TheRPGSite

In a now-closed thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39050-There-s-no-Alt-Right-quot-OSR-Just-Leftists-Calling-Everyone-Nazis), Pundit brought up an effect in his DCC game.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd note that the LGBT kid who played in my DCC game was quite excited about getting a random mercurial effect where every time they cast magic missile it made their wizard change gender.

And of course, people have been talking about the Blessing of Corellon in Mordenkainen's Tome.

In D&D, there's the cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity. I've never seen it in play, though.

I have seen an item from the comedy game Teenagers from Outer Space, the sex-change pistol - which reverses the gender of whoever you shoot it at. It was a fun comedic gimmick.

More broadly, a lot of shapeshifting has the potential to change gender. In another thread, I mentioned how I had a shapeshifting PC in an Amber Diceless game - where shapeshifting always requires that you have a demon form. He found women rather gross, and his demon form was a bat-winged succubus. I can recall a fair number of shapechanging cases where the character changed gender - I'd be curious about

Pundit - I'd be interested to hear more about this gender-changing effect. Was it written into the DCC rules? How did the other players react?

I'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?

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?

That is always going to depend on the table at which it happens, whether gender is a big deal in the world being played in. Order of the Stick (a webcomic, not an actual game, I know) had a pretty funny take on it.

Quote from: jhkim;1042537In D&D, there's the cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity. I've never seen it in play, though.

I changed it up a bit. A girdle of Storm Giant Strength which was also a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity but only while you wore it. There was no way to remove one effect without getting rid of the other. :D

The Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity is a cursed item for a good reason. It doesn't just change a guy to a gal or a  gal to a guy: it also causes the wearer to believe that this has always been the case. From the wearer's point of view, some of their closest companions are suddenly insisting that she's really a he, which she knows is ridiculous. Whet the party gets back to town, it's likely everyone's gone nuts, constantly insisting that she's really a guy and trying to change her into a guy, which she isn't, thank you very much!

I only started in 2e where gender change stuff was seemingly starting to get back benched.  We don't particularly care (we often played female characters anyway) about gender but the one time it did happen we all thought it was hilarious.

Quote from: Whitewings;1042543The Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity is a cursed item for a good reason. It doesn't just change a guy to a gal or a  gal to a guy: it also causes the wearer to believe that this has always been the case. From the wearer's point of view, some of their closest companions are suddenly insisting that she's really a he, which she knows is ridiculous. Whet the party gets back to town, it's likely everyone's gone nuts, constantly insisting that she's really a guy and trying to change her into a guy, which she isn't, thank you very much!

Did this change in a later edition? From the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide, the description is:

QuoteGirdle of Femininity/Masculinity: This broad leather band appears to be a normal belt used commonly by all sorts of adventurers, but of course it is magical. If buckled on, it will immediately change the sex of its wearer to the opposite gender. Its magical curse fulfilled, the belt then loses all power. The original sex of the character cannot be restored by any normal means, although a wish might do so (50% chance), and a powerful being can alter the situation, i.e., it takes a god-like creature to set matters aright with certainty. 10% of these girdles actually remove all sex from the wearer.

It doesn't mention anything about changing the wearer's memories.

Hmm. I don't have my 2e books any more, so I can't check them. It's possible I'm conflating the Girdle and the commentary elsewhere in the DMG on people generally objecting to being subjected to shape-changing magic.

I just recently had my sex changed by the dreaded girdle in the Baldur's Gate PC game!

I responded to that tangent in the closed thread.

I think a sex shift works well with OD&D (not Holmes, it seems) elves, who function as either fighting-men or as magic-users and shift between these classes in between adventures. Link sex to class. Fighting-elves are male, magic-users, female.  

This covers the elfin knight and the Fay enchantress types.

I mentioned a few of these in other threads.

The aforementioned Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity which seems to have first appeared in AD&D. I did not see it in O or BX. In 2e it also has a 10% chance to remove all gender. Neither entry changes the users mind. It is also brutally hard to undo. Even a Wish has a 50% chance of failure.

The Portal of Gender and Alignment flipping from Tomb of Horrors.

Polymorph spells, potions, and items can change gender. This is a plot point in at least one Greyhawk module. Polymorph can actually alter the mind of the target as well such that they become what they were turned into. So it is not that they believe they were allways as they are now. Its that they now are as if they allways were as they are now. They might be fully aware its not the case, but their movements and outlook now fit the body. YMMV of course and the exact wording of the effect has changed from one edition to another.

Curses in some cases can do this as well. (Im sure some would view polymorph as a curse in some cases. Considering the risk of death, it effectively is!)

Gods and some other beings can change others as well as themselves. Effectively super polymorph.

Believe in AD&D one of the psionic powers allowed it as well. Pretty sure that returned in 2e.

Outside of D&D its really hit or miss and sometimes about the only examples might be curses and polymorph equivalents. And in one Cthulhu themed game I played a monster race that used metamorphic disguises to walk amongst men and one of the other playable races just hopped bodies. So today we might be male, tomorrow female if the mission so called for it.

As for in play use. This varies absolutely from one table to the next and one player to the next. I know many who like polymorph effects but do not like gendermorph effects. And some who do not like either, and some who like both and a few tho really like the gendermorph tricks. Presentation can be another factor. Is it a curse or is it a power the character has themselves via spell? Some will be ok with a curse effect and others wont. There is just that much variance in outlooks. Ive been in several campaigns where it has never come up once. In fact I'd say that is the norm. But I've been in a rare few where things like this were the focus even of the campaign and how the PCs deal with it as a boon or a bane.

And at the end of the day that is the real point. Are the players enjoying this or are they considering leaving? And that has to be determined on a case by case basis. As a DM I discuss things like this first to get an idea, just like many other things. Makes for a more hassle-free session.

I think I conflated the Girdle and the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

Well, Lunars in Exalted are kinda famous/notorious for the fact that (at least for those of them that decide to learn that) gender-switching is some Essence expenditure away;). Canonically, according to 2e canon at least, a corrupt Solar Eclipse tried really hard to learn it from his Lunar mate, and was quite disappointed that he can't do that (because it's not a Charm).

And of course, D&D elves never needed such a power, because nobody could be sure what their gender is, anyway:D!

Quote from: Whitewings;1042562I think I conflated the Girdle and the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

That or with polymorph. Polymorh, depending on the iteration, can be a potent spell. And even failing that spells like hypnotism, suggestion and other mind altering spells can cover even that. There is a module where one of the villains does exactly that to an NPC to literally hide him in plain sight. And its a darn hard one to reveal as the NPC doesnt just believe they are this fabricated character. They effectively ARE the fabricated character. So things like lie detection wont work.

These sorts of tricks can make for some really interesting adventures when used well.

Never seen any sex-changing or even gender-changing in a game. I once had a m2f transgender player, who played a female PC as I recall.

A character in my current game is transgendered. The only time it came up outside of their backstory was for a magic portal that required the character speak their name as they walked through (an owl over the door would cry "hoo!" upon each character's approach). The player hilariously depicted his character's muttered embarrassment while uttering the character's original name for the sake of passage.

My players never miss an opportunity for a piss-take.

If some PC got gender flipped, it would be like Tom Hanks in "Bosom Buddies" in armor.

Quote from: Omega;1042559Ive been in several campaigns where it has never come up once. In fact I'd say that is the norm. But I've been in a rare few where things like this were the focus even of the campaign and how the PCs deal with it as a boon or a bane.

And at the end of the day that is the real point.

Yes, obviously, how the players take it is important.

Your comment naturally makes me curious about what the campaign where things like this were the focus of the campaign.  What was that like?  What was the setting, and how did the players take it in practice?

Quote from: Omega;1042568That or with polymorph. Polymorh, depending on the iteration, can be a potent spell. And even failing that spells like hypnotism, suggestion and other mind altering spells can cover even that. There is a module where one of the villains does exactly that to an NPC to literally hide him in plain sight. And its a darn hard one to reveal as the NPC doesnt just believe they are this fabricated character. They effectively ARE the fabricated character. So things like lie detection wont work.

These sorts of tricks can make for some really interesting adventures when used well.

Ooh, that reminds me of the sourcebook _When Gravity Fails_ for the Cyberpunk system, based on the novels by George Alec Effinger. It has a featured adventure which is about sex-changed characters and mind games. Spoilers in case anyone wants to play it -

Spoiler

Three brothers who were betrayed by their greedy older brother. Not wanting to kill them because of their being family, he instead erased their memories with cyberware and had them go through body modification into women. These are the PCs, who start off the adventure not knowing anything about their true background.

I haven't read the novels, but this was a really bizarre sample adventure for a setting book, I thought.

