So, one of my players opened the door on the Gentlemens' Agreement. . . .

[sirpercival]

Inna, I'm just curious: what was your goal with the GA in the first place?  Why did you include the restricted list of spells?

It seems to me that what you were saying to the players is: "This is a switch.  If you flip it [by using one of these spells], it turns the campaign into a higher-op, more dangerous endeavor."  The player flipped the switch, so now the campaign is more dangerous because enemies will use these tactics as well.

Or am I missing something?

[InnaBinder]

Inna, I'm just curious: what was your goal with the GA in the first place?  Why did you include the restricted list of spells?

It seems to me that what you were saying to the players is: "This is a switch.  If you flip it [by using one of these spells], it turns the campaign into a higher-op, more dangerous endeavor."  The player flipped the switch, so now the campaign is more dangerous because enemies will use these tactics as well.

Or am I missing something?

I tend to view Gentlemens' Agreements as contracts of Mutually Assured Destruction.  When someone opens the door on such an agreement, they've pushed the metaphorical Big Red Button.  I'm interested in solutions that avert said destruction, without resorting the the Wargames truism applied to RPGs ("The only winning move is not to play").

[McPoyo]

Inna, I'm just curious: what was your goal with the GA in the first place?  Why did you include the restricted list of spells?

It seems to me that what you were saying to the players is: "This is a switch.  If you flip it [by using one of these spells], it turns the campaign into a higher-op, more dangerous endeavor."  The player flipped the switch, so now the campaign is more dangerous because enemies will use these tactics as well.

Or am I missing something?

I tend to view Gentlemens' Agreements as contracts of Mutually Assured Destruction.  When someone opens the door on such an agreement, they've pushed the metaphorical Big Red Button.  I'm interested in solutions that avert said destruction, without resorting the the Wargames truism applied to RPGs ("The only winning move is not to play").

If the desire is to not escalate the power level of the game, yet you feel there are things that do that, a Gentlemen's Agreement is not the way to handle that. You're left with house-ruling the thing that would result in a button being pushed, or outright banning it.

And no, designing encounters to get around the power-escalating thing is not a solution to that problem, because if that were the case, the power-escalating thing wouldn't be a power-escalating thing.

[sirpercival]

As McPoyo said, it seems that such a GA is not appropriate for your group -- if you want to avoid Big Red Button situations, don't build a button.

As for right now, you've built the button, and a player pushed it... I think SDK summarized the solutions as well as could be done.

[nijineko]

i see the real flaw as being all the way back at the beginning. "gentleman's agreement' not to use parts of the game is a load of crock. if you can't handle the game, or have ideological differences with how the game was written/designed, then clearly state the rules for your version of the game and state your reasons. if they agree, fine; if they don't, you know they don't want to play that way. if they change their mind later, obviously your play ideology isn't working for them. saying "i won't if you won't" simply invites those that think they can to go ahead. if you didn't want it used, then that's what you should have said in the first place.

so, according to the agreement you made, you are now allowed to use the same spell. that's all. no more, no less. if i were you in such a situation, somehow... i would react accordingly. word spreads. at first, they would dominate. but as word spreads, more people who have grudges against the party will prepare to either use it, or counter it, or reflect it. notable enemies aren't going to be caught flat footed if they can help it. they will be scrying, paying spies, pumping bystanders for information with free ale, and so forth. survivors of the party will want revenge, etc..

therefore, those who want to know what the characters favor as tactics, are going to find out. over time, the tide will naturally turn against the character(s) who spam specific tactics. unless the party leaves no witnesses, in which case, your game has different troubles.

So, "herpderp you don't know how to run a game if you disallow parts of the game, and if you do and your players ignore it, herpderp it's you're fault" followed by a recommendation of what was originally labelled as gotcha gaming.  Not the solution I was hoping for, though I appreciate the input, and I fully acknowledge you're hardly the first to comment around these parts on my shortcomings as a DM.  I apologize for appearing to skip over this post earlier, as the conversation took off a bit and I didn't respond to all of the comments initially.  The same apology extends to any other suggestions not specifically addressed.

not quite what i meant, though i guess what i said could be interpreted that way. huh, wouldn't have occurred to me to take that kind of twist on it though.

point a: can't handle <-> ideological differences....

i was trying to cover a spectrum here using those two as the extreme ends of my spectrum of possible reasons why you might not use parts of the game. some people can't handle it (ie: as in chess, most people get rid of pieces till the level of strategy is something they can handle)... others have certain considered and reasoned conclusions as to why this, that, or the other part(s) of a game don't work for them. i intended for you to pick whichever part of the spectrum you fit into to apply to yourself. it was NOT my intention to imply that you don't know how to play the game. claiming that someone that you don't know much doesn't know how to play a game is rather a silly point to be trying to defend, imho. i have no proof or evidence to back it up, after all. so hope this straightens out that bit.

point b: gotcha gaming. not sure what that is, actually. is my proposed solution of deciding how your universe works, presenting it, and then coming to a group consensus as to if everyone wants to play that way considered gotcha gaming? please elucidate.

apology not needed. and if there is an apology needed, it more likely should be coming from me for botching my attempt to get my ideas across. i'm not in the habit of diss'ing other beliefs, though i am known for being blunt about what i think, and not always phrasing it the best.

anyhows. hope this clears up my intended meanings.

