Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043383I wouldn't say we cared nothing for our starting characters; survival was winning.  We just didn't necessarily think we'd win.

That's the attitude prevalent in most of my OSR campaigns today.

Quote from: rawma;1043259I'm sure the PC cares about all adversity that befalls them; the people I mean are the players, who also tend to care about adversity that befalls their characters but may be especially put off by these particular effects versus others that are more dire but do not implicate the connection between their decisions and what the character does.

For example, if the character is restrained by a direct physical cause like an entangling spell versus mentally affected to not want to act - even if they lose the same opportunity to act in both cases, some players are more bothered by the latter.

That's been true in my experience particularly when it comes to social effects and skills which some players react too worse than magic like taking Charm type magical effect in stride but getting annoyed if told an NPC is highly skilled diplomat/haggler so roll off against them.

QuoteFor another specific example, suppose that the characters are mentally compelled by a spell to travel to a certain place versus being teleported there versus restrained and carried there by a powerful being (that they believe is not hostile to them); suppose further that the somewhat railroady referee declares the travel to have occurred without incident - the whole event related in a single sentence by the referee. Some players would be more bothered by the last that gave them no chance to fight the powerful being; some players would be more bothered by the first that compromised their mental autonomy.

In real life I would be much more bothered by a magical compulsion to give someone my wallet than being forced to give up the wallet by someone pointing a gun at me, because it would undermine my confidence in how the world works. Characters in a fantasy world who should know that spells have such power should not be surprised by it and should have come to terms with it, even if the actual event is unpleasant. (Not that having a gun pointed at me wouldn't be a psychologically scarring thing, but not Lovecraft horror level of bad.) I could view both as inflicting significant changes to me - but feeling that public places are not safe any more is less significant than feeling my mind is not my own, and I believe that the latter would be a more unpleasant change.

I see your point, but a character might find the experience of having their Free Will (or at least control of their body) usurped more troubling even if they're aware of the nature of how it was done. Its a very different experience from being physically coerced. When you give the mugger your wallet, you still have Will and agency; its just that the probable outcomes if NOT doing so are highly unpleasant. Finding yourself unable to stop or maybe worse, thinking the 'mugger' is your best friend in the world so why not give him all  your money, even if only for a moment, even if you know how he did it might enraged, offended trouble, etc more as its a violation of sanctity of your mind and will.

Quote from: CarlD.;1044080That's been true in my experience particularly when it comes to social effects and skills which some players react too worse than magic like taking Charm type magical effect in stride but getting annoyed if told an NPC is highly skilled diplomat/haggler so roll off against them.

OK, I've seen that. I've also seen players agree to the outcome of an ability contest to settle disagreements, rolling Persuasion or Intimidation against another player character, but they'd probably react badly to being forced to accept such a roll with NPCs or in every situation between PCs.

QuoteI see your point, but a character might find the experience of having their Free Will (or at least control of their body) usurped more troubling even if they're aware of the nature of how it was done. Its a very different experience from being physically coerced. When you give the mugger your wallet, you still have Will and agency; its just that the probable outcomes if NOT doing so are highly unpleasant. Finding yourself unable to stop or maybe worse, thinking the 'mugger' is your best friend in the world so why not give him all  your money, even if only for a moment, even if you know how he did it might enraged, offended trouble, etc more as its a violation of sanctity of your mind and will.

I would probably react very badly to coercion by gun, but at least my world view includes the understanding that it could happen. Someone in the real world who is in denial about the possibility of being menaced at gunpoint could completely flip out if it happened, and by analogy the same could happen in a fantasy world with respect to charm or any dangerous spell. But it is unclear how and to what degree people in the fantasy world would reconcile themselves to the possibility of charm spells, since I don't have any real world analogue for something as extreme in terms of loss of free will to argue from. I don't think that the fantasy world people would automatically flip out over being charmed, but it does seem to be a more challenging experience.

Quote from: jhkim;1042537I'm also curious about what other gender-changing effects people have seen in games, and what they were like in play. Was it interesting? Were there any problems with it?

"Everybody can fuck the elf!" might be a boon or bane, depending on your table.

Players like voluntary changes to their character. AKA, shapechanging powers.

