Roleplaying the Discovery of Cursed Items

[Otaku-sempai]

I think the trick is to make the cursed item much more powerful then a normal magic item. Trick that cursed item out with all the best goodies that suit that particular PC. The Cursed item might have 3 greater blessings on it to the PC's favorite skills. And the Cursed Weapon might do some REALLY nifty things, being as it's a weapon of the Dark Side, so to speak. And gets to use all those awesome abilities meant for adversaries.

For example, just cause Frodo never even used 1/100th of the power of the One didn't mean that thing wasn't tricked out with enough phenomenal cosmic power to make the mightiest of beings quail before him.

That seems to go beyond the scope of what is meant in Rivendell by a cursed item. The Rings of Power that were crafted for Sauron, for example, are more than just cursed items. A morgul-knife also seems to go beyond just being a cursed item.

'Note that a cursed item is not an evil artefact, a device created by the Enemy and meant to condemn a companion to a life of misery. It is a wonderful object bearing a trace of darkness While it may make a hero's life more dangerous for a while, the introduction of a cursed item is primarily meant to make the game more exciting!

'Once a Curse has been removed, the item reverts to being a regular Magical Item.' -- Rivendell, page 102

[cuthalion]

Yeh, so, in terms of an actual reply, OS has an important point here:

That seems to go beyond the scope of what is meant in Rivendell by a cursed item.

Essentially, a defining feature of Tolkien's world is the fading, the darkening, the feeling of nostalgia he builds up through so many remnants etc. etc. Players who aren't into experiencing this--in this instance, through a tainting or complicating of whatever magical item they have procured--ought to consider more what game world they are playing in. Uncompromised, death-dealing, unstoppable magic items just aren't really a part of the draw of Tolkien's world, so why introduce them?

So, if players aren't mature enough to role the die themselves and separate ICC and OCC, as Andrew suggests, you could modify things and Blubbo suggests and have the LM roll the feat die in secret. But I would think that the feint that the rules supply would be enough--players won't be sure if you're just rolling for corruption or not. Especially if you delay coming up with the curse mechanics until a later session--it's not as is Bilbo suffered ill-effects of the ring immediately. I think if this came up in my game, I would wait to spring it later on, at some dramatic point, or in dribs and drabs, building on the feeling of cursedness over time.

They should take whatever it is, because it will make for better story, or otherwise reject it for narrative reasons--but if they are metagaming, you should switch things up somehow to leave them more in the dark and have an open talk with them about the kind of game you want to run!

Good luck!

[Blubbo Baggins]

Especially if you delay coming up with the curse mechanics until a later session--it's not as is Bilbo suffered ill-effects of the ring immediately. I think if this came up in my game, I would wait to spring it later on, at some dramatic point, or in dribs and drabs, building on the feeling of cursedness over time.

Great ideas, to build it up and foreshadow the problem, over time.

Cursed items are really a lot more fun. Here's one way to do it - make all Magical items cursed! The nature of the Curse isn't immediately apparent, and some curses are quite benign. The LM can use the Gandalf / Eye result on the roll to help determine it.

[Glorelendil]

So, if players aren't mature enough to role the die themselves and separate ICC and OCC

It's way more fun to not know that your item is cursed and then slowly discover it, than to know that it's cursed but have to pretend you don't know. So it's not necessarily a question of whether or not you're mature enough to do the latter (and, honestly, a little insulting for that to be presumed), just that it's more fun...and more immersive...to do the former.

There's a vitriolic 1000+ post thread on the soon-to-be-shuttered D&D forums about exactly this issue. Basically the anti-metagaming crowd says, "Learn to roleplay" and the opposition says, "Learn to DM so your players don't have to worry about metagaming".

[jp1971]

I'm all for playing this as written, completely in the open, and relying on my players to separate IC and OOC knowledge. I think you can play with things like dramatic irony and encourage players to roleplay the temptation that way if it's all out in the open.

Andrew, I like the idea of playing this in the open as well. I think, if you do, you give your players the opportunity to leverage OOC knowledge to contribute to the game in a significant manner through their character's reaction to the situation. If you take the roll and/or OOC knowledge away, your run the risk of missing an opportunity in which player agency can drive the narrative forward in a meaningful manner.

That said, the mechanics can feel somewhat transactional at the table. This can disrupt both immersion and narrative flow which, as I think about this some more, was the impetus behind my initial post. As I said, this was the first time I had someone roll an eye upon finding a hoard. It was also a first for the player. As Loremaster and player-hero become more familiar with the mechanics, I think rolls and decisions will go smoother and roleplaying the situation will become more natural.

All in all, I think the magical treasure system in Rivendell is leaps and bounds ahead of the old school "You found a +5 Vorpal sword" approach. It takes some getting used to, but the integration with character and narrative makes the system yet another powerful storytelling device as opposed to a simple boon or curse. This device provides the opportunity for good roleplaying. The challenge of getting right is implicit and, I think, will work itself out as it becomes more familiar to everyone at the table.

All of the above, of course, is based on my style of play and what I think works well for my current group. I can definitely see the merit in the other approaches mentioned in the thread.

Thanks for a lively discussion!

[jp1971]

It's way more fun to not know that your item is cursed and then slowly discover it, than to know that it's cursed but have to pretend you don't know.

I agree with this as well. The way I think I'll approach this moving forward is:

• Have players that want to roll for magical treasure do so.

• If a player rolls an eye, tell him that he's found something interesting, and let him decide if he'd like to know more.

• If that player rolls one or more sixes, tell him about the Wondrous Artefact or Famous Weapon/Armour he found.

• Do not tell him if the item is cursed or not. If it is, let that come out in play.

[DavetheLost]

Boromir was corrupted by the lure of the Ring, but he recovered enough to regret it almost before Frodo left him. That was probably the most powerful cursed item in Middle Earth at the time.

It is worth noting that having an item be cursed is optional for the Lore Master. The Corruption test following a rollof an Eye is mandatory, but teh curse is optional.

Reading the sample curses provided I think for many players they would be worth it for a decent magic item, especially if magical items in general are rare in the campaign.

[Falenthal]

• Do not tell him if the item is cursed or not. If it is, let that come out in play.

I always thought this was part of the rules, so to say. The same way you don't tell the players all magic properties of the Artifact and they have to discover them by choosing the Lore-master undertaking.

The players can know there's a risk, because they know they rolled an Eye (describe that the sword was gleaming a faint light from under some rotten corpses, or in a shadowy corner, or wrapped in spidersilk,...), but the uncertainty makes it even more interesting.