[InnaBinder]

point b: gotcha gaming. not sure what that is, actually. is my proposed solution of deciding how your universe works, presenting it, and then coming to a group consensus as to if everyone wants to play that way considered gotcha gaming? please elucidate.

I'm responding specifically to this point, because it's the point you've specifically requested further discussion regarding.  If you'd like to discuss other aspects of your post, I'm happy to.

When NPCs - even major ones - spontaneously start having defenses against new toys, spells, and tactics that no witnesses outside the adventuring group lived to see, it's serendipity at best, 'gotcha gaming' at worst.  Given a predisposition on the part of my past and present players to seek out their adventures in ruins, caves, and similar locales with a dearth of witnesses, my players tend to act surprised at best, outraged at worst when foes are already prepared for the party's best tricks, particularly when those tricks are relatively new.

If they know witnesses are around to see and report their tactics in these typically isolated locales, they tend to want the opportunity to take care of those witnesses in some fashion to prevent such rumors from spreading (a non-lethal solution such as Modify Memory can do wonders for this issue).  If they DON'T know witnesses are around to see and report their tactics, they tend to want to know why their frequent Spot/Listen/Search checks and (as level-appropriate) magical precautions failed to alert them.  If they are reasonably sure they left no credible witnesses a boss-type would tend to seek out or believe, AND they are reasonably sure that their magical defenses haven't been breached, they tend to become suspicious that the DM is simply engaging in gotcha gaming, where none of their attempts to secure a tactical or strategic advantage will bear fruit because the DM will simply metagame such advantages away.

[Unbeliever]

point b: gotcha gaming. not sure what that is, actually. is my proposed solution of deciding how your universe works, presenting it, and then coming to a group consensus as to if everyone wants to play that way considered gotcha gaming? please elucidate.

I'm responding specifically to this point, because it's the point you've specifically requested further discussion regarding.  If you'd like to discuss other aspects of your post, I'm happy to.

When NPCs - even major ones - spontaneously start having defenses against new toys, spells, and tactics that no witnesses outside the adventuring group lived to see, it's serendipity at best, 'gotcha gaming' at worst.  Given a predisposition on the part of my past and present players to seek out their adventures in ruins, caves, and similar locales with a dearth of witnesses, my players tend to act surprised at best, outraged at worst when foes are already prepared for the party's best tricks, particularly when those tricks are relatively new.
...
If they are reasonably sure they left no credible witnesses a boss-type would tend to seek out or believe, AND they are reasonably sure that their magical defenses haven't been breached, they tend to become suspicious that the DM is simply engaging in gotcha gaming, where none of their attempts to secure a tactical or strategic advantage will bear fruit because the DM will simply metagame such advantages away.

I think this conflates the metagame restrictions with the in-game ones. 

Shivering Touch was off the table not b/c its existence wasn't acknowledged, but as part of an essentially arms deal between the players and the DM.  Players and DM being concepts that don't exist in the narrative of the story.  In a universe where things like Shivering Touch, scry and die, and similar one-shot kills/incaps exist, intelligent foes would, it seems, make preparations against them.*  Such preparations didn't exist in your campaign b/c of the aforementioned armistice.  Now, they (arguably) need to be reinserted. 

In short, something like Shivering Touch might be new for your players, but it's not new to the world at large.  You should contrast this with a creative twist, trick, or combo that the PCs come up with. 

That being said, I kind of hate gotcha gaming.  As a DM I tend to build my opponents with near total ignorance of what the players can do.  I build them with general capabilities and, if I'm really on my game, with an eye towards their commonly faced foes.  That is, my Mariliths are really good against other outsiders b/c they encounter them all the time, and mere mortals are rarely a noticeable challenge.  Against a powerful, intelligent foe there will still be some gotcha-ness going on, but mostly by coincidence.  My friend built a Marilith that was an awe-inspiring melee combatant and resistant to common magical effects.  That screwed over some of our melee folks, but "melee" isn't really a unique specialty and her abilities made sense given her role and stature. 

The only times I do keep an eye on my PCs' capabilities are to do the opposite of gotcha gaming:  to give them a time to shine b/c I know they have some ability that will totally wreck this guy or encounter.  Note, though, that my style of encounter construction does put the onus on the players.  They are going to have to have enough counters and abilities to win the day.  That's their job. 