Quote from: Whitewings;1042543The Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity is a cursed item for a good reason. It doesn't just change a guy to a gal or a  gal to a guy: it also causes the wearer to believe that this has always been the case. From the wearer's point of view, some of their closest companions are suddenly insisting that she's really a he, which she knows is ridiculous. Whet the party gets back to town, it's likely everyone's gone nuts, constantly insisting that she's really a guy and trying to change her into a guy, which she isn't, thank you very much!

I recall thread on rpgnet discussing this item. Some folks have their feathers ruffled that was considered 'cursed', particularly since a transsexual character might see it as a blessing. I got in a little hot water (dog piled, no official sanction) for suggesting that would, barring that exception it would be forcing someone to live in the wrong body long term, a circumstances not unlike how Trans individuals describe their own lives before transition so a negative. This comparison was considered to be trivializing the condition.

Quote from: AsenRG;1042564Well, Lunars in Exalted are kinda famous/notorious for the fact that (at least for those of them that decide to learn that) gender-switching is some Essence expenditure away;). Canonically, according to 2e canon at least, a corrupt Solar Eclipse tried really hard to learn it from his Lunar mate, and was quite disappointed that he can't do that (because it's not a Charm).

And of course, D&D elves never needed such a power, because nobody could be sure what their gender is, anyway:D!

I've always allowed Lunars shift into opposite gender versions of the same for free. It seemed like a such logical part of their malleable nature. Luna has no set gender, after. It wasn't a great disguise, at most you looked your nearly identical twin brother/sister. If a PC got the Gift (Two Faced Transformation?) the change could look more different, the ability extended across all the forms the Lunar could assume and they were fertile as either form and could shift while early in pregnancy and assume a hermaphroditic or genderless form if desired.

Tim Kask spoke at Gary Con about these girdles. Apparently Gary disapproved but it wasn't in their nature to censor; at least not in the early years. And you have to remember that this was the era of hippies and flower power. Nothing like the minefield of identity politics we have today. Personally I don't see these kinds of effects as a problem particularly because it's rare that a characters' gender has any real effect on the game anyway.

I through these kinds of things out years ago and they remain out.

Why would anyone be bothered by a magical change in gender in a game that is about playing roles, and in which every other major aspect of you is subject to magical change?

Two words: Identity Politics.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042611My players never miss an opportunity for a piss-take.

This, right here.  

On the rare occasions it showed up, it was never Serious Business.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1042680This, right here.  

On the rare occasions it showed up, it was never Serious Business.

With something like a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, if the player is really intent on getting it fixed, then I will give them the opportunity to do so. This usually means divine intervention. Typically, they would encounter an agent of their deity, since most PCs had some sort of faith. This agent was often an outer planar being appearing as a mortal who would give out a quest. The quest would often involve killing things and taking their stuff, or sometimes it might be something else. Honestly, if a character is religious, then I like to give them the opportunity to explore that aspect in a way which is in line with their faith. Of course there is the added benefit of the other PCs helping out and getting some sort of reward themselves. Basically, such an item is an excuse for adventure. I think over the decades, I've used the girdle including the variant I mentioned earlier maybe three times. Possibly more, as part of the 90s are fuzzy.

I can't imagine anyone having a problem being 'cursed' with a gender switch unless they were either obsessed with their gender identity in the first place or using role-playing to explore their own biases. In the first case, maybe role-playing against their bias would be good for them. But if someone chose to play against their gender bias and then got 'cursed' back I guess it would be annoying.

Quote from: mightybrain;1042709I can't imagine anyone having a problem being 'cursed' with a gender switch

Really?
I can't imagine someone NOT taking it as A Big Deal, at least;). And most PCs would probably take it as a curse, yes, even if some might get used to it!

Honestly? Most of the cursed magic items were thrown out after High School because we had already done those schticks to death.

Something that radically alters a PC can be a fun surprise for the player,  but it can also frustrate the player if he feels his character has been changed into something he did not desire to play.

As a DM and as a player, I like curses to come up now and then in play. They should have some sort of escape clause or magical fix.

In Nomine SJG deals with celestials (angels & demons) and there's Celestial Song of Form to shapechange. Changing genders is just one of many things you can do with the temporary shapechange. In fact, by canon, it (and Song of Possession) is one of the few ways a celestial can "have a child" with a human as they are purposely given infertile vessels ever since the Nephilim issue. You shapechange into a woman, have sex with a fertile man, collect their "seed" inside you, shapechange back into a man, use the borrowed "seed" to fertilize a fertile woman. Song of Possession is a bit more direct... but you could always Celestial Song of Form the borrowed body into looking like your familiar form to your lover.

There is also rumor of a lesser known Celestial Song of Form variant among Lust, just in case you want to put more genitalia of whatever sort about your and your lover/s vessels (or bodies).

But then you also have extra vessels in suspension waiting to be swapped out, or outright possession going on, so swapping genders is the least of your nifty functions. :)

I've seen the girdle of MF used in multiple games.  In every instance it has been used as a mean spirited prank meant to hurt a player (exclusively male) who is strongly invested in their character image.  If the player tries to brush off the prank, the DM and other players arrange a scenario where the newly female character is raped by orcs, brigands, and/or other party members.

I strongly feel the item is despicable, and was written exclusively for the kind of use I've seen it put to.  

Moving on...

I've seen B/G guns used in TFOS a bit.  They're common items, and their function is repeatable.  Reversing the gender switch is easy if not trivial.  They are definitely used to unwillingly change someone's gender and cause embarrassment, but the character thus changed can easily haul out their own B/G gun and change back or zap the other character too.  So, unlike the girdle of MF, it isn't a one directional middle finger with no recourse for the victim.

There's also the fact that TFOS is known going in as a comedy game, so a level of hijinks and embarrassment is asumed.  When it happens it's just comedy, as opposed to "teaching a player a lesson" as it typically is in D&D.

After the initial novelty of the item wears off, it becomes a standard tool in the TFOS arsenal, like a dagger in D&D.  It's arguably better than the zap gun.  It becomes something that people will sometimes use willingly on themselves.

The big question which occurs is what hapens to the character's stats and characteristics once gender changed?  Does the supremely masculine Bobby of the football team with a Looks of 6 become the ultra feminine Bonnie also with a looks of 6?  Does the character's size change?  Is the gender swapped character recognizable as their previous self?  I believe the book says everything stays identical, but that quickly goes out the window as straining verisimilitude even in a game as ludicrous as TFOS.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042736If the player tries to brush off the prank, the DM and other players arrange a scenario where the newly female character is raped by orcs, brigands, and/or other party members.

That's a dick move and I would pack my books and walk out the door if something like that happened. But I would be grateful that the DM outed himself as an asshole sooner than later.

Quote from: Krimson;1042738That's a dick move and I would pack my books and walk out the door if something like that happened. But I would be grateful that the DM outed himself as an asshole sooner than later.

Indeed. Not even remotely cool.

The girdle of F/M did feature once in a game I ran. (Randomly generated treasure) The curse could have caused serious political problems, as the affected PC was also a newly-married domain ruler. But he was able to keep his altered condition secret long enough to obtain a magical fix before anything too serious occurred. Some odd rumors spread about him for a bit. And his companions got a chuckle out of the affair, even as they were sworn to secrecy.

I've done it to a player recently. They haven't bothered trying to fix the "issue" but they haven't made it clear if they are ok with it.

Which it's a minor side quest to fix but I think the player is overwhelmed with everything his character is responsible for let alone addressing something as like gender which has no meaningful effect on his/her story in this campaign.

Quote from: Krimson;1042738That's a dick move and I would pack my books and walk out the door if something like that happened. But I would be grateful that the DM outed himself as an asshole sooner than later.

Dick move doesn't quite capture it. Gabriel2's post is one of those things you find scattered across these boards that make you realize a slice of our hobby is an absolute horror show of virulent sexism. It obviously isn't everyone, and I like to imagine its a small minority. But it seems to always show up in any discussion of gender.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1042763Dick move doesn't quite capture it. Gabriel2's post is one of those things you find scattered across these boards that make you realize a slice of our hobby is an absolute horror show of virulent sexism. It obviously isn't everyone, and I like to imagine its a small minority. But it seems to always show up in any discussion of gender.

A campaign I was playing in back in the 90s had a player like this. The DM kindly allowed me to physically eject said neckbeard from the house, which was not an easy task given his size. :D

Quote from: jhkim;1042616Yes, obviously, how the players take it is important.

Your comment naturally makes me curious about what the campaign where things like this were the focus of the campaign.  What was that like?  What was the setting, and how did the players take it in practice?

