Egoism of Sword

[linebeck]

If a 1st level fighting man has a sword with an ego of 7 (difference of six), does that mean he is constantly controlled by the sword, or just that he is controlled by the sword in "key situations"? 

What does it mean if a fighting man and his sword are in a continuous struggle?

[Zakharan]

Two things: first, I believe you're misreading how Egoism works. The character uses their STR/INT in contention with the sword's EGO/INT, not their level; this is why the first mention says "see below," as it's directing you to the 'key situations' section.

This means that, secondly, the "ongoing" struggle only infrequently changes based on the character's HP. It also means the control of a high-power sword may have an indefinite duration, but their power isn't absolute (since they're only listed as doing five things to express their ego).

Of course, how much all that matters is up to you. High-level Fighters being better able to exert control is a cool idea, and if you wish to push the swords' definitions of "control" (as I did) by all means go ahead.

[linebeck]

Jun 30, 2020 4:29:15 GMT -6 Zakharan said:

Two things: first, I believe you're misreading how Egoism works. The character uses their STR/INT in contention with the sword's EGO/INT, not their level; this is why the first mention says "see below," as it's directing you to the 'key situations' section.

This means that, secondly, the "ongoing" struggle only infrequently changes based on the character's HP. It also means the control of a high-power sword may have an indefinite duration, but their power isn't absolute (since they're only listed as doing five things to express their ego).

Of course, how much all that matters is up to you. High-level Fighters being better able to exert control is a cool idea, and if you wish to push the swords' definitions of "control" (as I did) by all means go ahead.

That's what I thought rule was initially but then I did a close read and realized that there is an additional rule based on fighting man level which appears to determine if and when a check must be made.
  

M&T p. 30, first full paragraph: Egoism in continuing relationship with user: "Compare the egoism of the sword with the level of the fighting man using it."  

Difference between egoism of sword and level of fighting man	Result
6 or more	Higher party always prevails and no other checks (including key situations) need be made.
2-5	Higher party generally prevails, and checks will only have to be made in key situations.
0-1	Continuous struggle between the sword and user and during any stress situation both should be checked as to which will prevail.

[cometaryorbit]

I would read "always prevails" to mean "whenever you would make a check, don't bother, the higher party wins automatically". So it would only come up when the sword and character would otherwise be at odds ("key situations", character acting against sword's alignment or purpose, or whatever).

Not necessarily that the wielder is totally controlled by the sword.

I think the sword Ego thing is meant to model stuff like how Stormbringer, in the Elric stories, will sometimes 'twist in Elric's hand' and kill someone Elric doesn't want it to kill, vanishes at one point when Elric does a big spell through it and he has to summon it back, etc. Or (though not a sword) things like the One Ring slipping off your finger at the worst possible time.

So the sword prevailing means the wielder can't prevent the sword from doing stuff like that.

[linebeck]

Jun 30, 2020 11:20:28 GMT -6 cometaryorbit said:

I think the sword Ego thing is meant to model stuff like how Stormbringer, in the Elric stories, will sometimes 'twist in Elric's hand' and kill someone Elric doesn't want it to kill, vanishes at one point when Elric does a big spell through it and he has to summon it back, etc. Or (though not a sword) things like the One Ring slipping off your finger at the worst possible time.

So the sword prevailing means the wielder can't prevent the sword from doing stuff like that.

I think that is my take too - definitely a reference to Stormbringer and the "one ring."  It's amazing how powerful swords are in OD&D.  It also appears that most of the powers and abilities are unlimited use.  

[Zakharan]

I'm pretty confident "level" refers to STR+INT, otherwise it would be overwhelmingly common for swords to rule out, which seems improbable. Consider that a lot of things in the booklet are given the term 'level' (character levels, spell levels, dungeon levels...).

[tetramorph]

linebeck, that is how I read the rules as well.

The Int + Str check is for situations that arise after initially picking up the sword.

When you first pick it up, you take system shock for alignment difference, if any.

Then you do an INT based alignment check comparing sword INT to PC LVL and then you use the table to determine who wins the struggle. If the PC fails, they align with the sword.