But they're not as keen on involuntary changes. AKA, oops wrong girdle, now you're a schlong Amazon.

Shapechanging or illusion powers are generally very fun for rogue/assassin characters and I've seen plenty of players use those to switch genders to achieve some goal in game, same with transhumanist games where PCs can download themselves into various bodies.

Quote from: rawma;1044322OK, I've seen that. I've also seen players agree to the outcome of an ability contest to settle disagreements, rolling Persuasion or Intimidation against another player character, but they'd probably react badly to being forced to accept such a roll with NPCs or in every situation between PCs.

I've seen that too. People react oddly sometimes. In fairness, I've seen some players use highly social characters to essentially play someone else's character for them by micromanaging the other PCs behavior. The mechanics might technically allow them to that via raw mechanics but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. IMO, its not a black and white issue (like most things).

 Though I have found the more robust social/interaction systems can mitigate these things to some extent as they feel more interactive but the rules can't solve jerk and, for that matter, I've seen some players try to bully and dominant other PCs by purely physical mean.

QuoteI would probably react very badly to coercion by gun, but at least my world view includes the understanding that it could happen. Someone in the real world who is in denial about the possibility of being menaced at gunpoint could completely flip out if it happened, and by analogy the same could happen in a fantasy world with respect to charm or any dangerous spell. But it is unclear how and to what degree people in the fantasy world would reconcile themselves to the possibility of charm spells, since I don't have any real world analogue for something as extreme in terms of loss of free will to argue from. I don't think that the fantasy world people would automatically flip out over being charmed, but it does seem to be a more challenging experience.

I feel it could really vary from individual to individual, personally, yeah. My own outlook sees the mental violation as more troubling but that's not going to be the case for everyone. I don't have to deal with Charms spells and similar things in my gaming but mental powers and the theoretical ethics and acceptance of them are a similar topic and comes up in superhero/horror/supernatural relatively often.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1044374Shapechanging or illusion powers are generally very fun for rogue/assassin characters and I've seen plenty of players use those to switch genders to achieve some goal in game, same with transhumanist games where PCs can download themselves into various bodies.

Ah, thanks for bringing that up. I didn't think of Transhumanish games were PCs can swap out bodies like they change clothes or things like massive cosmetic even GR surgery are practically Out patient procedures. Or some characters types don't have a gender or sex at all (A.Is. Some types of genetically engineered lifeforms, etc.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042982Cursed items came out of players saying "Cool!  Elven Cloak and Boots!"

And you don't see this as a dick move?  Screwing the team out of a reward after the hard work of executing a plan successfully.  You say 'don't be a dick' and then you're OK when someone pulls a stunt like this.  You're sending very mixed messages, sir.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042982They also came out of Dying Earth and old mythology.  Dying Earth, wizards are experimenting all the time, and many experiments go wrong.

And when that happens you immediately sell it to dupes because that's how run a business, right?  Right?  Because destroying all that work is a waste of money!  Must make it back somehow!  Let's sell it people!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042983No, it assumes that players understand that things might be dangerous.

Yes, because Goblins and Kobolds, and Gelatinous Cubes and Rust Monster et al. are absolutely cuddly and safe!

What most people don't realize is that situations like this, create the VERY dick GMs that a lot of people decry.  But, but, but it's about challenging the players!  It also creates a lack of trust between DM and players, simply because it's meant to 'surprise' players, after all the planning, all the negotiating, the fighting (yes, yes, I know, fighting in the older editions is the wrong way to go, I get it) and suddenly, their hard earned rewards are a trick!  FOOLED YOU!  Not many people like that, even if they laugh about it.  You can get conditioned to accept it, but it's really a dick move.

Sadly, I don't know how to not be a dick and still use them, but...  Still a dick move.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1042990Plus, Gronan is spot on: if you don't want weird shit to happen to your character, don't put on magical belts. Duh.

Or magic rings, or magic swords, or gauntlets or boots...  

Unknowingly you create a situation where players are paranoid about looting treasure, and you're OK with it!  Not sure what benefit that brings to the DM, mind you...