In one campaign it was a tactic used by one of the various empires in combination with an extensive slave trade. The subjects were mostly war prisoners and political malcontents, criminals and the like. If I recall correctly it was four magic users of what Id guess were around level 12, processing something like 16 people a day from what our PCs heard. This was AD&D so Polymorph other was a potentially damn potent spell. It also had a chance to flat out kill the subject. TWICE! So anyone slated for change was told flat out this little fact and pretty much no one who was not adventurer caliber wanted to risk death a second time after surviving the first. On the other hand the crime rate was really low! :rolleyes:

In a Gamma World campaign one of the PCs got ahold of a superscience device that could reshape the subject and used it extensively to explore into some of the more restricted lands undetected.

And in a recent try at a d20 GW campaign we ran into a community that was taking people and changing them into women as part of a repopulation project. That included mental adjustments that proved really hard to undo. But hey its a White Wolf game so we kinda expected things to be even more fucked up than usual. That one ended on a rather bleak note by the way...

And another d20 GW one off where a player decided to make one of the, ahem, sexually transmitted PCs from one of the expansion books... No. I am not joking. How this worked was anyone she slept with was turned into an exact copy of her. Yeah things got really weird really fast. By the end of it my PC was the only person in town not the other PC...

Wherever it had occurred the players have overall taken it in stride and handled it according to their PC and the situation. Either try to get rid of it or make the best of the situation if it was not their choice. (curse/poly) or to find some way to apply this to a problem if it was their choice. And that could take a long time, or be relatively short depending also on the situation.

And as noted in an older thread. This was how I effectively lost one of my higher level MUs without them actually getting killed. Villain polymorphed him into a horse and just sold the mare. Jerk! The rest of the group escaped but had no clue this had happened and thought my character had been killed. Which just about happened as only just barely made the system shock roll. And they later walked right past the mare at the market and never knew. Jerks! :p

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042736I've seen the girdle of MF used in multiple games.  In every instance it has been used as a mean spirited prank meant to hurt a player (exclusively male) who is strongly invested in their character image.  If the player tries to brush off the prank, the DM and other players arrange a scenario where the newly female character is raped by orcs, brigands, and/or other party members.

I strongly feel the item is despicable, and was written exclusively for the kind of use I've seen it put to.  

I would posit that that's a problem. But it's not a problem with the item;).

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042736I've seen the girdle of MF used in multiple games.  In every instance it has been used as a mean spirited prank meant to hurt a player (exclusively male) who is strongly invested in their character image.  If the player tries to brush off the prank, the DM and other players arrange a scenario where the newly female character is raped by orcs, brigands, and/or other party members.

I strongly feel the item is despicable, and was written exclusively for the kind of use I've seen it put to.

The item isn't despicable, the players are.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042804The item isn't despicable, the players are.

As usual. anything in the wrong hands can make for a poor gaming experience via DM or players. The average player though is not a jackass.

In the late 70s we thought ourselves very clever for planning to seek out transsexuals who would want to test unknown girdles, on the condition that they had to return them if they just gave giant strength. It came up once that I knew of, and it was in fact giant strength.

Recently, a character in Tomb of Annihilation drank from a fountain that changed him to female (the fountain killed another character after that, which was probably more the reason that nobody wanted to experiment further with it); since he was the brother of a previously deceased female character, the character was maybe more annoyed with being mistaken for the sister, but then druids are used to changing their physical form.

The girdle of femininity/masculinity was first in Greyhawk, along with "a room which causes a sex to change" (among other heavy handed things to mess with characters) in the tricks and traps section; otherwise, the only things close to that level of arbitrary character altering was in the board game Talisman and in Munchkin. I don't recall anyone changing gender in that game, but one of my characters went from lawful to chaotic as a result of that sort of room, and a Magic-User got turned into an Illusionist. Usually players who were interested in the role-playing were unhappy with that sort of thing, and rooms like that disappeared quickly. Probably DMs stopped using that item for the same reason.

I don't want to drift this fine thread off-topic, but I DO want to tell you all that it has inspired me to fashion the Gauntlet of Dick-Having for use in future games.

Gauntlet of Dick-Having
Did you seriously put this thing on before the wizard was done inspecting it? Well, it looks like today is your lucky day, because now your character is the recipient of an enormous, inhumanly veiny man-hammer. What's that? you already had one? Well now you have another, much better one! In case you blow a flat, or for whatever use your depraved mind can concoct. Break down a door? No problem with this beef rod! Cross a formidable Chasm? You'll have no difficulty pole-vaulting on this magnificent member!

Cursed? How can you see this blessing of abundant trouser meat as a curse?! You ingrate! Of course you can remove the gauntlet; why would you want to?! Look at that thing! It's like an ugly baby!

...

You really don't want to know what lonesome wizard made this thing. For use in any game and game-related activity. You're welcome

Quote from: Azraele;1042834Gauntlet of Dick-Having
Did you seriously put this thing on before the wizard was done inspecting it?

I loled.

But I also have to add that everyone I've ever played with who used cursed items applied the rules for cursed scrolls to all cursed items.  These rules state:

"It is incumbent upon the Dungeon Master to do his utmost to convince players that a cursed scroll should be read.  This is to be accomplished through duplicity, coercion and threat, etc"

So Identify always returned that cursed items were a beneficial item of the same type.  Because the DM was supposed to lie about it anyway, so why not lie about what the item type was?

Two side notes:
-many times, depending on the details, what we're talking about is actually changing the sex of a character. ("Gender" as a term was always a bit more wishy-washy, but now it has become all but useless)
-don't know about specific RPGs but you can experience magic that changes your sex (I believe) in the board game Arabian Nights.

Quote from: Azraele;1042834I don't want to drift this fine thread off-topic, but I DO want to tell you all that it has inspired me to fashion the Gauntlet of Dick-Having for use in future games.

Gauntlet of Dick-Having
Did you seriously put this thing on before the wizard was done inspecting it? Well, it looks like today is your lucky day, because now your character is the recipient of an enormous, inhumanly veiny man-hammer. What's that? you already had one? Well now you have another, much better one! In case you blow a flat, or for whatever use your depraved mind can concoct. Break down a door? No problem with this beef rod! Cross a formidable Chasm? You'll have no difficulty pole-vaulting on this magnificent member!

Cursed? How can you see this blessing of abundant trouser meat as a curse?! You ingrate! Of course you can remove the gauntlet; why would you want to?! Look at that thing! It's like an ugly baby!

...

You really don't want to know what lonesome wizard made this thing. For use in any game and game-related activity. You're welcome

You are my new best friend.  Come to GaryCon, I'll let you buy me a beer!

Quote from: rawma;1042831In the late 70s we thought ourselves very clever for planning to seek out transsexuals who would want to test unknown girdles, on the condition that they had to return them if they just gave giant strength. It came up once that I knew of, and it was in fact giant strength.

Recently, a character in Tomb of Annihilation drank from a fountain that changed him to female (the fountain killed another character after that, which was probably more the reason that nobody wanted to experiment further with it); since he was the brother of a previously deceased female character, the character was maybe more annoyed with being mistaken for the sister, but then druids are used to changing their physical form.

The girdle of femininity/masculinity was first in Greyhawk, along with "a room which causes a sex to change" (among other heavy handed things to mess with characters) in the tricks and traps section; otherwise, the only things close to that level of arbitrary character altering was in the board game Talisman and in Munchkin. I don't recall anyone changing gender in that game, but one of my characters went from lawful to chaotic as a result of that sort of room, and a Magic-User got turned into an Illusionist. Usually players who were interested in the role-playing were unhappy with that sort of thing, and rooms like that disappeared quickly. Probably DMs stopped using that item for the same reason.

Whereas when the "Ring of Contrariness" was first used, it was Gary's character who put it on.  Rob told him about it secretly during a bathroom/smoke break, and Gary played it to the hilt, and we all enjoyed it immensely.

Quote from: Azraele;1042834I don't want to drift this fine thread off-topic, but I DO want to tell you all that it has inspired me to fashion the Gauntlet of Dick-Having for use in future games.

Gauntlet of Dick-Having
Did you seriously put this thing on before the wizard was done inspecting it? Well, it looks like today is your lucky day, because now your character is the recipient of an enormous, inhumanly veiny man-hammer. What's that? you already had one? Well now you have another, much better one! In case you blow a flat, or for whatever use your depraved mind can concoct. Break down a door? No problem with this beef rod! Cross a formidable Chasm? You'll have no difficulty pole-vaulting on this magnificent member!

Cursed? How can you see this blessing of abundant trouser meat as a curse?! You ingrate! Of course you can remove the gauntlet; why would you want to?! Look at that thing! It's like an ugly baby!

...

You really don't want to know what lonesome wizard made this thing. For use in any game and game-related activity. You're welcome

I just fell out of my chair.

Quote from: mightybrain;1042709I can't imagine anyone having a problem being 'cursed' with a gender switch unless they were either obsessed with their gender identity in the first place or using role-playing to explore their own biases. In the first case, maybe role-playing against their bias would be good for them. But if someone chose to play against their gender bias and then got 'cursed' back I guess it would be annoying.