Then you do an EGO based, I suppose you could call it, "submission" check, to see if the sword will serve this master at all. Same as above in structure: sword EGO compared to PC LVL.

I interpret this to mean that the sword rejects that wielder and leaps into someone else's hands and tries for another go. Or, barring that, the sword geases the PC to prove their merit or worth.

I run this test again every time the PC levels, to see if the sword willingly submits.

This means swords are really dangerous and unpredictable for low and even heroic level characters. Which I like.

The INT+STR -HP lost test is what I run, only on high EGO swords when/if players pick up another sword, wield a different magic weapon, fail to run into battle for the sword's target / mission, etc.

Really, the "magic-sword (sub-) game" is underutilized. I am really trying to up my game here. I have started treating swords with high enough intelligence to have an EGO as NPCs with "Magic Sword Records" that I keep. I am also trying to remember to place them in the marching order so that I can remember that I might need to roll, as with other NPCs, like henchmen, for a reaction to a situation that will affect the wielder and party.

So swords are fun but dangerous and unpredictable, like powerful magic items in a S&S setting ought to be. Love it.

Check out Paul Gorman's magic sword book: clearly derived from D&D and comparable with it but chock full of even more zanier fun -- which is my thing.

Finally, I would invite waysoftheearth into this conversation because of his minute study of the exact wording of the rules.

[Deleted]

I really ought to start using some of the actual mechanics from the 3lbb more often. In the past I've defaulted to things like Saving Throws in these situations but it's really not how it's written. Still thematic and "Gets the job done" but not what was intended. I just find it harder to memorize new systems the older I get, and a lot of the sub systems of OD&D are new to me since I grew up more in the 2e/BECMI paradigm and have certain shorthands nailed into the deepest parts of my brain, so I default to something simple in most cases instead of following a chart. I kinda feel bad about that and want to devote some time to learning things like aerial combat, jousting and magic swords by the book.

[linebeck]

Jul 1, 2020 8:28:53 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I really ought to start using some of the actual mechanics from the 3lbb more often. In the past I've defaulted to things like Saving Throws in these situations but it's really not how it's written. Still thematic and "Gets the job done" but not what was intended. I just find it harder to memorize new systems the older I get, and a lot of the sub systems of OD&D are new to me since I grew up more in the 2e/BECMI paradigm and have certain shorthands nailed into the deepest parts of my brain, so I default to something simple in most cases instead of following a chart. I kinda feel bad about that and want to devote some time to learning things like aerial combat, jousting and magic swords by the book.

I'm like you regarding learning these systems for the first time.  

I'm 42 (born in 1977) so I stated playing just a few years before 2d edition came out in 1989 with a red box and first edition mash-up understanding of the rules and a nine year-old's reading comprehension. I remember a friend of mine had the Holmes booklet that his parents got for him at garage sale and I felt sorry for him because it wasn't "real AD&D."  

Obviously now I vastly prefer Holmes to Mentzer.  I never saw a copy of the 3 LBBs or even recognized that they existed.  If you asked me ten years ago what "old school D&D" was I would say, 1st ed. AD&D and that it was "only" type of D&D one should play.  Even then, however, I never used most of the 1st ed. rules like weapon speed, etc., and we would house rule the heck out of what we used.  My favorite character as a kid was a paladin because I wanted a fighter who could casts spells.  It was obviously the result of fudging die rolls (I gave myself a charisma of 17 as if that is more believable). I dm'd (and loved) games where half-orc assassin characters get to yell out "Assassinate!" and then roll on the assassination table in the DMG to see if they get an automatic kill.        


I was pretty much over 2d edition and all "kits" and "non weapon proficiencies" by college and when I dm'd in college it was a 2d edition/first edition mash up.  I have no nostalgia for that system, despite it being the main one I played as a kid.    

[Aralaen]

I think the danger of magic swords dominating a character is the reason why clerics are specifically forbidden to use magic sword in their description. If you are supposed to serve your church, religion, god or alignment a dominating sword would possibly bar that, breaking the cleric with their faith.