In fact, I can't see it benefit a game when the players are just suddenly hoarding gold and wondering if they can buy magical items, because they're terrified that the battle axe in that dwarfhold's treasure pit after defeating (somehow, maybe not by combat...  Which just occurred to me, all magical weapons must have been traps back in the day, cuz you don't use them, you send minions to do your bidding) is suddenly a Berserker's Axe will will make characters attack other characters due to the curse.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042993Part of that comes from Rob Kuntz and Ernie Gygax actively twitting Gary about how the game had become too easy... in early 1974.  Much of later referee attitude was a reflection on Gary playing "gotcha" with his son and an old friend.  And we did; "ha ha, got you" or "ha ha, got away".

So because Gary was being a dick to his son and an old friend, it makes it OK to be a dick to everyone!  Huhn.  That explains a lot about your attitude...

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043029Beating strawmen is not addressing the point.... who's arguing nothing bad should happen unless agreed to by the player? We're discussing why being cursed might bother them.

Part of the issue, I have, with this, apart from conditioning an entire generation of players to distrust and probably dislike DMs in general, because of the actions of a few, is that removing the curse can be quite the travail that disrupts the game in general, because now, it's all about ONE player who's the opposite gender and certain hooks no longer work.  So the rest of the team has to switch gears to accommodate this newly cursed individual.

Anyone who has NPC's treat males and females the same has not left their basement for their entire lives.  Men get treated if more fear and aggression compared to women.  It's been scientifically proved that the main reason more women are assigned to cashier/customer service jobs is because people prefer to deal with women in general.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043053Seems a bit harsh. It's only a game that's all made up anyway.

This is Gronan's M.O.  You'll learn.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043053I believe my group all learned something from the experience.

The real question is:  WHAT did they learn?

Quote from: mightybrain;1043053My point is, as a player, there's a very easy way to defeat any curse without needing a wish or a favour from the gods. You can retire your character and make a new one.

Or just make the same character with a different name, and this time hope that the DM doesn't screw them.  Again.

Eh, cursed items pop up alot in legends. Swords that make the user more bloodthirsty, wish granting items that twist them into horror, magic pots that dont stop producing food, and Im pretty sure that spear that twists around to attack you in the back when you use it is from some legend.

Its a DM dick move only if they over use it. Every chest is trapped, every sword is cursed, etc. Used sparingly it keeps the players and the PCs on their toes and properly wary. Misused and you have appallingly paranoid players. I picked up a group that had started with a reallly bad DM and as noted before its been a pain in the ass to wean them off the mindset that the DM is out to screw them over.

Usually I like to drop in about one cursed item per campaign. Usually either its been placed deliberately as a final "FU adventurers!" from whomever occupied the area, or the PCs found someones essentially junk box of failed creations, or its something that has just never been triggered. So far. And there is allways some way of undoing it even if it is just finding someone strong enough to break the curse.

Chris, Gronan has jumped ship, he's not going to be answering you.

Quote from: Omega;1044943Eh, cursed items pop up alot in legends. Swords that make the user more bloodthirsty, wish granting items that twist them into horror, magic pots that dont stop producing food, and Im pretty sure that spear that twists around to attack you in the back when you use it is from some legend.

It would probably be kind of jarringly verisimilitude-breaking if a fantasy game world existed where there were no cursed items. I think it is the 'random treasure has random chance of being cursed' thing that seems off (and sets up the paranoia aspect). Cursed items are one of those places where it almost makes more sense for the DM to specifically place them (if for no other reason than they aren't going to end up in the same place as non-cursed items. They'd be much more likely to end up in the bottom of a ravine around the skeleton of the last poor soul who put them on than in the treasure chest full of prized possessions.

QuoteUsually I like to drop in about one cursed item per campaign. Usually either its been placed deliberately as a final "FU adventurers!" from whomever occupied the area, or the PCs found someones essentially junk box of failed creations, or its something that has just never been triggered. So far. And there is allways some way of undoing it even if it is just finding someone strong enough to break the curse.

It is really the "FU" quality that I feel D&D over-did. Most of the cursed items resisted all the in the book methods of catching them* like Identify  -- so the right way to catch them is to pay an urchin a handful of copper to adventure with you for a while with it and see if they die horribly (yay! You're the worst person in the world. Congratulations, your paranoia and callousness towards others has prevailed and the DM does not get to punish you for desiring treasure -- the entire point of the game). Many of the items more dangerous than -1 items or backbiter spears are near-instant death (potentially not even allowing resurrection if the party even has access to such things) unless very specific countermeasures are immediately available. And many of the items resist attempts to undo them (even the ones which are supposed to be able to 'do anything' or are specifically designed to remove curses).
*sometimes even to the point of 'won't show their dark side until an actual combat situation' or the like.

