| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
636 Posts
    
Holladay, Utah
 | | 06/06/2007 9:03 AM |
| I'll be frank: I'm a big fan of the DoMT and probably give my characters access to it far earlier than I should as a responsible DM. I'm currently running a campaign (Shackled City), and it's getting close to the time that I'll likely introduce the minor artifact. In the past, however, I've always had the players act a specific way when they get a DoMT, and I'd like some input on how to realistically deal with the situation. Here's the conundrum:
The Ruin card states that you "immediately lose all wealth and real property." The Talon card is similar, but with regards to magical items. Every player I've ever seen that's preparing to pull a card always says, "I give all my stuff to [so-and-so]." That way, if these cards are drawn, no harm done. They "lose" all that they have (usually just the clothes they're wearing), and then the other character gives their stuff back.
This feels like a cop-out to me. Yes, the players are free to give each other their stuff, but it seems like the "magic" of such an artifact wouldn't be fooled by such a simple ploy. On the other hand, some part of me feels like it should work. I think that the real problem is this: if the player about to draw a card gave his/her material wealth to some NPC, that NPC might just run off with the stuff. On the other hand, most players would be more than willing to simply hand back the stuff once the card is drawn; giving away one's stuff doesn't entail any potential loss.
Hope that made sense. I'd love to hear your thoughts and ideas about staving off this potential issue (an just not introducing the DoMT isn't an option...I like the thing far, far too much for that).
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
ckissee
Underboss
1428 Posts
KD :)
| | 06/06/2007 9:08 AM |
| | I'd just not allow that to work. You could say that the DoMT has a built-in Sense Motive or something funky like that to have it "know" the intent of what the PC is trying to prevent from happening, and that it just doesn't work that way. | |
KD Minister of Economy, Organizer of The Maxminis Red Paper Clip Project
Champion of: Aspect of Blibdoolpoolp
Miniatures Lists
"I *am* a third-party company."
Tangent Games - Designer of Bankruptcy: The Card Game | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
636 Posts
Holladay, Utah
| | 06/06/2007 9:22 AM |
| Yes, but my problem is that at what point can players exchange items? Is it all in the intent?
For example, at the end of last week's session an NPC gave each player a minor magical item. I chose the items specifically to match the roles that the various players have adopted. Still, within a minute of me announcing the items they were being traded: "I got this magical amulet, but I think it'll help you more." Of course, this is fine. My point is, though, at what point does an item (or cash) become officially "owned" by another PC/NPC? What if they traded around these items and immediately thereafter drew the Talon card (lose all magic items)? Would the items traded away be okay, since the trading wasn't done with the intent of fooling the DoMT?
Frankly, if I was a player and drew the Talon and/or Ruin card, I'd grin at the DM and demand to be allowed to take the Vow of Poverty feat. | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
MackeyJ
Underboss
1414 Posts
| | 06/06/2007 9:23 AM |
| If the player has handed over their possessions to another with the intent of gettting them back after drawing cards from the deck, then they haven't really given those possessions away. They still belong to the original player and so they would be lost if any of the cards in question were to be pulled.
You could let them hand the items over to the other player but once the card is pulled then the other player refuses to give those items back, hence the loss has in fact occured. The player in trust realizes that if he gives the items back they will be lost anyways so decides to keep them for his own. Then perhaps down the road that player will opt to let the other have first dibs more often on any new items found from that point on if he feels any sort of guilt about it at all. | |
John
| |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
636 Posts
Holladay, Utah
| | 06/06/2007 9:27 AM |
| Posted By MackeyJ on 06/06/2007 9:23 AM
If the player has handed over their possessions to another with the intent of gettting them back after drawing cards from the deck, then they haven't really given those possessions away. They still belong to the original player and so they would be lost if any of the cards in question were to be pulled.
You could let them hand the items over to the other player but once the card is pulled then the other player refuses to give those items back, hence the loss has in fact occured. The player in trust realizes that if he gives the items back they will be lost anyways so decides to keep them for his own. Then perhaps down the road that player will opt to let the other have first dibs more often on any new items found from that point on if he feels any sort of guilt about it at all. That's actually an interesting idea. I'll have to toss it around. Of course, the players might not draw either of the two cards in question, but I'd like to be prepared just in case.