[cometaryorbit]

Jul 15, 2020 7:59:00 GMT -6 Aralaen said:

I think the danger of magic swords dominating a character is the reason why clerics are specifically forbidden to use magic sword in their description. If you are supposed to serve your church, religion, god or alignment a dominating sword would possibly bar that, breaking the cleric with their faith.

That makes a lot of sense. Using a magic sword would be almost like forming a bond with a "foreign spirit" unrelated to your deity and its servitors (equivalents of saints and angels, or heroes and attendant lesser divinities in a more Classical sense).

This would help reconcile the image of Clerics as being something like religious orders of knighthood with their prohibition on using swords... The 'shedding blood' thing just doesn't really make sense, IMO.

[linebeck]

Jul 16, 2020 2:21:34 GMT -6 cometaryorbit said:

Jul 15, 2020 7:59:00 GMT -6 Aralaen said:

I think the danger of magic swords dominating a character is the reason why clerics are specifically forbidden to use magic sword in their description. If you are supposed to serve your church, religion, god or alignment a dominating sword would possibly bar that, breaking the cleric with their faith.

That makes a lot of sense. Using a magic sword would be almost like forming a bond with a "foreign spirit" unrelated to your deity and its servitors (equivalents of saints and angels, or heroes and attendant lesser divinities in a more Classical sense).

This would help reconcile the image of Clerics as being something like religious orders of knighthood with their prohibition on using swords... The 'shedding blood' thing just doesn't really make sense, IMO.

[delta]

Jul 1, 2020 8:28:53 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I kinda feel bad about that and want to devote some time to learning things like aerial combat, jousting and magic swords by the book.

I'll say that I've spent quite a bit of time digging into those parts and playtesting them, and at the end of the day, I've generally moved past them and put something simpler in their place (like, e.g., regular saving throws). Some of those parts are a bit wonky and seem like possibly they weren't playtested very much.

Maybe more important (for aerial, naval, jousting combat) -- not only do you need to understand those rules, but so do all your players. If you have players who are excited about digging into that stuff and learning it, great. But I've found that if I spring a new complex subsystem on my players for a particular encounter, (a) they groan a bit, and (b) they're at a crushing disadvantage against me.

With the jousting-fighters-from-castles bit (which they always lost), my players got to the point where they announced, "The next guy who challenges us to a joust, we kill the bastard!".

[delta]

Jun 30, 2020 9:20:44 GMT -6 linebeck said:

That's what I thought rule was initially but then I did a close read and realized that there is an additional rule based on fighting man level which appears to determine if and when a check must be made.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that's a nice catch. I never noticed that wrinkle before, myself.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2020 22:36:38 GMT -6 delta said:

Jul 1, 2020 8:28:53 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I kinda feel bad about that and want to devote some time to learning things like aerial combat, jousting and magic swords by the book.

I'll say that I've spent quite a bit of time digging into those parts and playtesting them, and at the end of the day, I've generally moved past them and put something simpler in their place (like, e.g., regular saving throws). Some of those parts are a bit wonky and seem like possibly they weren't playtested very much.

Maybe more important (for aerial, naval, jousting combat) -- not only do you need to understand those rules, but so do all your players. If you have players who are excited about digging into that stuff and learning it, great. But I've found that if I spring a new complex subsystem on my players for a particular encounter, (a) they groan a bit, and (b) they're at a crushing disadvantage against me.

With the jousting-fighters-from-castles bit (which my they always lost), my players got to the point where they announced, "The next guy who challenges us to a joust, we kill the bastard!".

That's a great point. I notice that a lot of products in the OSR gravitate towards a single unifying mechanic, not unlike your Target 20 system, to resolve most issues in OD&D-adjacent content. This is certainly more player-facing game design and maybe that's the way I ought to be looking at my next campaign, too. After all the 3lbbs were always simply meant to be a starting off point to inspire campaign ideas. A "this is the way I did it" document and not a "this is the one true way it's done" document. 