All in all, the explanation that this was an arms race between Gary and a few expert players makes a lot of sense. This was a very specific sweet spot in the game's history where these players had reached the level where resurrection was available from PC clerics (and resurrection did not have any costs or long-term consequences). Everyone had access to entirely too many wishes --evidenced by AD&D (which was being designed at the time) had specific constraints like attribute boosts of 16+ requiring 10 or more wishes (something you don't do unless wishes have run amok in the game). And most importantly, I think, everyone at that table had already figured out all the tricks and tropes, etc.

I really wish what had happened after that (so in 1e and Moldvay) is a scaling back and rewriting, with cursed items at default being more easily detected/counteracted/reversed, and then a section in the magic item section labelled "if the cursed items are no longer performing their designated task of keeping players on their toes" which then had optional rules on making them harsher or harder. That way default, entry level players and DMs wouldn't alienate each other and give the game some of the more negative stereotypes (about killer DMs, etc.), but experienced players and DMs could partake in that arms race.

I prefer my cursed items to be of the power-at-a-price variety, but curses that can be worked around/with I'm okay with.  I really don't like using cursed items as GOTCHA! traps, because I don't enjoy the paranoid 'check every stone with a ten foot pole' style of play.

For the gender-swap belt, I'd probably modify it so that it can't be removed until the wearer completes some specific task. Most curses that I remember from fairy tales worked like that, with specific 'get out of jail free' clauses attached to the curse. For a belt that swapped your sex, I'd make it something like 'receive a kiss freely given'. That sounds appropriately fairy tale-like. Make some appropriate backstory for why/how the belt was created, and voila!

Regarding cursed items in general -

Quote from: LarsdanglyPlus, Gronan is spot on: if you don't want weird shit to happen to your character, don't put on magical belts. Duh.

You're speaking as if this is an obvious logical conclusion, but it isn't in the slightest.  Given that arbitrary magic shit is possible, then it could just as easily be that there are curse-throwing witches around, and putting on a magic belt of protection is the best way to keep them from affecting you. Weird magical shit can be triggered by any action or lack of action. Walking into a room could be dangerous. Staying in the hallway and not walking into the room could be dangerous. etc. Unless there is information given to the players about what the specific dangers are, this is just screwing with players.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1044980I prefer my cursed items to be of the power-at-a-price variety, but curses that can be worked around/with I'm okay with.  I really don't like using cursed items as GOTCHA! traps, because I don't enjoy the paranoid 'check every stone with a ten foot pole' style of play.

For the gender-swap belt, I'd probably modify it so that it can't be removed until the wearer completes some specific task. Most curses that I remember from fairy tales worked like that, with specific 'get out of jail free' clauses attached to the curse. For a belt that swapped your sex, I'd make it something like 'receive a kiss freely given'. That sounds appropriately fairy tale-like. Make some appropriate backstory for why/how the belt was created, and voila!

I agree with the latter. An appropriate backstory is pretty vital. Many of the D&D cursed items - including the girdle - don't seem to have any logic to them. Why was it created? How could one predict what it is or how it works?

In fairy tales, there are often arbitrary magic effects, but one thing is that they are somewhat predictable because they follow moral/ethical principles. Curses usually come from breaking moral/ethical laws, and the best way to avoid them or cure them is to behave according to principle. In a game, that could potentially come across as moralizing from the GM. If the group buys into that from the start as an accepted part of the genre, though, then it's more workable.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979Chris, Gronan has jumped ship, he's not going to be answering you.

I don't care.  I'm pointing out some contradictory behaviour.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979It would probably be kind of jarringly verisimilitude-breaking if a fantasy game world existed where there were no cursed items. I think it is the 'random treasure has random chance of being cursed' thing that seems off (and sets up the paranoia aspect). Cursed items are one of those places where it almost makes more sense for the DM to specifically place them (if for no other reason than they aren't going to end up in the same place as non-cursed items. They'd be much more likely to end up in the bottom of a ravine around the skeleton of the last poor soul who put them on than in the treasure chest full of prized possessions.