Player agency. If I want to play a Male Human Paladin if I get turned female or into a dwarf it may bother me. What bias would either imply?

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1042871Player agency. If I want to play a Male Human Paladin if I get turned female or into a dwarf it may bother me. What bias would either imply?

"Player Agency" gets used a bit too much as a passive aggressive whining point to stop bad things happening to characters.

Quote from: Omega;1042906"Player Agency" gets used a bit too much as a passive aggressive whining point to stop bad things happening to characters.

Maybe but as to the point in question, is it?

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?

I ran a game where a half-orc fighter PC was changed from male to female by a magical effect. Everyone found it amusing except for the player of the affected PC. He was a bit upset, but got over it and eventually found a way to change back.

I wouldn't say it was particularly interesting or problematic. It was just mildly amusing.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1042871Player agency. If I want to play a Male Human Paladin if I get turned female or into a dwarf it may bother me. What bias would either imply?

No one is forcing the character to take the Girdle and put it on. That's a conscious decision by the Player. Just like no one one forces a character to draw a card from the Deck of Many Things.

Quote from: Krimson;1042920No one is forcing the character to take the Girdle and put it on. That's a conscious decision by the Player. Just like no one one forces a character to draw a card from the Deck of Many Things.

And there you have it.  Too many people simply don't want the possibility of bad consequences.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042935And there you have it.  Too many people simply don't want the possibility of bad consequences.

Then they should be playing a nice safe game where you get reward without risk.

The curse is not worse than  level drain, petrification, or death.
;)

Quote from: Azraele;1042834I don't want to drift this fine thread off-topic, but I DO want to tell you all that it has inspired me to fashion the Gauntlet of Dick-Having for use in future games.

Gauntlet of Dick-Having
Did you seriously put this thing on before the wizard was done inspecting it? Well, it looks like today is your lucky day, because now your character is the recipient of an enormous, inhumanly veiny man-hammer. What's that? you already had one? Well now you have another, much better one! In case you blow a flat, or for whatever use your depraved mind can concoct. Break down a door? No problem with this beef rod! Cross a formidable Chasm? You'll have no difficulty pole-vaulting on this magnificent member!

Cursed? How can you see this blessing of abundant trouser meat as a curse?! You ingrate! Of course you can remove the gauntlet; why would you want to?! Look at that thing! It's like an ugly baby!

...

You really don't want to know what lonesome wizard made this thing. For use in any game and game-related activity. You're welcome

Cursed indeed, it is!  Why, Randar the Randy, warrior of great fame and fortune, put on this mighty gauntlet and proudly took off towards the nearest wench vending establishment, stark naked apart from the gauntlet and the wheelbarrow he required to transport his manhood.

His mighty meat spear accidentally punched a hole in the wall, knocked out several of the women, and then rendered him unconscious due to lack of bloodflow to the brain.  Randar sold the gauntlet the next day, muttering that he wanted to screw and if he needed a battering ram his half-orc companion would do nicely.

A mighty tool it grants, but only the rather charming gnomish thief Quincy o'Quickdraw has been able to "use it to its fullest measure" so to speak.  He speaks quite highly of the gauntlet, and is very easily tracked by reports of individuals being unable to close the jaw, or walking bowlegged for a week.



I'd give the thing an activation phrase.  "Ru ru ahsvet korfah!"  (translation: go, go, gadget dick!)  Imagine a group of PCs walking towards a tavern.  It's been a long night, and they hate the fucking Eagles.  They're almost to the door, hear that phrase, and out of nowhere the wizard gets knocked flat on his ass by a dick rapidly extending into the courtyard.

Quincy was just showing off, the wizard got hit by friendly fire.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1042944...they hate the fucking Eagles..

Understandable since most of their songs are just griping about something. :D

Quote from: Krimson;1042920No one is forcing the character to take the Girdle and put it on. That's a conscious decision by the Player. Just like no one one forces a character to draw a card from the Deck of Many Things.

I think there is a distinct difference of scale here.

A character picks up a magical sword which hasn't been Identified, and then has to live with being stuck with a -1 to hit until they can have Remove Curse cast.

versus

A character who has an item reliably Identified as a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, only for that to turn out to be a lie from the reliable narrator and only source of information about the reality of the game world.  On top of that the resultant effect fundamentally changes the image of the character. It's also effectively irreversible with even a Wish only providing a coin flip chance of restoring the original character's state.

As I stated, I've only ever seen it intentionally dropped with a specific target character in mind.  The target player is always someone invested in their character as an avatar of themselves.  I won't lie.  Some of them probably couldn't tolerate bad things happening to their characters.  But I'd say that about half of them were perfectly fine with making gameplay decisions and dealing with the consequences.

If the item isn't intended to be dickish by design, why is it labeled "cursed" with the connotations that has in D&D (traps and punishment).  Also, why the over the top requirements for reversing it, which some artifacts don't even go as far as?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042935And there you have it.  Too many people simply don't want the possibility of bad consequences.

Quote from: Krimson;1042936Then they should be playing a nice safe game where you get reward without risk.

I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general). There are undoubtedly gamers like that out there, but within the context of this thread, we have all of Ras venturing that that might be a reason someone would object.

Regardless, Ewan is right, there are significantly worse things that could happen to your character. In fact the real problem (if you can even call it that) with gender-switch items is that it really isn't really anything bad happening to the character*, making it kind of a non-issue (minus an opportunity to roleplay your character being upset, which isn't really a bad thing).
*unless you have arrested-development cases in your gaming group (like the above-mentioned rape-joke jaggoffs), in which case that's the actual problem.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042946If the item isn't intended to be dickish by design, why is it labeled "cursed" with the connotations that has in D&D (traps and punishment).  Also, why the over the top requirements for reversing it, which some artifacts don't even go as far as?

It is intended to be dickish by design. It is a cursed item. Full stop. D&D cursed items (minus simple -1 items) are clearly designed with a 'laugh at the misery'/'disproportionate retribution for the supposed sleight of not figuring out that they were cursed' aesthetic. Plenty of the Necklace of Strangulation/Bowl of Watery Death-style cursed items can be summed up as "unless the spellcaster (who had better not be you) is standing by with a very specific spell prepared, you will die perma-death." We do not disagree on this, only that it is unusual amongst its peers.

Quote from: Ras AlgethiPlayer agency. If I want to play a Male Human Paladin if I get turned female or into a dwarf it may bother me. What bias would either imply?

Quote from: Omega;1042906"Player Agency" gets used a bit too much as a passive aggressive whining point to stop bad things happening to characters.

I think Ras has a point. There's a psychological and practical difference between a character dying or being petrified or whatever - and a character being significantly changed.

I think it's pretty common to get uncomfortable at having one's gender changed. If I didn't know my players - like in a convention game - I'd probably want to have some kind of warning before effects like this happen. It doesn't have to be specific about the effect - just that weird changes to one's character are possible.

Quote from: Krimson;1042920No one is forcing the character to take the Girdle and put it on. That's a conscious decision by the Player. Just like no one one forces a character to draw a card from the Deck of Many Things.

This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

There seems to be a distinct difference in the type of consequences the girdle invokes. There are no mechanical changes (AFAIK), the character plays the same as far as the dice go. The differences are social and role play driven. Being forced into the wrong gender would be psychologicially troubling and potentially socially disruptive to devestating depends on the character's culture and history (Imagine being married and having this happen). Though for some characters it may even be benifical; if your game deals with matters like transexualism.

For the player it might be a practically a non issue if gender/sex plays little no role in the game or they enjoy the RP potential or something major if they are very attached to a certain image or plans for their character, viewing it as more than an expendable playing piece, disliking the potential psychological issue it would bring up, just being uncomfortable with the whole idea because they don't like sex/gender issues coming up as more than window dressing or in a more negative light don't like bad consequences or find this one hits closer to him than death for personal reasons. This isn't necessarily indicate immaturity. For instance, I'd be more disturbed by a character being rendered blind for extended/permanent time since its a personal phobia of mine.

I think it would be best to have a grasp on your players before spring this or something like it on them like any other risky or potentially problematic endeavor and be ready to talk it out if it doesn't go over well. As a total WAG, I'd assume the device is nominally balanced based on the notion its not going to cause much trouble or player issue as it has such stringent requirements to be rid of or meant as further adventure fuel.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general).

That pretty much describes many many threads on this forum. Mind you if someone wasn't moaning and griping about something at any given time, it wouldn't be the internet.