[linebeck]

Jul 16, 2020 22:44:02 GMT -6 delta said:

Jun 30, 2020 9:20:44 GMT -6 linebeck said:

That's what I thought rule was initially but then I did a close read and realized that there is an additional rule based on fighting man level which appears to determine if and when a check must be made.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say that's a nice catch. I never noticed that wrinkle before, myself.

Wow, thanks!  I have a ton of respect for your work so this is probably the biggest compliment I'll receive all week.

[retrorob]

I start to think that vol. II might covers two separate methods ("determinations"), so I guess I'm with linebeck here.

1) more complex, with adding and deducting to the character's INT+STR
in "Key Situations"

2) less complicated ("quite simple"), F-M level vs Ego

it is stated very clearly:

"(...) that party will always prevail and no other checks (including Key Situations) need be made"...

also if a Veteran (F1) with STR 18 and INT 18 (36) picks up a sword with Ego 7+, he basically can't do nothing "including Key Situations", until he reaches a new level (the difference is 6). Right?

Example from my campaign:

Dalibor (F-M 5) is granted a magic sword from the Abbot. Sword has INT of 8 and EGO 8 too. Dalibor has STR 10 and INT 9. Both Alignment is Law. Now let's suppose that light wounded Dalibor wants to retreat from the melee with some nasty ghouls, leaving his comrade Anzelm behind him. For sure this is a "Key Situation". This is a moment.

1st method: 19 (STR+INT) vs 16 (INT+EGO), the difference is 3, so Dalibor has 75% chance that will prevail.

2nd method: Level/EGO, 5/8, with a difference of 3, means that sword (higher party, as Ego > level) has 75% chance it will prevail; "checks will only have to be made in Key Situations". He will flee only on a roll of 76+ on d100.

75% to flee or to stay is a big difference. Level/Ego method is simpler and make magic swords very powerful and unpredictable. I like that. Maybe I'm missing something here? I've tried to make something out from The First Fantasy Campaign, but I failed.

[cometaryorbit]

Aug 14, 2020 3:42:10 GMT -6 retrorob said:

also if a Veteran (F1) with STR 18 and INT 18 (36) picks up a sword with Ego 7+, he basically can't do nothing "including Key Situations", until he reaches a new level (the difference is 6). Right?

Well, definitely no checks are needed, the sword wins automatically.

I'm not sure that means that the sword totally controls the character like a robot or puppet, though. I think it only matters when one of the specific situations arises that the sword "cares about" (eg - key situations, character tries to do something against the sword's alignment/purpose).

[countingwizard]

The best way I've found to deal with high ego swords, is to write them down in the marching order. They are basically a character that demands a full share of treasure and will Leroy Jenkins the shirt out of a group to fulfill their purpose. The only rule that is confusing to me, are the rules that dictate why a sword would try to leave possession.

[Zakharan]

Nov 12, 2020 9:50:26 GMT -6 countingwizard said:

The only rule that is confusing to me, are the rules that dictate why a sword would try to leave possession.

There seem to be a few varying reasons, but they basically boil down to:

1.) The sword is owned by a person it perceives as below its station, and will try to get into more capable hands to aggrandize itself.
2.) The sword is owned by a person who is too difficult to manipulate, and ergo will fight relentlessly until it can pair with someone more impressionable.

So if the Fighter in question is too weak (physically), or too strong (mentally), the sword moves on to greener pastures when it can.

[dicebro]

Nov 12, 2020 16:38:32 GMT -6 Zakharan said:

Nov 12, 2020 9:50:26 GMT -6 countingwizard said:

The only rule that is confusing to me, are the rules that dictate why a sword would try to leave possession.

There seem to be a few varying reasons, but they basically boil down to:

1.) The sword is owned by a person it perceives as below its station, and will try to get into more capable hands to aggrandize itself.
2.) The sword is owned by a person who is too difficult to manipulate, and ergo will fight relentlessly until it can pair with someone more impressionable.

So if the Fighter in question is too weak (physically), or too strong (mentally), the sword moves on to greener pastures when it can.