| |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
MackeyJ
Underboss
1414 Posts
| | 06/06/2007 9:32 AM |
| If the player loses his items with a card from the deck, I think trading for the ones that he lost (now his friend has them) is fair game but of course he's going to have to acquire something of comparable value first before he can do that. Just don't allow them to be too good to each other about it...."I'll trade you this really shiney copper piece for that longsword +1, deal?" NO DEAL! DM's discretion good luck with it. | |
John
| |
|
nyjastul69
Commander
2710 Posts
Rhode Island
| | 06/06/2007 9:39 AM |
| | The card pretty much states that possession of wealth is irrelevant, ownership is what matters. If I ask you to hold my wallet so I can wade into waist deep water, and you spend money from that wallet, you've still spent my money. There's no way I'd allow this 'trick' to avoid the potential negative ramifications from the deck. | |
You know, I keep thinking that after the new design team gets done with D&D 4e, D&D won't stand for Dungeons and Dragons anymore, because well, that's just not fun. It's old and stuffy. - Originally Posted by BabWryter on Kenzerco.com | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
636 Posts
Holladay, Utah
| | 06/06/2007 9:40 AM |
| | Heh, yeah I know all about DM's discretion. I've played with this group for quite some time, but I just want ready answers in the case that a problem arises. | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 06/06/2007 10:21 AM |
| Posted By nyjastul69 on 06/06/2007 9:39 AM
The card pretty much states that possession of wealth is irrelevant, ownership is what matters. If I ask you to hold my wallet so I can wade into waist deep water, and you spend money from that wallet, you've still spent my money. There's no way I'd allow this 'trick' to avoid the potential negative ramifications from the deck.
This is the way I would handle it as well. Even if the items were given to another character, the stuff still disappears. I'd basically not allow the PCs to take any loopholes. I think any measure you take to make sure that they understand that drawing a card has to be respected is valid.
| |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
| 
zenthrus
Commander
4601 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 06/06/2007 11:02 AM |
| Giving your items to another character to hold "in case of emergency" is not actually transferring ownership of those items. As has been pointed out above, either the items are destroyed (most literal interpretation) or the person who is "holding the items in trust" decides to keep them (posing a doozy of a party moral dilemma particularly if the trust-holder is a paladin or good-aligned cleric etc). You could also set up a situation where the local police/military force appears from nowhere, demands that everyone not move, and then proceeds to confiscate the items in question since they match a list of items stolen from the local ruler. Again, the PCs are put into a position where they either obey the law (and lose their items pending an investigation that always results in their loss) or they break the law to try and get the items back (and find the items have been stolen/removed to another location/etc) and face the consequence of horking off the ruler.
Regardless, pretending to "give" away your possessions isn't going to fool an epic-level magic item. It knows what's yours and will take it if appropriate. | |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
950 Posts
| | 06/06/2007 6:42 PM |
| If your players actually think that handing items over to friends is "giving" them away, then why use friends at all? With that same logic, wouldn't it be just as effective to just place all your stuff on the ground and say to yourself, "I'm throwing these away because I don't want them". Then just draw the card and pick your stuff up and say, "I changed my mind, I don't want to throw them away".
As a DM, it always annoys me when players try to cheat the system like that with some silly little ways around it. Like everyone is saying, if their intent is to get their items back, then how exactly are they giving away their items? Sounds more like "loaning" their items to their friends. Just tell the players that the artifact knows that the person doesn't sense a loss of his possessions since the person expects to get them back. Therefore he still feels he owns them. Why's that? Because the artifact knows that the person would feel like a victim if his friend doesn't give the items back.
Honestly though, if your players argue about that, they should be slapped with a large fish 
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 04/10/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
realmaster
Underboss
1898 Posts
Home of the 2002 Winter Olympics
| | 06/06/2007 8:55 PM |
| Posted By zenthrus on 06/06/2007 11:02 AM
Regardless, pretending to "give" away your possessions isn't going to fool an epic-level magic item. It knows what's yours and will take it if appropriate.
this is true, after all the deck is a relic magic item. | |
Thanks, realmaster. Let's split up!!!!!
RIP Gary Gygax 1938-2008
Unhallowed vindicated champion: van richten
Successful trades:72
Trades in progress:0
Have issues with:1 burning_kazuki
Bad trades:0
References: I have given up on creating a link down here so you will have to click the green shield on the left and I hope that it works for you. Sometimes it does not work for me. | |
| Master of the
Awesome Sauce
Teflon Jeff
Warlord
6247 Posts
Idaho. Yes, we have Gamers in Idaho.
| | 06/07/2007 9:24 AM |
| I had this happen, and basically, the Item has a random time-delay, and it will know the most opportune time to take the items.
Or, I have it erase all memory of ever owning the items, and then bar the other player from giving him his items back, as he has no reason to give that character half of what he now owns. Man, they flipped at that one.
| |
Official Delegate, Wizards of the Coast
Against The Giants Called Shot: Huge Green Dragon
Icons Called Shot: Gargantuan Prismatic Dragon
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen." | |
|
GuJiaXian
Sergeant
636 Posts
Holladay, Utah
| | 06/07/2007 9:59 AM |
| | I'll bet. That seems even more cruel than just having the equipment disappear in the first place! | |
"Clearly a case of too many hunchbacks and not enough mad scientists..." | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 06/07/2007 10:23 AM |
| Definitely, but then again to misquote the old saying: "It's not nice to fool the Deck of Many Things." | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
zenthrus
Commander
4601 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 06/07/2007 6:35 PM |
| Posted By Oryan77 on 06/06/2007 6:42 PM Honestly though, if your players argue about that, they should be slapped with a large fish
| |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
Oryan77
Sergeant
950 Posts
| | 06/08/2007 10:26 AM |
| I just remembered something that I always keep in mind for situations like this.