Quote from: jhkim;1042948This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

You pays your money, you takes your chance.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947It is intended to be dickish by design. It is a cursed item. Full stop. D&D cursed items (minus simple -1 items) are clearly designed with a 'laugh at the misery'/'disproportionate retribution for the supposed sleight of not figuring out that they were cursed' aesthetic. Plenty of the Necklace of Strangulation/Bowl of Watery Death-style cursed items can be summed up as "unless the spellcaster (who had better not be you) is standing by with a very specific spell prepared, you will die perma-death." We do not disagree on this, only that it is unusual amongst its peers.

Cursed items came out of players saying "Cool!  Elven Cloak and Boots!"

They also came out of Dying Earth and old mythology.  Dying Earth, wizards are experimenting all the time, and many experiments go wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;1042948This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

No, it assumes that players understand that things might be dangerous.

There are a lot of groups and/or individual players who are not mature enough to deal with a variety of ideas that come up in free-form role playing; some can't deal with the concept of failure. Some can't deal with a sense of loss of control over your avatar. Some are not able to explore issues related to 'alignment' or other measures of character ethics, morality or beliefs without the train going off the tracks. Some can't deal with race (as in, human races as modern societies define them) without freaking out in one direction or another. And some can't deal with gender. A magical item or effect that changes gender is just a component of the game setting that forces the players to address gender in some way. If they are not mature enough or well rounded enough or don't have a nuanced enough sense of humor or drama, then they will throw some sort of tantrum or melt down when forced to deal with gender in a way that isn't on their terms. There is no method or approach that will fix this - those people just can't handle the issue in general, and so will get upset when they are forced to handle it in an unusual or unexpected way. I find it all pathetic - any moderately well adjusted 12 year old should be able to roleplay a different or changing gender and bring something fun or interesting to the table without causing chaos. But, people are half-baked sorts of things so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of them can't do that.

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

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

They also came out of Dying Earth and old mythology.  Dying Earth, wizards are experimenting all the time, and many experiments go wrong.

Oh no, I got it. Although it's been entirely too long since I read Dying Earth (or much of Appendix N, as the planning for our Conan-esque campaign keeps reminding me), I can definitely taste the same flavor running through. And I get the reason for them-- 'think before you act' is pretty common sense, and when you see your players start assuming things are safe, I see why you then build reasons for them to be cautious. The whole evolution of them makes sense. That said, Gabriel2 is right in that many of them (especially post AD&D) have some serious mocking or 'don't just burn the crops, salt the earth afterwards' kind of tone that can be read as dickish.

Part 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".

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general). There are undoubtedly gamers like that out there, but within the context of this thread, we have all of Ras venturing that that might be a reason someone would object.

There used to be several here who would bitch-fest about "player agency" and toss out terms like "Mother May I" ad nausium. And it gets trotted out over on BGG too.

Quote from: Omega;1043000There used to be several here who would bitch-fest about "player agency" and toss out terms like "Mother May I" ad nausium. And it gets trotted out over on BGG too.

Not to mention things like "you can't kill my PC without my consent."  Not here so much.

But honestly, the various web fora are full of that kind of shit.

I guess it might impact character agency, although not that much, but player agency? In my latest game we agreed to roll our stats at session zero. One player didn't get the stats he wanted. Apparently that character died before making it to the table. It was either that or a walk out. Players can always refuse to play. You can't get much more agency than that.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043013I guess it might impact character agency, although not that much, but player agency? In my latest game we agreed to roll our stats at session zero. One player didn't get the stats he wanted. Apparently that character died before making it to the table. It was either that or a walk out. Players can always refuse to play. You can't get much more agency than that.

Let them walk out.

Big Grognard Gathering?

Roll to enlist in the Scout service.

Wait, wrong game.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043013I guess it might impact character agency, although not that much, but player agency? In my latest game we agreed to roll our stats at session zero. One player didn't get the stats he wanted. Apparently that character died before making it to the table. It was either that or a walk out. Players can always refuse to play. You can't get much more agency than that.

Roll to enlist in the Scout service.

Wait, wrong game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042935And there you have it.  Too many people simply don't want the possibility of bad consequences.

Quote from: Krimson;1042936Then they should be playing a nice safe game where you get reward without risk.

Beating 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.

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.

Does this include other cursed items, which could merit it's own thread, or just the Girdle?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043022Let them walk out.

Seems a bit harsh. It's only a game that's all made up anyway. I believe my group all learned something from the experience.

My 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.

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?

Never used any magical items, spells or effects that turned men into women, women into men, etc.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043053Seems a bit harsh. It's only a game that's all made up anyway. I believe my group all learned something from the experience.

My 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.

I think he has a point though in that, the players who usually end up being the ones who would disrupt players fun at the table, in my experience, are usually the ones who get bent out of shape and are prone to walking out. I am happy to accommodate players if they like a particular style of play. I'll adapt. But I also like playing with players who won't ruin the fun of others by rigidly adhering to their own sense of 'the best way to play'. I think a person who gets emotional or threatens to walk, because something in the game isn't exactly to their liking, raises flags for me.

To answer the OP, I've done gender shifting in games using things like Daoist magic or Kung Fu that draws heavily on Yin or Yang energy. Also any game with a broad magical change form ability, that will sometimes come up. I don't recall seeing the girdle come up in play in any D&D campaign I was in.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043053Seems a bit harsh. It's only a game that's all made up anyway. I believe my group all learned something from the experience.

My 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.

I've always considered rolled stats just a way to get higher stats.

Even back when people played their characters, only high stat ones would even survive very long.

Quote from: Krimson;1043030Does this include other cursed items, which could merit it's own thread, or just the Girdle?

Anything that might change fundamentals of the character. Why would someone be "happy" that they have a cursed sword? Wouldn't they want to work to get it removed?

Storytime! (Yes, this is relevant to the OP.)

I was playing a Bard in an AD&D 2e game. Now this Bard was one that I had played for years, retired, and then brought back out for this game. Working with the DM, we had decided that the Bard had retired from adventuring, got married, had some kids, and now owned a tavern where he performed and sold drinks & food to the locals and passersby. His wife was the light of his life and why he stopped adventuring. Along comes the PC party, they talk him into joining (because 'end of of the world' threat exists and his retirement won't be as happy if the world ends). Adventuring begins again.

Now, about 6 months real time/a year game time into it, word reaches the Bard that his wife and kids have been killed and his tavern has been destroyed. So the entire in game motivation for this character has been wiped out and the character concept no longer has a solid frame of reference to act from. The Bard becomes severely depressed and starts taking huge risks that endanger the party and the character specifically. It got so bad that the rest of the players and the DM asked me to drop that character and get rid of it. While I agreed with them that the Bard's behavior was now a detriment to the party, what did they expect would happen when the prime reason for the character to have been been out adventuring was violently removed?

This is the problem with a lot of characteristic changing effects in game. If the character is changed beyond the parameters of the character concept for the player, then it can fuck up the entire game and even the game group's unity. Yeah, we did gender changing and other cursing effects in high school and middle school on each other's characters because we were young and our ideas about role-playing were immature. Now, as adults, it depends entirely on what the character concept of the player is because we play these games for fun - not to explore how changing gender effects the character and the player's response. Messing with a character's gender may or may not be considered fun by the player, it depends on the player.

"it depends on the player."

Exactly.  And it depends on the game.

If Gronan got one of those girdles and turned into Gronina, her reaction would be "Do I still have my strength?  My intelligence?  My skill (hit points, level)?  Any of you bastards feel like giving me any shit?"

Because in old school D&D wacky shit can happen all the time, and since Gronan isn't married in game, and tough fighting women are known, who cares?

Well, I'd have to change the sign outside the castle.  Right now it says "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I'm the meanest toughest son of a bitch in the entire fucking valley."

I'd have to cross out the "son of a".

Playing Pendragon, it might be a different matter, especially if my knight was already married.

Different people are different, and different games are different.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043095Anything that might change fundamentals of the character. Why would someone be "happy" that they have a cursed sword? Wouldn't they want to work to get it removed?

I think I mentioned earlier that it's an excuse to go on a quest. Have an adventure. Kill things or die trying. Get the magic thingamabob. You want someone to fix the mess you your character to got himself into, don't expect it to be free. With reward there is risk. Hey, at least the gender changed person with a girdle isn't dead, which means that character still has agency to do something about it. Negotiate a fix via roleplaying. Whining to the DM deserves no sympathy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043113If Gronan got one of those girdles and turned into Gronina, her reaction would be "Do I still have my strength?  My intelligence?  My skill (hit points, level)?  Any of you bastards feel like giving me any shit?"

Not if Gronina stills goes wenching with us.  
But if she starts hitting on us, all bets are off.
:-)

Quote from: DocJones;1043130Not if Gronina stills goes wenching with us.  
But if she starts hitting on us, all bets are off.
:-)

I dunno, what are her Charisma and Comeliness stats? :cool:

There is also the factor of just how hard it is to reverse. The Girdle for example was notoriously hard to undo. Practically artifact level hard as even a Wish could fail in the early iterations. Was sad that it was removed from 5e.