It’s also a good way to get rid of a sword that is in conflict with a PC.  These can be “outs” for referees who are tired of dealing with angry players. I can imagine that a special purpose sword (with int 12 and ego 12) constantly interfering with a player character’s choices can grow tiresome. 

[breeyark]

This may be a bit off topic, but how is sword ego determined? I come from a 1st Edition background where there is a formula to calculate it. Unless I am missing something, you roll a d12 for every sword in OD&D?

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2022 13:55:32 GMT -6 breeyark said:

This may be a bit off topic, but how is sword ego determined? I come from a 1st Edition background where there is a formula to calculate it. Unless I am missing something, you roll a d12 for every sword in OD&D?

You roll d12 for every magic sword with an Intelligence of over 7. A sword with an Intelligence under 7 doesn't have an Egoism. 

[Mordorandor]

Jan 31, 2022 16:53:22 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Jan 31, 2022 13:55:32 GMT -6 breeyark said:

This may be a bit off topic, but how is sword ego determined? I come from a 1st Edition background where there is a formula to calculate it. Unless I am missing something, you roll a d12 for every sword in OD&D?

You roll d12 for every magic sword with an Intelligence of over 7. A sword with an Intelligence under 7 doesn't have an Egoism. 

And to reiterate one more time, because it took me a while to fully comprehend it, even as I read the words over and over again, every magic sword is an intelligent sword (or more aply, has an Int score).

[Deleted]

Correct. All magic swords are intelligent. Some more so than others.

[breeyark]

Thanks for the replies. It is very interesting that all magic swords are intelligent.

[Deleted]

Jan 31, 2022 20:56:20 GMT -6 breeyark said:

Thanks for the replies. It is very interesting that all magic swords are intelligent.

It adds flavor to the Fighting Man class when only the three original booklets are in play, for sure. Only Fighters wield magic swords and all magic swords are intelligent.

[Zenopus]

That is true, although if the Intelligence is 6 or less, the particular Int score is not of much importance because the sword will have no communicative power and no Ego. Alignment will then be the only factor of significance (other than any powers the sword has, which "will have to be discovered by the user").

You can see this in the Monster & Treasure Assortment Sets 1-3 (written for OD&D), where every sword has an Alignment listed, but only those with higher Intelligence have the score noted, along with an Ego score.

[Mordorandor]

Feb 1, 2022 15:27:02 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

That is true, although if the Intelligence is 6 or less, the particular Int score is not of much importance because the sword will have no communicative power and no Ego. Alignment will then be the only factor of significance (other than any powers the sword has, which "will have to be discovered by the user").

You can see this in the Monster & Treasure Assortment Sets 1-3 (written for OD&D), where every sword has an Alignment listed, but only those with higher Intelligence have the score noted, along with an Ego score.

There are some PCs who function reasonably well with Int 5 or 6!

Curious: has any one done anything more than see magic swords with say, Int 5 or 6, as simple curiosities? Seems like the mind of a child is still a terrible thing to waste when in the form of a sword.

[Starbeard]

Not sure how or even if this alters interpretations at all, but it struck me when reading Jon Peterson's newest book that, if my understanding of it is correct, the rules for magic swords were one of the parts of the D&D text supplied by Dave Arneson. Knowing where the text comes from gives a bit of insight into why it's written that way, I think.

- It helps explain why magic swords seem so extraordinarily overpowered compared to everything else in the game. My impression of reading about the process is that Gary asked for rules and Dave sent them, so comparison to and cohesion with Gary's work might not have been readily available factors.

- There's also the question of play testing. Did these rules come from something Dave was actually using? Did Gary ever use them? If they came from Dave, I'd imagine that Gary had his own way of handling magic weapons, and he wouldn't have had much opportunity to use these rules prior to printing. That also might explain why power balances can seem extreme or wording might be confusing.

- That brings us to wording. Dave was not known as a master of clear rules writing at this time, so there's that. Also, does the use of the word "level" change knowing this was something Dave sent to Gary? Did Gary rewrite the material in his own words when adding it to the manuscript?


Just some things I was idly pondering today.