

I was going to say something like that, but Barry Lutz makes my point much better than I can. And he does it with monkeys.

 

[Tervin]

Thanks for this thread. I had never seen the monkey torture clip, and it is such a perfect way to explain a lot of things to people.

Off Topic: I am considering using it to illustrate some attempts at modern teaching theory...

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I'm Starting to thing people here are confusing "Plotline" with "storyline" Yes, it IS in the adventure to get it destroyed. NO, it isn't the entire focus of the adventure.
Another thing I'm noticing is automatically associating "Cursed" with "Torturing" the player. Yes, the item did force itself to be the character's main weapon, but it did it after he chose to use it 3 times (Touching it 3 times). Otherwise the player is complaining that he wants to use his D8 weapon rather than his cursed D6+1 weapon.

Now maybe I missed somthing in my 16 years of DMing experience, but I'm fairly certain passing out a cursed item that has a +1 on it, and only "Activates" when the character misses isn't that big of a deal. Otherwise the weapon kicks a whole lot of ass. I know I would chose to use the weapon willingly as a character, knowing what it can do (and the player does... except for the negative effects).

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. I could have made a mistake in thinking that having a cursed item show up in game, and falling into the hands of a PC is un-fun, which is why Wizards got rid of it.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Whoa. . . you forced a cursed item on a PC and, in order to get rid of it, he has to slavishly follow your pre-scripted plot to the letter? This might come as a shock to you, but most people don't get into RPGs to have the DM deliberately hose them and force them into acting out pre-scripted stories. For a lot of people (in fact, I imagine, for most people) this isn't fun.

I wonder when people will tell me to stop attacking the PCs, because they need their HPs to keep playing, or maybe not use monsters at all, because having somthing that can posibly kill them as a Plot point in my adventures is "Tortureous" to the players. And oh noes, god forbid I should roll a critcal on one, dealing more damage, because that's so not fun for them to take more damage than average.

Mmmyep, all my adventures should be nothing but social encounters that the players choose to do themselves with no consequences and the players should be given free gold, xps and phat lewts for sweet talking the townsfolk.

Yep, my signature must be a load of crap. I have to be a real horrible DM to throw a SINGLE cursed item into my game. Maybe its time for me to retire and pass the toarch to the next DM.

 

[LostSoul]

Yep, my signature must be a load of crap. I have to be a real horrible DM to throw a SINGLE cursed item into my game. Maybe its time for me to retire and pass the toarch to the next DM.

Well, your player did express some dislike with the cursed item, and you ignored him.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I dunno man, all we have for evidence as to whether your players are having a good time is... you telling us that one of the players isn't having a good time with one particular plot element. So that's what people are gonna talk about. Plus a lot us have experienced the "Aha! you are geased/cursed/etc. so you must follow the DM storyline" done really inelegantly, so that's the frame of reference we may be coming from.

I'm sure you're a kick-ass DM, but in this particular case, several people disagree with your ruling. Them's the breaks when you go to the internet to seek justification; you might not get it. It's nothing personal.

As far as putting "not fun" stuff in the game, I don't if I can help it. Fortunately my players put having their characters beaten, bloodied, and struggling for their lives squarely in the "fun" category, so it doesn't really limit me much. I personally don't find it fun to have my actions restricted without player consent. (For contrast, if you'd pitched that curse thing during character creation, I could have run with it; heck I'd have made sure the cursed item was a real obstacle to my character goals.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I rather like the way 4e leaves cursed items, which are really just a subset of any long-term debilitating condition, their effects and how to remove them, up to the DM. They're purely a plot device now.

Players who like a sandbox, major freedom type of game will chafe at tying the curse's removal to the whole adventure path. Personally I would make it shorter term than that, a one or two session quest to fix. But we have to remember that lots of people play and enjoy adventure paths, going all the way back to the classic GDQ series. A lot of players want to be railroaded, to a degree.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

So, I created and passed out my first cursed item today. The player that it so happened to lay its curse upon realy started getting upset and whining a little during game.
Being the invincible DM that I am, I didn't let it bother me. The cursed item is the plot of my currand adventure path... so if he doesn't like it, all he has to do is follow the adventure.
Ultimately the item is an excelent item. I'm not too sure if I want to post it here, but I gave it rules to automatically use its abilities in a spacific order, so it gets "better and better" as the combat continues. If it misses however, the curse activates and punishes the wielder for missing.

Has anyone else done anything like this in 4E yet? Or at least purposely put somthing "not fun" in their adventures? What kind of reactions did you get? and how did it turn out in the end?

If you realy have to go back to previous editions to tell your tale, feel free, but I'd like to hear about 4E experiences.

Without going into the "rights'n'wrongs" of cursed items, I think I can honestly say that I wouldn't enjoy this. A cursed item that is negative when I miss in combat (and therefore is dependent on luck) strikes me as a little unfair.

A cursed item that requires me to make a choice I'd be quite interested in. I played in a 3e game under S'mon here at ENWorld, and he gave me an Adamantine Spear with a variety of decent powers, that improved as I gained levels. However, the original owners were always after me, plus it ate souls. As I played along with it, I eventually allowed my alignment to shift from NG to N, as my actions could no longer be seen to be 'Good'.

So yeah, at any time I could probably have given up my cursed item, but I chose not to because it was more fun to stick with it.