Quote from: Krimson;1043125I think I mentioned earlier that it's an excuse to go on a quest. Have an adventure. Kill things or die trying. Get the magic thingamabob. You want someone to fix the mess you your character to got himself into, don't expect it to be free. With reward there is risk. Hey, at least the gender changed person with a girdle isn't dead, which means that character still has agency to do something about it. Negotiate a fix via roleplaying. Whining to the DM deserves no sympathy.

At this point are you just disagreeing to disagree? You seem to arguing against something I've never said. But hey, strawmen can take the blows I guess.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043159At this point are you just disagreeing to disagree? You seem to arguing against something I've never said. But hey, strawmen can take the blows I guess.

You really like that word, don't you? I prefer to use normal language over buzzwords. But then again, I outgrew edginess a long time ago. My point is, if something bad happens to your character and you don't like it, resolve it in game through roleplay, not by whining at the the person running the game.

Quote from: Krimson;1043162You really like that word, don't you? I prefer to use normal language over buzzwords. But then again, I outgrew edginess a long time ago. My point is, if something bad happens to your character and you don't like it, resolve it in game through roleplay, not by whining at the the person running the game.

Where did I suggest that was the way to handle it?

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043163Where did I suggest that was the way to do handle it?

I'm starting to think you are prolonging the argument for the sake of prolonging it. I'm not going to play that game.

Quote from: Krimson;1043162You really like that word, don't you? I prefer to use normal language over buzzwords. But then again, I outgrew edginess a long time ago. My point is, if something bad happens to your character and you don't like it, resolve it in game through roleplay, not by whining at the the person running the game.

Personally, I think that depends on what exactly happens to your character. For example, this bullshit posted earlier in the thread:

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042736I've seen the girdle of MF used in multiple games.  In every instance it has been used as a mean spirited prank meant to hurt a player (exclusively male) who is strongly invested in their character image.  If the player tries to brush off the prank, the DM and other players arrange a scenario where the newly female character is raped by orcs, brigands, and/or other party members.

I mean, WTF?!?  That deserves talking to out-of-character, which I would not characterize as whining.

Quote from: DocJones;1043130Not if Gronina stills goes wenching with us.  
But if she starts hitting on us, all bets are off.
:-)

Well, Gronan was already asking you all to tongue his pee-hole, so I don't think that would be a change.

:D

Quote from: Krimson;1043164I'm starting to think you are prolonging the argument for the sake of prolonging it. I'm not going to play that game.

Or you've just been caught and have bowed out.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043184Or you've just been caught and have bowed out.

Fine. You win. I concede. Happy now?

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".

And that's fine in a game between friends. I think it devolves into Paranoia levels of absurdity though. And while Paranoia can be a fun game, it's not the kind of tone I'd want out of Dungeons and Dragons.
This line of gaming makes me think of the Grimtooth's Traps books in the same vein. Punishing players for coming up with "the right solution" is just annoying.

Shrug.  Not saying I like it, just giving a bit of the history.  Blackmoor was much the same.

Just like Greyhawk was very influenced by Vance's "Dying Earth."  I like DE, but when EVERY NPC is out to fuck you over JUST BECAUSE, even if there's no profit in it for them -- which, I admit, is very true to DE -- it gets old.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042861Whereas when the "Ring of Contrariness" was first used, it was Gary's character who put it on.  Rob told him about it secretly during a bathroom/smoke break, and Gary played it to the hilt, and we all enjoyed it immensely.

I'm less bothered by the ring of contrariness; it's fairly clear how to play it and what sort of game events are likely to ensue, where gender change could mean nothing to the character or just a lot of melodrama - it's more about poking at the players' issues than the character. And the ring is easier to reverse (assuming that removing the ring, even if it meant cutting off the ring finger, would remove the effect).

Quote from: jhkim;1042948I think Ras has a point. There's a psychological and practical difference between a character dying or being petrified or whatever - and a character being significantly changed.

There are people who are bothered by charm, possession, confusion and such; that kind of effect seems to me intrinsic to D&D, though. You shouldn't play a fantasy game if that's going to bother you. One player lobbied for his character to be immune to fear, because it conflicted so strongly with his image of his heroic knight. I think it was a sincere concern; he had no issue with risking deadlier saving throws.

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".

Not sure if "that" is just cursed items, or the more arbitrary tricks and traps in the Greyhawk supplement. At least a cursed item does involve a choice, but not a lot of choice if you want your character to get a magic item ever. But I reject the rooms, doorways and corridors that change the character without warning or saving throw.

Once, we were exploring a dungeon and kicked open the door of an empty room, when the DM asked "Who enters the room first?" The other two players said "Not me!" and I said "Is there anything about the door or room that suggests it's any different than the last however many rooms we've explored?" The DM said "No" and while I could probably have demanded a die roll, I just accepted the consequences. My character changed from Lawful to Chaotic (the days of only one alignment axis). I probably played the character less than I might have after that, and eventually was killed after stealing an evil sentient sword that the party he joined was transporting somewhere it could be destroyed (the sword made it into the hands of some drow before they killed him, but he achieved nothing else for his efforts). But where I chose to play a Chaotic character myself, I was no less enthusiastic about that character than any other.

Quote from: jeff37923;1043097The Bard becomes severely depressed and starts taking huge risks that endanger the party and the character specifically. It got so bad that the rest of the players and the DM asked me to drop that character and get rid of it. While I agreed with them that the Bard's behavior was now a detriment to the party, what did they expect would happen when the prime reason for the character to have been been out adventuring was violently removed?

This is the problem with a lot of characteristic changing effects in game. If the character is changed beyond the parameters of the character concept for the player, then it can fuck up the entire game and even the game group's unity. Yeah, we did gender changing and other cursing effects in high school and middle school on each other's characters because we were young and our ideas about role-playing were immature. Now, as adults, it depends entirely on what the character concept of the player is because we play these games for fun - not to explore how changing gender effects the character and the player's response. Messing with a character's gender may or may not be considered fun by the player, it depends on the player.

I think there's a reasonable expectation that everyone bring a character who will work together in the expected adventuring activity, but it's hard on the group when a change makes the character unsuited to that activity or outright detrimental; I expect players to come up with some motivation for their characters to adventure, but it's unfair to expect them to turn on a dime in response to arbitrary events. In Tomb of Annihilation recently, my character was doubly cursed and essentially unplayable; it was Adventurers League, so no thwarting other PCs, and murdering at least one party member was pretty much the only response that was true to the character while staying with the party. So I had the character wander off alone until the DM figured out how to resolve it (I was ready to play a different character until that happened).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043218Shrug.  Not saying I like it, just giving a bit of the history.  Blackmoor was much the same.

Just like Greyhawk was very influenced by Vance's "Dying Earth."  I like DE, but when EVERY NPC is out to fuck you over JUST BECAUSE, even if there's no profit in it for them -- which, I admit, is very true to DE -- it gets old.

The solution is to quit playing with referees who are all about death traps and arbitrary events.

Quote from: jhkim;1042948I think Ras has a point. There's a psychological and practical difference between a character dying or being petrified or whatever - and a character being significantly changed.

Quote from: rawma;1043239There are people who are bothered by charm, possession, confusion and such; that kind of effect seems to me intrinsic to D&D, though. You shouldn't play a fantasy game if that's going to bother you. One player lobbied for his character to be immune to fear, because it conflicted so strongly with his image of his heroic knight. I think it was a sincere concern; he had no issue with risking deadlier saving throws.

I suspect there is a lack of role-playing occurring then. How likely is it for any person to be charmed, possessed, etc and not be bothered by it? Why would it not bother the PC? Why would you not role-play it that way? Even if the player didn't care, because you know meta-gaming shit, I doubt it applies to the PC themselves.

Quote from: jhkim;1042537In a now-closed thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39050-There-s-no-Alt-Right-quot-OSR-Just-Leftists-Calling-Everyone-Nazis), Pundit brought up an effect in his DCC game.



And of course, people have been talking about the Blessing of Corellon in Mordenkainen's Tome.

In D&D, there's the cursed Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity. I've never seen it in play, though.

I have seen an item from the comedy game Teenagers from Outer Space, the sex-change pistol - which reverses the gender of whoever you shoot it at. It was a fun comedic gimmick.

More broadly, a lot of shapeshifting has the potential to change gender. In another thread, I mentioned how I had a shapeshifting PC in an Amber Diceless game - where shapeshifting always requires that you have a demon form. He found women rather gross, and his demon form was a bat-winged succubus. I can recall a fair number of shapechanging cases where the character changed gender - I'd be curious about

Pundit - I'd be interested to hear more about this gender-changing effect. Was it written into the DCC rules? How did the other players react?