My problem is that a lot of cursed items are exceedingly detrimental to not just ONE person, but to an entire village who often can't stop a skilled adventurer without great losses.  And yet, destroying them is somehow impossible?  Hell, a lot of these items can be used against the creator, and would be much easier just to melt them back down to their base components and start again.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979It is really the "FU" quality that I feel D&D over-did. Most of the cursed items resisted all the in the book methods of catching them* like Identify  -- so the right way to catch them is to pay an urchin a handful of copper to adventure with you for a while with it and see if they die horribly (yay! You're the worst person in the world. Congratulations, your paranoia and callousness towards others has prevailed and the DM does not get to punish you for desiring treasure -- the entire point of the game). Many of the items more dangerous than -1 items or backbiter spears are near-instant death (potentially not even allowing resurrection if the party even has access to such things) unless very specific countermeasures are immediately available. And many of the items resist attempts to undo them (even the ones which are supposed to be able to 'do anything' or are specifically designed to remove curses).
*sometimes even to the point of 'won't show their dark side until an actual combat situation' or the like.

And that was my point, as if getting TO the treasure wasn't dangerous enough, you have to screw over the players who planned and executed it?  This fosters trust?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979All in all, the explanation that this was an arms race between Gary and a few expert players makes a lot of sense. This was a very specific sweet spot in the game's history where these players had reached the level where resurrection was available from PC clerics (and resurrection did not have any costs or long-term consequences). Everyone had access to entirely too many wishes --evidenced by AD&D (which was being designed at the time) had specific constraints like attribute boosts of 16+ requiring 10 or more wishes (something you don't do unless wishes have run amok in the game). And most importantly, I think, everyone at that table had already figured out all the tricks and tropes, etc.

Sense or not, it's a dick move.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979I really wish what had happened after that (so in 1e and Moldvay) is a scaling back and rewriting, with cursed items at default being more easily detected/counteracted/reversed, and then a section in the magic item section labelled "if the cursed items are no longer performing their designated task of keeping players on their toes" which then had optional rules on making them harsher or harder. That way default, entry level players and DMs wouldn't alienate each other and give the game some of the more negative stereotypes (about killer DMs, etc.), but experienced players and DMs could partake in that arms race.

Still a dick move.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1045046I don't care.  I'm pointing out some contradictory behaviour.

Alright then.

QuoteMy problem is that a lot of cursed items are exceedingly detrimental to not just ONE person, but to an entire village who often can't stop a skilled adventurer without great losses.  And yet, destroying them is somehow impossible?  Hell, a lot of these items can be used against the creator, and would be much easier just to melt them back down to their base components and start again.

Undoubtedly one of the reasons why for the most part they can't just be melted down, or else people would do so. The marginal utility of having a cursed item you could try to get into your enemies' hands is pretty low. Most of the reason why they still existed had to be that they were hard to get rid of (or they were normal items that somehow 'spoiled' after millennia in some tomb or the like. exact explanations are pretty much left to the DM).

QuoteAnd that was my point, as if getting TO the treasure wasn't dangerous enough, you have to screw over the players who planned and executed it?  This fosters trust?

Nope, not even remotely. It's just one more challenge.

QuoteSense or not, it's a dick move.

Still a dick move.

If that's the way you want to put it. I'd call it purpose-driven design to a purpose that existed mostly at Gary's table and shouldn't have left said table and gotten into the general ruleset. Either way I think we agree that it didn't positively contribute to the player-DM-dynamic that we thought the designers considered the norm.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1044979Chris, Gronan has jumped ship, he's not going to be answering you.

It would probably be kind of jarringly verisimilitude-breaking if a fantasy game world existed where there were no cursed items. I think it is the 'random treasure has random chance of being cursed' thing that seems off (and sets up the paranoia aspect). Cursed items are one of those places where it almost makes more sense for the DM to specifically place them (if for no other reason than they aren't going to end up in the same place as non-cursed items. They'd be much more likely to end up in the bottom of a ravine around the skeleton of the last poor soul who put them on than in the treasure chest full of prized possessions.