*Side note:  having to avoid this kind of DM labor is one of the best excuses for removing various annoying abilities from the game.  The same could probably be said from the players' perspective (e.g., what player wants to have to worry about scry and die?). 

[nijineko]

i would be happy to discuss the rest of the post, if you so desire.

regarding gotcha-gaming. there may have been no witnesses who survived, but there are a fairly diverse number of ways to determine exactly what happened and what was used after the fact, or even, technically, before the fact. divination can reveal to npcs that they need to protect against shivering touch, or psychometry can reveal what actually took place long after the pcs leave. the world is alive and always changing (forgive me the obvious statement). the powers behind the npc (if not at the immediate level, then one or two levels up the chain of command) will want to know what happened and will use divination, or other methods of reading the past or future, to figure it out.

heck, they could even kidnap one of the pcs at an opportune moment to get the lowdown via mind probe or read thoughts or skillful interrogation on what the typical party loadout of offensive and defensive preparations are. all in-game continuity preserved and no "gotchas" outside of what life would normally (in a fantasy setting, anyway) deal you.

this is all very likely to occur if the pcs become enough of an annoyance to someone willing to spend the time and money to find out more. not really 'gotcha gaming' at all, just playing smart npcs.

you'll have your players quoting this in no time:

Preed: [after Stith knocks out the guard outside Akima's cell] An intelligent guard... didn't see that one coming.

[Nytemare3701]

It's not even gotcha gaming at all. You had an understanding that certain spells effectively don't exist in the setting (via a GA to not use them). If he uses them, retcon kicks in and says "oh, that's a valid spell for casters to take now, so they add it to their repertoire when appropriate."

[radionausea]

You had a gentleman's agreement with someone who clearly wasn't a gentleman.  The point of a GA is to set out a mutual agreement of house rules.  A GA isn't really "If you do this I will do the same"; it is "neither of us will do this because we both agree it's unsporting".  Someone on the internet posted their GA; which was the idea of "don't do this or I will reciprocate" and everyone thinks that's what it means - but it doesn't.

There is no point in having a GA in the "do it and I'll reciprocate" form.  It's been covered in a lot of posts so far but: sometimes you will have a player who will break the covenant that you set.  If they break it, by upping the stakes you punish the rest of the players who didn't. Or you end up resorting to "a [you]-bane bus of [you]-slaying falls from the sky" after getting sick of them.

Just tell them you had a different understanding of the ground rules you had set up between you and ask them not to use it anymore.  They're not likely to care too much.

[McPoyo]

You clearly missed where he said he tried that and met with failure.

[FlaminCows]

If that is the case, and you really don't want Shivering Touch in the game, you could just firmly tell him, no, its not going to be in the game. You'll sound like an ass of course, but that's just an after-effect of you saying something you didn't really mean (that is, "if you use this I will use it too", when you really mean "don't use this"). Just clear the air, set things straight, the mistake is done and you might as well fix it now and make it clear that it really is a banned list and not a big red button. Delaying it will only make it worse.

If he insists that he should use the spell anyway, have a single encounter with a specialised Red Wizard whose first casting is a Maximised version of the spell followed by a Coup de Gras. Yes, killing off a character like that is very much a dick move, but at least it will get it out of the way quickly and not extend the issue to any further sessions. 

[radionausea]

You clearly missed where he said he tried that and met with failure.

Then "we had a different understanding of what I meant. Can you stop using it please? No? Tough shit you're not using it"

[McPoyo]

You clearly missed where he said he tried that and met with failure.

Then "we had a different understanding of what I meant. Can you stop using it please? No? Tough shit you're not using it"

Also already been stated the OP didn't want to do that, because it makes it seem dickish.

[radionausea]

Every way out of this is going to look dick-ish to one degree or another.   

If the player gets targeted singly with this spell or whatever other spell they decide to crack out next it's going to look like they're being singled out (and they are). If whatever spells this player is using start being used against the whole party then the DM will look like they're punishing everyone for one player's decision despite the rest of the group abiding by the agreement (and they are). 

[McPoyo]

I entirely agree, which is what I've been saying this entire thread so far.

[littha]

If the player gets targeted singly with this spell or whatever other spell they decide to crack out next it's going to look like they're being singled out (and they are). If whatever spells this player is using start being used against the whole party then the DM will look like they're punishing everyone for one player's decision despite the rest of the group abiding by the agreement (and they are).

Which is why I suggested enemies immune to the spell (of which there are many). The rest of the party will be unaffected and the troublemaker now has a useless spell.

[radionausea]

I think I'd just find a man with very cold hands to grope the player and whisper "how do you like that shivering touch?"