How Far is too Far with Cursed?

[Toptomcat]

One possible answer is 'far enough to kill them faster than the -75 point version of Terminally Ill.' Cursed being -75 points, it seems inappropriate for it to kill you faster than the -75 pt disadvantage that's all about killing you within a year, but not within a month.

Other things that should be about as annoying and character-defining as Cursed: being a Blind Total Amnesiac, having eight-hour jags of the worst Chronic Pain imaginable happen nineteen days out of every twenty, being #1 on the entire U.S. Government's Most Wanted list, being Quadriplegic.

[Bramble Thorn]

I think a fair way to handle Cursed is reverse Serendipity. Five levels of it. So where Serendipity gets you a lucky break once per game session, Cursed gets you a conga line of unlucky ones. All narrated outside the dice system.

I like the Squidward and Charlie Brown examples for levels of misery. Where you can get schadenfreude, but not really viscous if each setback was considered individually.

To help the game along, I would let all the players (even the cursed characters player) suggest ways the curse might manifest during the session. And if the suggestions are good ones, xp can be earned for the best one in a session for contributing to the enjoyment of the group.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Disliker of the mary sue

It kind of a train of thought I been having for awhile while thinking of the Disadvantage Cursed. The basic premise is if anyone is stupid enough to take this disadvantage you make their in character lives as miserable as possible. However I been thinking on how that would work in practice in a group game.

Here my logic, in other works of media you do kind of have the Butt-monkey who gets treated like **** by the universe and everything in it. Charecters like Squidward or Charlie Brown who get all the bad luck and has people in real life pity them. I keep thinking in game if you abuse this player too much your are going to really make the rest of the group kind of mad at you. I suppose I should mentioned the player himself but well I thinking anyone stupid enough to take a disadvantage like that to begin with deserve no pity from a dm.

Hm does anyone have experience dming someone with that disadvantage in a long term campaign? How exactly do you handle it? In general how far should you go with this disadvantage?

It should not up end the plot. The GM should not right away sentence the PC to rolling a rock eternally up a hill, and the PC shouldn't kill his father and marry his mother until the end of the campaign.

[Toptomcat]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

It should not up end the plot. The GM should not right away sentence the PC to rolling a rock eternally up a hill, and the PC shouldn't kill his father and marry his mother until the end of the campaign.

Oedipus isn't Cursed, in the GURPS sense. Oedipus has a -15-pt Destiny. Cursed characters constantly have different, unrelated horrible things happen to them, rather than being more or less fine right up to the point where the denouement completely destroys their life (as with Oedipus), or even having a lot of *thematically related* horrible stuff happen to them (as with many other tragic heroes, such as Macbeth or Lear).

[Not]

75 point cursed or 15 point destiny plus blindness plus outcast, your pick.

[Xplo]

In theory, disads are supposed to limit your character somehow... either because their choices are constrained, or because they have some physical disability, or because they have to sacrifice things they care about to save dependents or avoid the FBI, whatever.

Flaws, failures, and hard choices can be fun or engaging... but I feel like a single disad that's worth as much as Cursed ought to have such an adverse effect that it's hard to enjoy playing the character. You're not just asking to be the butt of cosmic jokes or a strange attractor for other people's tragedy; you're asking for the universe to shove you down, kick you into a ditch, take a dump on you, and drive over your cat. Every day.

If your player is actually enjoying having a Cursed PC, you're probably running it wrong.

And if you feel like "that's going too far - what's the point of a disad that can't be fun?", well, you're not wrong. I've never taken Cursed, and I've never seen anyone take it.

Now, with that said, Cursed makes an interesting condition for a diabolical trade, or a temporary disadvantage for using some Phenomenal Cosmic Power - sure, you can change the world or rewrite time, but at what cost? (The Monkey's Paw is a classic example.)

Curses with a specific theme might also be easier to measure and run, although they're no more kind to the PC who has them, since we're into "everything you try to help will be ruined" or "nobody will ever believe a word you say" territory (presuming a GM who's savvy enough not to let a clever player game the theme to turn it into a Kewl Tragedy Powar).