It is really the "FU" quality that I feel D&D over-did. Most of the cursed items resisted all the in the book methods of catching them* like Identify  -- so the right way to catch them is to pay an urchin a handful of copper to adventure with you for a while with it and see if they die horribly (yay! You're the worst person in the world. Congratulations, your paranoia and callousness towards others has prevailed and the DM does not get to punish you for desiring treasure -- the entire point of the game). Many of the items more dangerous than -1 items or backbiter spears are near-instant death (potentially not even allowing resurrection if the party even has access to such things) unless very specific countermeasures are immediately available. And many of the items resist attempts to undo them (even the ones which are supposed to be able to 'do anything' or are specifically designed to remove curses).
*sometimes even to the point of 'won't show their dark side until an actual combat situation' or the like.

All in all, the explanation that this was an arms race between Gary and a few expert players makes a lot of sense. This was a very specific sweet spot in the game's history where these players had reached the level where resurrection was available from PC clerics (and resurrection did not have any costs or long-term consequences). Everyone had access to entirely too many wishes --evidenced by AD&D (which was being designed at the time) had specific constraints like attribute boosts of 16+ requiring 10 or more wishes (something you don't do unless wishes have run amok in the game). And most importantly, I think, everyone at that table had already figured out all the tricks and tropes, etc.

I really wish what had happened after that (so in 1e and Moldvay) is a scaling back and rewriting, with cursed items at default being more easily detected/counteracted/reversed, and then a section in the magic item section labelled "if the cursed items are no longer performing their designated task of keeping players on their toes" which then had optional rules on making them harsher or harder. That way default, entry level players and DMs wouldn't alienate each other and give the game some of the more negative stereotypes (about killer DMs, etc.), but experienced players and DMs could partake in that arms race.

1: eh, he'll be back. Someone (possibly Chris) will say something obviously not true and he will be compelled to step in and set the record straight.

2: I can see a world where there are no cursed items. This seems to pop up in a few novels and anime where magic seems to work alot more flawlessly than in D&D or most other RPGs.

I think the random cursed item actually fits. The item might have never triggered before such as D&D cursed swords which needed to be actually used in battle to trigger, or the owner died of the item and no one knew and just tossed it in with the other stuff. Or the aforementioned trap item. Or the item was created and no one ever had a chance to use it because it was a one shot item like a cursed scroll or bad potion. Lots of ways a cursed item could have gotten into a treasure pile. And I'm pretty sure some evil beings make cursed items just for fun. Another method I've used as the reason is the item was not originally cursed, but on its users death something happened that warped the item or actually imbured a normal item with this curse.

Personally whenever one of my PCs spots a skeleton laying somewhere with a magic sword still clutched the first thing I wonder is "Why?" and then break out the 10ft pole because there is no way you are getting me to handle that thing! :eek:

3: Identify is a low level spell so it makes sense that a curse would trick it. Otherwise it wouldnt be a very effective curse would it? You just need to get the more potent divinations cast to allow you to peek under the hood. BX does not even have Identify. You needed something like Commune or Contact Higher Plane (which was dangerous to use and not 100% accurate.)

BX and I think AD&D actually state that if you use an NPC to test an item then the NPC will very likely keep it. since we rarely had a cleric in the group we would just store most magic items until we could get to a city and hopefully find a cleric high enough level to identify all this stuff. For a fee of course. Or... assuming someone was feeling bold... ask the nice cleric person to remove this curse please? :rolleyes:

Except in at least AD&D you could get just as rampant power and the exact same situations. BX, not so easy.

In both A and BX cursed items are identifiable. Just not right out the gate level 1. In BX you need a Cleric level 7 minimum to do Commune and level 6 to do Remove Curse. Or a Magic User level 9 to do Contact and 7 to Remove.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1044980I prefer my cursed items to be of the power-at-a-price variety, but curses that can be worked around/with I'm okay with.  I really don't like using cursed items as GOTCHA! traps, because I don't enjoy the paranoid 'check every stone with a ten foot pole' style of play.

One item I introduced was a spear that was either a normal spear, or it could be adjusted to grant up to +5 to either to hit & damage, or to AC. But the more + you put into one side the more - you got in the other.