If such a simple action can be taken to avoid such a drastic effect, then what's the point of there being that drastic effect?
If a player comes up with an extremely easy way to avoid a situation similar to this one, then wouldn't everyone else in the campaign world already know about that also? Wouldn't that easy solution make the problem a pointless obstacle? So why would an artifact have such an effect if any idiot can get around the problem with such an easy solution?
As always, if it sounds too good to be true, then it is. As a DM, you
don't even have to explain why they still lose their possessions if
they pull a stunt like that. Just tell them, "Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, then common sense should tell you that it is".
| |
Miniatures for sale *more added 04/10/08*: Click here
I will buy your unwanted D&D WotC minis collection (DDM only). Email me your asking price! | |
|
zenthrus
Commander
4601 Posts
SLC, UT
| | 06/08/2007 1:35 PM |
| Another option to counter the "I give my stuff away" punt is to re-assess what the player then owns. If the player has "given away" all of their worldly possessions, then the only thing left that they own is their own person. Hence, when a card destroys/crumbles to dust all their worldly possessions they crumble to dust.
It's always good to own something other than yourself. | |
Knight Warlord a.k.a. Commander (#32) in only 6 months. Where's my pie?
Champion of Dwarven Thunderlashers
Knight of the Large Dire Chicken
Have/Want List
Trade References | |
|
dumdragon
Sergeant
677 Posts
Amityville, NY
| | 06/08/2007 6:09 PM |
| Just remind them not to metagame. How often have "these" characters stumbled across the DoMT? A PC would have no idea what effects could be produced from this Artifact. Has someone cataloged all the effects available? Have the PC's researched this? I doubt it.
Tell everyone who is drawing from the deck to put their Armor back on, sit down and pick a card.
On the other hand. *If* they were specifically looking for the DoMT for plot reasons and they were able to properly research the item I *might* let them take precations ahead of time....Who am I kidding? I would'nt and neither would the the DM's I play with. You can't fool the Deck.
| |
Email me
Succesful trades: (72) Meepo the Mighty,Erebus Moon,Cha0tic g0od x5,Yukon Cornelius, CarpBrain, ThatDaveGuy, Moroni74, Ghostwalker, Drift, Boss, Davenx01, GodEmperor, Mystereez, Crisisman x2, Xilkilm, Greylord78, NotAnotherDrizztClone x4, Kraigor, Rauthik x2, Vulturedoodle, Eprosen x3, Dungeon2004 x2, Nurvel, dariustad, Gaddszooks, azunaburu, arcabious, Nixlord, TheFoeHammer, gausse, ckissee, ardus, claygolem, devasque, Count Dooko, tomas x2, aonaran, MamaCass, Beowulfe, Faragdar the Wise, glumag, WakeXX, BrentNall, Dargoth, kestral.ca, Wyzdum, SkYlyn3, lordsathien, kmelstrom, church x2, galerians, anaxagoras, xuthal, Uninspiring Lieutenant, Elder Elemental Evil, weighmey, stevedet, tundrin
Pending Trades: (1) anaxagoras | |
| Master of the
Awesome Sauce
Teflon Jeff
Warlord
6247 Posts
Idaho. Yes, we have Gamers in Idaho.
| | 06/11/2007 9:10 AM |
| Posted By dumdragon on 06/08/2007 6:09 PM Just remind them not to metagame. How often have "these" characters stumbled across the DoMT? A PC would have no idea what effects could be produced from this Artifact. Has someone cataloged all the effects available? Have the PC's researched this? I doubt it.
Tell everyone who is drawing from the deck to put their Armor back on, sit down and pick a card.
On the other hand. *If* they were specifically looking for the DoMT for plot reasons and they were able to properly research the item I *might* let them take precations ahead of time....Who am I kidding? I would'nt and neither would the the DM's I play with. You can't fool the Deck.
Good options, these ones.
| |
Official Delegate, Wizards of the Coast
Against The Giants Called Shot: Huge Green Dragon
Icons Called Shot: Gargantuan Prismatic Dragon
"Rejoice, for bad things are about to happen." | |
|
gss_000
Commander
3204 Posts
Baltimore, MD
| | 06/11/2007 12:55 PM |
| | The only time I saw a player cheese the deck successfully was when he was a wild mage and had tweaked his character for just such an occurance (and for wands of wonder). He had invested so much without any hint of payoff that is was rewarding when the deck showed up. | |
Completed trades: blackthorne, Drakkengi,Thorgrin, Ironfist Boulderbender x2, ckissee, nasamonkey, Username, Star, Ace13 x3, emontedodger x2, Drconveyor, church, Joeyb, Sir Bozak The Damned, Xeromod, the other guy x2, Qucalion of Celene, Dagaron x2, berus316, qillan_dvra, AshloreDarkShadow
For further info go to My Reference Thread and Trade Interface
Champion of Radiant Sevant | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |