Open Discussion: Dark Powers/Checks

[wilkins1952]

I think that limiting DP Checks to "Actions made by the player in plots and the world." Rather than "You are a PM you make a DP check." Or "You summoned a creature in a dungeon make a roll." Would be better overall and easier to police, This is not to mention that these things would not lead to more DP checks they probably will but That it would not be an auto roll unless you used this in a situation where the DM was overseeing things. As for the checks themselves. I think that should be up to the DM what Boons/Curses people get. But the rule of thumb should be you don't make the PC unplayable or unable to do content.

Example of what to do "PC gets Free waterbreathing. Curse is that they feel uneasy when not near large bodies of water and desire to return to them." And what not to do. "PC gets Waterbreathing but now can no longer leave 'Water domain area' Due to an irrational fear of the land." Still the same themes that the player can explore but not nearly as mechanically limiting.

[Maiyannah]

Dark Powers checks are intended as a severe consequence for disrespecting the setting, and that is the light in which they should be used. I do not think their severity should be reduced - if anything I think the beneficial side should be removed - they're intended to be a consequence, not a boon. However, we should consider when we feel it is appropriate to have them applied.

[Ouroboros]

As someone that's run a tabletop game of Ravenloft, I'm far too familiar with the Dark Powers system specifically because my player group were the sort to go out of their way to provoke checks, so they could maybe get something cool. I ended up adapting the Powers Checks from the 3.0 Campaign Setting book, which begins on Chapter Three, Page 82; it goes quite in depth on all the nuances, but it has a few flaws.

So, some teething problems with how Dark Powers Checks work; firstly, they have a flat percentile fail rate based on the 'evilness' of what you're doing, without any regard for past deeds. Theoretically this means by RAW that if you spend literally every day walking into the markets and stealing a single apple, statistically you will eventually become a Darklord. One of the first things I homebrewed was that committing an evil act set you at that 'tier' of transgression; a few examples of suggested check provocations are 'Assault, Unprovoked', 'Betrayal, Minor', 'Theft, Grave-Robbing', etc. The alignment of the character impacted their chance of failing a Powers Check, such that Player Characters, 'Innocents' and Family have the highest chances of failing a Dark Powers check, while Evil-aligned NPCs/Monsters had the lowest.

If a player character committed an evil act, I set their 'transgression level' to be at that tier. There was some room for interpretation of course, but essentially once you've done something X amount of evil, you have to 'up the ante' to provoke more Powers Checks. Another issue I encountered is that my players were very, very decidedly playing an extremely Evil with a capital E playstyle. They went all-in on collaborating with Azalin Rex in his grand game of geopolitcally terrorising the Demiplane of Dread. After they finally failed their first Powers Check, they realised that the negatives often outweighed the positives and were desperate to find an out; so another homebrew rule I made is that if you convert your subtype to certain kinds of creatures, you're no longer subjected to Powers Checks; for example, becoming 'Monstrous', such as an Undead subtype. Some exceptions existed, such as Maledictive Lycanthropes who weren't aware of their curse, but I generally held true to that rule.

The point of Dark Powers checks aren't as a consequence for disrespecting the setting, it's a honey trap for people falling to temptation to do evil. Hence why PCs, Innocents, Good NPCs etc have higher chances to fail checks. Hence also why the rewards and punishments start out very generously tilted in the recipient's favour; +10 ft/round speed, +2 to an ability score, etc, in exchange for an extremely minor physical deformity or inconvenient curse are trades most people will gladly take. The earlier editions are a bit more explicit in this, such as the AD&D Ravenloft Campaign Setting, Realm of Terror, which lists bonuses such as +2 permanent HP, +1 to a single ability and numerous others, but with the punishments being that they have no tangible impact unless the curse is noticed by someone, at which point they are subjected to a temporary Charisma drop. Some of these appearance changes are more obvious than others; a 10 ft radius of foul odor like sulphur, smoke, etc, eyes that glow in the dark like a cat, six fingers on each hand, so on. The more lenient ones are being colourblind, having to eat bones once a day or must eat meat raw once a day.

All of that is just the first tier, by the way. They get more radical as you go further into the stages of corruption.

[Maiyannah]

In the Third Edition books it specifically states there more or less there to prod players that give in to evil; PCs are generally meant to be good in this setting. (See for eg Heroes of Light, etc). That said, I will admit I do rather like the idea of them being a honey trap better.

An idea I had is that rather than anything be automatic when it comes to things with long term consequences, things that could potentially result in Dark Powers checks could end up flagged into a ticket-like queue for DMs to consider and look into when they can. This would keep the aspect of shitty rolls mitigated and the DMs can handle that more personally. It's a little more work, but for something with permanent consequences for the character, I think it's justified.

[Ouroboros]

In the Third Edition books it specifically states there more or less there to prod players that give in to evil; PCs are generally meant to be good in this setting. (See for eg Heroes of Light, etc). That said, I will admit I do rather like the idea of them being a honey trap better.

I'm going off the rules listed on page 82 onwards of the 3.0 Campaign Setting Guide, which makes it very clear the intent is to seduce Good characters into performing Evil acts, while also hiding a punishment within the reward.





This is made especially clear in the six Stages' titles; 'The Caress', 'The Enticement', 'The Invitation', 'The Embrace', 'The Creature' and 'The Darklord'; they're a steady descent into true Evil, with the character having to cast aside their morality out of a willingness to seek power or commit horrid deeds.

The connecting themes of Powers Checks are that they are an enticement to continue down the garden path of Evil, while also being a trap; this is most clear in the fact that characters can become Darklords of their own Domains and in turn be irrevocably trapped within the Demiplane of Dread. Another theme is that a lot of what Evil does is the easy path; staying true and virtuous is difficult, especially in moral dilemmas, but in Ravenloft the setting goes out of it's way to objectively say 'Being Evil is the easiest', as there's no lack of spells and items that are empowered beyond the norm. Necromancy is a fantastic example; not only are your Undead creations far stronger than normal, but it keeps you relatively safe and out of harm's way.

[Maiyannah]

From the module design standpoint, we should consider whether we want PCs to be able to hit DP 5 and what happens when they do. As you noted above, Ouroboros, there is absolutely a type of player whom will try to collect dark powers like magpies.

Personally I should think DP5 is a closure - it's rather well documented that most of the Darklords are not masters of their own destiny. Some exceptions like Azalin Rex and Strahd exist, but compared to the others they are exceptional and exemplary. Moreover at that point players whom had "good" DP rolls are probably stacked beyond any fair challenge in PVP.

[Ouroboros]

I agree that once you step beyond a certain point of DP check you'll lose your character. However I think rather than hitting DP 5 as a closure point, it should instead be hitting DP 4 gives you a specific time frame before closure; this adds a sense of immediacy and finality to whatever a character is pursuing. Pick whatever timeframe seems slightly generous, but without it dragging on. Three, six months, whatever.

Player character hits DP 4, is informed they're now on the clock before they slip over the event horizon of villainy. Or shift it around so that DP 5 is the timed point, either works. At the end of that time period, run a finale event where that character gets to play out whatever events see them either perish or ascend to become a Darklord. Granted, no matter what there's going to always be a 'sweet spot' where characters can accrue DP bonuses and maluses and linger, but I'm not too concerned with that for a number of other reasons.

[Maiyannah]

Yes, I think its a good idea to give the character a chance to turn back if they don't want to be closured, otherwise it is generally going to end a story prematurely, I think.

Redemption should probably entail them losing the dark powers; I dont recall their being rules for this but what I want to avoid is players racking up the bonuses and then just backing off the final end. There must be sacrifice for redemption.

[Ouroboros]

Page 91 of the 3.0 Ravenloft Campaign setting has fairly thorough rules for redemption of Dark Powers checks. Essentially you run them through similar scenarios as their failed checks and they must instead choose the righteous path. Example given was if they killed helpless captives for their first failed check, the redemption has them defend a similar group of helpless people. They repeat the process a number of times, then makes a new powers check at the same chance of failure as their original attempts. If they pass the check, they retreat one stage down. Innocence once lost can never be reclaimed and acts of ultimate darkness are irredeemable. Theoretically even a Darklord can do this, if they've not committed an act of ultimate darkness. But it's entirely unknown, because the whole point of Darklords is they're stuck in their ways, doomed to suffer because of their own hubris.

[Maiyannah]

Pardon as my sourcebooks are at home and perhaps they mention this, but my intent was to say "they shouldn't be going through redemption and keeping the dark power". If they walk back onto the path of good, they should lose any powers they gained for their depravity.

I would go so far as to suggest they keep the drawbacks and lose the powers - but I would perhaps suggest it's more like, "the first act of redemption loses the power, the second loses the drawback".

Twice as hard to claw back from the brink seems appropriate for the setting as well.