I'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?

Yes, it is a standard Mercurial Effect from the DCC rules. That is to say, when a wizard gets a new spell he rolls on a table to see if the spell has some weird side-effect of casting it.  There's all kinds of possibilities. One of them is that every time you cast the spell you switch gender.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1043240I suspect there is a lack of role-playing occurring then. How likely is it for any person to be charmed, possessed, etc and not be bothered by it? Why would it not bother the PC? Why would you not role-play it that way? Even if the player didn't care, because you know meta-gaming shit, I doubt it applies to the PC themselves.

I'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.

For 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.

Quote from: Omega;1043135There is also the factor of just how hard it is to reverse. The Girdle for example was notoriously hard to undo. Practically artifact level hard as even a Wish could fail in the early iterations. Was sad that it was removed from 5e.

In OD&D (well, supplement I), the girdle was relatively straightforward. It needed a wish to make it fall off. How common were wishes? I think that was pretty group-dependent. Within the edition, the ones that are most annoying are Bowl of Watery Death ("Drowning will occur in 2-5 turns unless a Growth/Animal spell is cast at the shrunken Magic-user or a Growth potion is poured into the bowl") which, by the wording, kind of requires a very specific spell to be prepared or magic item present to save the individual, but at least it doesn't say something like "the only way to prevent death is..." so this just runs into the whole 0D&D-is-vague issue. Also Scarab of Death ("when it is held in the hand for a full turn, or when it is placed in a pack, a bag, or some other place near a person's body it turns to a horrible burrowing monster which digs directly to the person's heart and kills him.") so being cautious and holding off on putting on the item doesn't help.

It's really when we get to AD&D when things start having these layered cascades of all forms of curse detection fail, remedies up to an including Wish might fail, and if you die, resurrection is impossible. I wonder about this. I can't remember if it was a webcomic or KODT or a forum story, but I remember an exchange like "Dude, you're the DM. If you don't like me or my character, you can literally just refuse to DM for him or I. This 'undetectable trap that can't be countered and eats your character's soul' garbage says so much more about you than it does about me." "Look in the book, Don! Look right there in the book!" It certainly gave some people an... interesting impression about how the author expected gameplay to unfold.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1043218Shrug.  Not saying I like it, just giving a bit of the history.  Blackmoor was much the same.
Just like Greyhawk was very influenced by Vance's "Dying Earth."  I like DE, but when EVERY NPC is out to fuck you over JUST BECAUSE, even if there's no profit in it for them -- which, I admit, is very true to DE -- it gets old.

It seems like it would make an interesting game-as-challenge. Kind of the 'we cared nothing for our starting characters' mode of play you've said that early levels were like. After a while though, it would get old.

I wouldn't say we cared nothing for our starting characters; survival was winning.  We just didn't necessarily think we'd win.

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.

Quote from: jhkim;1045010Regarding cursed items in general -
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.

I totally agree with this. Moreover, when the reason given is "to keep the players on their toes", I think that there is more than a whiff of meta-gaming on the GMs part.

How would curse items come into being?

Well apart from the rather dubious "just for shiggles and wickedness" there could be a whole list of "good intentions" that would lead to the calamity of their existence.

The case in the OP is the Girdle of Femminity/Masculinity. Of course theis need not have been made as a cursed item at all. It is , after all, a very useful item given the right circumstance. Remember that it is  a one-use item and the very fact that even a Wish spell can be ineffective in reversing its effect suggests that its creation was not artificial but possibly miraculous.

Here are is a possible explanation.

A king of an ancient patriachal society had only daughters and made great sacrifices to the his partron diety for a miracle so that his legacy would live on in his name through a male heir. In answer to his prayers the belt was granted. Upon his death his the will and testament commanded his daughters to choose his successor but none of his daughters would agree to become men. Instead, the eldest and wisest of them became the first queen in a long line of great queens. Fearing the wrath of the Patron Diety should they destroy the divine gift, it was locked in a vault and passed into legend until, a millenia after the kingdom had fallen into ruin, a band of adventurers deep in the ancient ruins, came across an innocent looking belt amongst a stash of gold, gems and weapons of power.

This last line allows the players a chance to suspect something. If they go to a sage, library or generally do their research, they will learn of the mighty and divine nature of the belt. If not, and they just stick it on. Well, fuck 'em.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045107The case in the OP is the Girdle of Femminity/Masculinity. Of course theis need not have been made as a cursed item at all. It is , after all, a very useful item given the right circumstance. Remember that it is  a one-use item and the very fact that even a Wish spell can be ineffective in reversing its effect suggests that its creation was not artificial but possibly miraculous..

Corellon is like, "I'm TRYING to make Girdles of Giant Strength, okay? Cut me some slack here."

Quote from: Krimson;1045177Corellon is like, "I'm TRYING to make Girdles of Giant Strength, okay? Cut me some slack here."

:D

Never get a Seldarine to do Dvergar's job. (Dwarven Proverb)

c.f. The elf thought Megingjörð was a dance! (example of traditional Dwarven Humour)

I don't get this. I've always maintained that a cursed item was either the result of failed magic item creation or was deliberately created to fuck over someone the magic-user or cleric hated.

Quote from: jeff37923;1045218I don't get this. I've always maintained that a cursed item was either the result of failed magic item creation or was deliberately created to fuck over someone the magic-user or cleric hated.

... or whimsy, or ire, of the very active gods present. Mythology on earth is replete with celestial vindictiveness, (or moral lessons, your pick ;) ,).

Quote from: jeff37923;1045218I don't get this. I've always maintained that a cursed item was either the result of failed magic item creation or was deliberately created to fuck over someone the magic-user or cleric hated.

They can be that, but they could be just something that somebody created for some specific job.

Amulet of Inescapable Location- is surely a great boost to scrying if given to the right target.
The Bag of Devouring- now if handled with caution, this is a great way to get rid of bodies and unwanted things, plust makes a great assasination tool
Chime of Hunger- provided you wear earplugs or use some other protection, this could be an exceptionally potent weapon. Especially around animals.
Cloak of Poisonousness- was used to kill Hercules, iirc
Crystal Hypnosis Ball- originally a perfectly good crytsal ball until the Big Bad got a hold of it. c.f. Palantir
Helm of Opposite Alignment- used in NE and CE people, this is immensly, Godlike powerful.
Jewel of Attacks and Periapt of Foul Rotting- two great ways to punish/catch thieves
Mirror of Opposition- easily weaponised once in careful hands
Rug of Smothering- cool way to assasinate enemies. Just remember where you left it.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244They can be that, but they could be just something that somebody created for some specific job.

Amulet of Inescapable Location- is surely a great boost to scrying if given to the right target.
The Bag of Devouring- now if handled with caution, this is a great way to get rid of bodies and unwanted things, plust makes a great assasination tool
Chime of Hunger- provided you wear earplugs or use some other protection, this could be an exceptionally potent weapon. Especially around animals.
Cloak of Poisonousness- was used to kill Hercules, iirc
Crystal Hypnosis Ball- originally a perfectly good crytsal ball until the Big Bad got a hold of it. c.f. Palantir
Helm of Opposite Alignment- used in NE and CE people, this is immensly, Godlike powerful.
Jewel of Attacks and Periapt of Foul Rotting- two great ways to punish/catch thieves
Mirror of Opposition- easily weaponised once in careful hands
Rug of Smothering- cool way to assasinate enemies. Just remember where you left it.

Right. Some of these cursed items are in the right hands tools and not cursed at all. Least to the maker/user.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244Amulet of Inescapable Location- is surely a great boost to scrying if given to the right target.

This was probably made for a child. Everyone knows a child like this.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244The Bag of Devouring- now if handled with caution, this is a great way to get rid of bodies and unwanted things, plust makes a great assasination tool

You could make a fortune in Waterdeep as a one man sanitation company.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244Helm of Opposite Alignment- used in NE and CE people, this is immensly, Godlike powerful.

Somewhere a Druid is saying, "I don't think it's working."

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244Rug of Smothering- cool way to assasinate enemies. Just remember where you left it.

Originally designed to use on fires. :D

Bowl of Watery Death: an attempt to make a portable swimming pool gone horribly wrong.

Backbiter Spear: an attempt to make a back scratcher gone horribly wrong. Unless you are a troll or demon. Probably just tickles to them...

Cursed Scrolls: Well the idea looked good on paper... :o

Cursed Armour: The crafter hated descending AC! Or is that ascending? er, which edition is thi-oh hell... :eek:

Shield of Missile Attracting: obviously made for a masochist. Or made by an acupuncturist? Both?