[TheRedArmy]

I had a character that I seriously considered taking Cursed on. She was a fantasy character who was a priestess of the goddess Isis (goddess of magic, motherhood, and fertility in our world). I would have likely worked with the DM to make it themed, and come up with why I had such a terrible disadvantage. I ended up going with the much less terrible Unluckiness.

However, it would have played to Anai's (the character) traits well. She would have taken all her "destined" failures as tests of faith, an act by the evil forces of the world to make her give up and quit. She would have taken every instance of the curse as a sign that she was a thorn in the side darkness, and proof that she was on the path of righteousness. That assumes some evil entity or power was responsible for the curse, of course.

How far is too far? When the players don't enjoy it anymore. That's...not a great answer, I know. I like Nereidalbel's answer best, I think.

[wellspring]

Originally Posted by Toptomcat

One possible answer is 'far enough to kill them faster than the -75 point version of Terminally Ill.' Cursed being -75 points, it seems inappropriate for it to kill you faster than the -75 pt disadvantage that's all about killing you within a year, but not within a month.

Other things that should be about as annoying and character-defining as Cursed: being a Blind Total Amnesiac, having eight-hour jags of the worst Chronic Pain imaginable happen nineteen days out of every twenty, being #1 on the entire U.S. Government's Most Wanted list, being Quadriplegic.

To me that's the idea (Xplo puts it nicely)-- you "punish" the character in proportion to the points they're getting for it. At 75 points, we're not talking about lovable losers or slapstick pratfalls. We're talking about Oedipus, Turin Turambar, the last five minutes of Requiem for a Dream, that kind of thing. It's also not coincidentally the same value as the disadvantage cap in most campaigns-- that is, the only disadvantage they will take.

Just as there are advantages that represent a compact between the GM and the player (Signature Gear = plot protection for example), this needs to be an advance negotiation because it doesn't so much derail a campaign as it does define a campaign.

Somebody compared it to Terminally Ill (and like RPK I disallow that trait). For slow-burn versions where they get to enjoy themselves a bit before everything turns to ashes on them, you have to be careful that they don't buy off the trait before they "pay" for it in-game. Or, probably, at all. I'd get buying a limitation on it, but everything needs to be immutably laid out in advance between player and GM so they both know what they're getting into.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Keiko

Why is taking it stupid if it fits your character concept?

Eventually, the other characters in the fellowship are going to do the realistic thing, and ditch the jinx. Tell him to leave. At swordpoint if necessary. Unless, of course, they are somehow able to see the invisible rotating "I am a player character" hologram above his head.

But there's no legitimate way they can ever be aware of that hologram.

How bad is Cursed, anyway?

I remember back in 3E it was -75 points, which was incredibly crazily massive. I think it's been toned down for 4E but I don't actually remember. -15 or -25 could be bearable. In principle, both are less bad than being Deaf or (most kinds of) Mute, and much less bad than being Blind. That means that the amount of GM-screwing-the-character (not the player, since the player doesn't exist) should be roughly of the same magnitude as with disads of comparable cost. And likewise, the decision of the other members of the fellowship to ditch the problemematic member should be similarly likely - or unlikely. After all, if a Deaf fellowship member is very useful, they're likely to tolerate his impediment and keep him around. Same goes for Cursed. If the GM causes roughly the correct amount of problems for the character, rather than far too many or far too few.

[Mailanka]

Something to consider: Sometimes disadvantages aren't really all that good on their own. Terminal Illness is a great example. It's kind of a terrible concept to just take for a character, outside of extremely limited concepts. But if you take mitigator, or use it as an Affliction, then it might make more sense.

Cursed, to me, seems the same sort of deal. Some people might enjoy the idea of being constantly hosed, but it might be more interesting if they took Cursed with some kind mystical mitigator, or if cursed was afflicted on them as a spell or malediction or something. In the first case, you have a character whose concept is "Unless I do/have X, I am cursed," which might be more interesting and gameable (as it offers interesting choices) than "I am cursed," and the latter creates an interesting weapon that players can defend against and, if they fail to defend, provides more interesting consequences than "Aaaand now you're dead."