Bowl of Watery Death

Or the story of The Doom of the Kings of [Island Kingdom]

The Deity of the Sea blessed the Island Kingdom of [name here] blessed an island people because they respected the sea and its life. The modest population were spared most of the storms and were led by mermaids and the like to pearls and sunken treasures. THeir wealth attracted invaders and pirates and so the Deity gave them two Bowls of Commanding Water Elementals: one to the high priestess, one to the king. The 12 HD elementals made short work of pirate ships and invading fleets. However the king became greedy and began to pursue innocent vessels using the elemental under his command to send sailors and traders to a watery death and plunder their cargo. The priestess warned the king that the Deity was angry at this abuse of his gift but the king ordered the priestess arrest and siezure of her Bowl. Rather than give up the second Bowl, she threw it into the sea before the soldiers found her. The king in his rage ordered her bound and thrown in the sea with it to drown. The Diety of the Sea then brought divine justice on the king by changing the kings bowl to a Bowl of Watery death in which the King met the fate of his victims the next time he tried to use it. And so the line of kings was broken and the people lost the blessing of the Water Diety. The King's Bowl is said to have been thrown into the sea as a cursed object but rumours of one, or maybe two of these objects being found by divers or beach combers are heard in port taverns.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1045244Mirror of Opposition- easily weaponised once in careful hands

We put the Ring of Contrariness on an opposite from the Mirror and ended up with a decent henchman.

In the Albion campaign my players once found a ring that would make you fall asleep when you put it on. They used remove curse to take it off, and after that kept it to disable opponents they wanted to capture alive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046585In the Albion campaign my players once found a ring that would make you fall asleep when you put it on. They used remove curse to take it off, and after that kept it to disable opponents they wanted to capture alive.

Sounds like something that could become known as the "Ring of Cosby."

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046585In the Albion campaign my players once found a ring that would make you fall asleep when you put it on. They used remove curse to take it off, and after that kept it to disable opponents they wanted to capture alive.

It's stories like these that make me ask, "What's the point of 'Cursed' items if they're useful?"  That's not a curse, that's an effective tool.

Hell, even if you don't want to use them for capturing, imagine a healer with a bunch of these.  Hell, every hospital would love to have a few to keep those idiots from trying to get up and undoing stitches or otherwise slowing their healing down.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046695Hell, every hospital would love to have a few to keep those idiots from trying to get up and undoing stitches or otherwise slowing their healing down.

Actually, you want to promote early mobility once the injury is stable (which it should be if it is stitched).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1046707Actually, you want to promote early mobility once the injury is stable (which it should be if it is stitched).

Fair enough.  I'm just remembering my dad, who used to do strenuous stuff that he shouldn't because he was 'well enough'.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046695It's stories like these that make me ask, "What's the point of 'Cursed' items if they're useful?"  That's not a curse, that's an effective tool.

Cursed items work best on those who lack creativity. Though as I mentioned before, or at least think I did, there should be an option to undo it. And that option should be a source of further adventure. This is why I will often have proxies or agents of Deities such as Corellon at the ready to provide a quest to give them the opportunity to fix it, which also allows the rest of the party to have a chance to reap rewards whilst helping out. The idea is not to screw over player characters, but to give them the opportunity to advance, albeit in a different way.

Quote from: Krimson;1046719Cursed items work best on those who lack creativity.

That's probably why I never used them.  Most of the players I know are much more creative and devious than I am. :D

Quote from: Krimson;1046719Though as I mentioned before, or at least think I did, there should be an option to undo it. And that option should be a source of further adventure. This is why I will often have proxies or agents of Deities such as Corellon at the ready to provide a quest to give them the opportunity to fix it, which also allows the rest of the party to have a chance to reap rewards whilst helping out. The idea is not to screw over player characters, but to give them the opportunity to advance, albeit in a different way.

To me a curse is something players should see coming. There's enough 'gotchas' in the universe that I don't feel the need to trick my players into something they don't deserve.  YMMV, as always, though.

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

Cupcake won't stop regardless of whether Gronan is here or not. He's going on and on about imaginary* wrongs to imaginary players while the real-life players are enjoying their games, including the cursed items:).
I find it's best to put him on IL and only read his posts when I'm in the mood to be entertained by watching railroad crashes;). YMMV.

*Because he says it's not due to him hating old-school games:p.

Quote from: Krimson;1046719Cursed items work best on those who lack creativity. Though as I mentioned before, or at least think I did, there should be an option to undo it. And that option should be a source of further adventure.

Yeah, that. Your wife died due to a nasty random encounter and a failed Con check in a game without resurrection? Go to the Lord of the Dead, Inspire yourself from your Love: Wife passion and use that to perform the best music the dead have heard - and demand her soul back!

But that's what a good player would do. Some players prefer to just start complaining about the random tables, cursed items, and the penalties to the Constitution check;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046721That's probably why I never used them.  Most of the players I know are much more creative and devious than I am. :D

That's great news, Cupcake:D!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046695It's stories like these that make me ask, "What's the point of 'Cursed' items if they're useful?"  That's not a curse, that's an effective tool.

How do you think a Treant would view a Wand of Fireballs or a Saw of Mighty Cutting (DMG p153):?;)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046695It's stories like these that make me ask, "What's the point of 'Cursed' items if they're useful?"  That's not a curse, that's an effective tool.

Hell, even if you don't want to use them for capturing, imagine a healer with a bunch of these.  Hell, every hospital would love to have a few to keep those idiots from trying to get up and undoing stitches or otherwise slowing their healing down.

On the one hand, absolutely any cursed item can in theory be useful, if for no other purpose than to use them on enemies/prisoners.

But frankly, I find cursed items that are just a temporary problem for PCs (until they can remove curse) to be incredibly boring.
I VASTLY prefer cursed items that actually have a useful purpose but a terrible cost.

Hell, I even wrote a sourcebook about some of these (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/236230/RPGPundit-Presents-22-13-Cursed-Artifacts-of-Renown?cPath=126_28809).

I think the best Cursed items are ones players WANT to keep, rather than are FORCED to.

(You know it's sad when one cannot afford to spend 1.99 USD...)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046695It's stories like these that make me ask, "What's the point of 'Cursed' items if they're useful?"  That's not a curse, that's an effective tool.

How is this a bad thing? The PCs are handed a lemon and decided to make Lemonaid.

The main thing to remember is that these instances of the PCs finding a use for a cursed item are not that common and as noted earlier in the thread. The item might not really be cursed. What if it really was a medical aid? Or a sleep aid for someone once. What corrupted it? Did it just degrade over time? Did a demon screw with it. er... not that sort of screw... :eek:

Same with any other cursed item. Maybee it was not cursed to begin with. Or even a-la Gamma World. Its just being used wrong or the wrong command word is being used. (trap)

I mean people have been finding creative uses for bags of devouring since about day 1. And since it did commit the first TPK a bag of holding is a cursed item in the wrong hands. And who knows how many groups have been splattered by a mis-placed Daern's Instant Fortress.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047262I think the best Cursed items are ones players WANT to keep, rather than are FORCED to.

(You know it's sad when one cannot afford to spend 1.99 USD...)

So, wait, did you change your mind? Because that sounds like the opposite of what you were saying before?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047237But frankly, I find cursed items that are just a temporary problem for PCs (until they can remove curse) to be incredibly boring.
I VASTLY prefer cursed items that actually have a useful purpose but a terrible cost.

Even if I rolled it on a random encounter table, if I thought it would somehow be boring, I wouldn't use it. I want the players to agonize over a curse, not sigh in resignation. I want them to fight their suffering, not accept it. That's not fun.

Quote from: Krimson;1048210Even if I rolled it on a random encounter table, if I thought it would somehow be boring, I wouldn't use it. I want the players to agonize over a curse, not sigh in resignation. I want them to fight their suffering, not accept it. That's not fun.

Well, yeah, that's better than just being pissed off about the item.  But the real notion of the classical cursed artifact is that it fucks you up but you keep using it voluntarily because of the power it offers.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048418Well, yeah, that's better than just being pissed off about the item.  But the real notion of the classical cursed artifact is that it fucks you up but you keep using it voluntarily because of the power it offers.

Tell me about it. I've played Elric more than a few times.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047846So, wait, did you change your mind? Because that sounds like the opposite of what you were saying before?

Sorry, let me clarify, the D&D cursed items have almost no benefit compared to the risk, so no one really wants to keep them, but they can find use for them.  But good cursed items are things player WANT.  They should be powerful and useful, as well as cursed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1048920Sorry, let me clarify, the D&D cursed items have almost no benefit compared to the risk, so no one really wants to keep them, but they can find use for them.  But good cursed items are things player WANT.  They should be powerful and useful, as well as cursed.

OK, in that case you have a position that's actually very similar to my own. That was the premise behind my "13 cursed artifacts" sourcebook.