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

[NiteCyper]

I hope you like nested quotes.

I guess it's a potential choice between inciting the "Waaa! He's the one who broke the gentleman's agreement!" response or the "Waa! That's not the spell I'm using!" response. Both have their pitfalls, which is why I don't think the gentleman's agreement is the best idea to begin with, but following thru on it is better than not.

If the Gentlemens' Agreement isn't a good idea, what's your (superior) alternative?

It's not that the gentleman's agreement is a bad idea, it's that a straight up nerf or ban would be more direct and of course wouldn't put you in the dilemma you currently face. I guess a lot of DMs feel like they have to allow everything, for whatever reason, but IMO it's more trouble than it's worth.

[...] "But C4, no DM can anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy!"

That's what the Dirty Trick Handbook Fixes, JaronK's Tier list for classes, Tier system for templates, Tier System for PrCs - Reboot, the Tomes, and the like, are for. Really, if there's any DM that will attempt to "anticipate everything that might prove nerf-worthy or ban-worthy", I think that they'll (most successfully) come from this forum. It's sort-of the point of this, one of the most popular, sub-forum.

All very informative, but I'm sure you've heard the adage "Plans are like castles made in sand."

• Actually, I haven't. ^^;
  
• Quotes can be contradictory. I demand science evidence!
  

If someone gets pissed when their PC gets paralyzed for a fight, explain that you're sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button.

This isn't a good idea. If you are opening up on the agreement, then so be it. Don't assign blame like that, it only poisons the group dynamics.

"Poisons", or spices up? A big determiner is whether or not the consequences are explained in-game or metagame-ically (i.e., out-of-character).

Invariably poison, since it induces an antagonistic state between the players(most often the one impacted by the spell), between that player and the DM(for putting him on the spot like that with the group). Benefits? None to the approach, if it works out nobody cares, if it doesn't your players now have a budding enmity with each other.

You'd see less of a divisive impact if you just pointedly shower Shivering Touch on them every encounter since then. At least they'd hate the spell more than the player that way.

Heh, cold showers. Reviewing what I said, I can be clearer. I don't endorse the blame game out-game, but in-game is another ball-game...game.

The following is the goodest example that I can procure: Ascended Glitch. As someone who is eating and wants to rely on vagary in the hopes that the opposing party interprets the data in the sense that most suits my position, I'll leave it at that.

P.S. Sorry, I was so focused on thinking of an example, that when it came time to actually use it, the task seemed too daunting...and I was eating. I'll elaborate in the next post.

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

Destination: Fun! But, I'm sure anyone else here has more practical experience than I, so the assertion that defusion is the goal, holds more weight. Care to back yourself up with evidence, even anecdotal? Back-up you? Care to back you up? Back-up yourself?

[InnaBinder]

As I can think of no cogent examples where an Ascended Glitch of the sort indicated in the link are feasible, positive outcomes, I'm going to ask that you - or someone who has come up with one of the aforementioned cogent examples - specify what you mean.

[Unbeliever]

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

Destination: Fun! But, I'm sure anyone else here has more practical experience than I, so the assertion that defusion is the goal holds more weight. Care to back yourself up with evidence, even anecdotal? Back-up you? Care to back you up? Back-up yourself?

I would love to respond to this.  But, as far as I can tell, it's not written in English.

If I am reading it correctly -- and I emphasize the tentative nature of that statement -- I was taking the OP's goal to have a functioning, lasting game.  If you create a situation of antagonism and arms races between the players and DMs, games fall apart quickly. 

[NiteCyper]

Preamble: Honestly, I regret having used the Ascended Glitch trope as an example, because it was all that I could think of at the time. Now that it is responded to, I must justify it or concede it. I do not concede because that would mean removing it from the original post which would mean unfairly bereaving InnaBinder's response, and a post emendated to "nevermind" is a blemish that I cannot bear nor that I believe a thread should.

(click to show/hide)

As I can think of no cogent examples where an Ascended Glitch of the sort indicated in the link are feasible, positive outcomes, I'm going to ask that you - or someone who has come up with one of the aforementioned cogent examples - specify what you mean.

Clarification: What (1) the "Ascended Glitch" trope has to do with (2) "spicing up" "the group dynamics by assigning blame" by "explaining that the DM is sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button" "in-game rather than out-game" is (3) the drawing of a parallel as "what might otherwise be taboo, if not for it's break-out success as an unintended source of amusement for one and all (y'know, excluding scrubs)".

It is essential to note that by artifact #2, I mean something like "Regdar the Fighter thrice-uttering the forbidden name of the Beast to unleash 'he who never tires, can Flawlessly Track across planes and all else, and won't stop until it kills those questing on the quest of the namer-of-its-name (or just the namer of its name)' because he's bored and wishes to face a real martial challenge, wishes to earn the title of 'slayer of the soul-seeker', and/or is sickened by the lollygagging of his so-called 'allies'." Rather than:

explain[ing] that [the DM is] sorry -- but it was the shivering touch guy who just had to press the big red nuclear button.

Because the difference is between (A) "Lidda the rogue, perhaps unknowingly, opening (the D&D equivalent of) Pandora's box" and (B) the player of Lidda, as a human being acting out a series of statistics representing a group-based, pen-and-paper, table-top RPG, angering the DM, as a human being creating and adjudicating a group-based, table-top, pen-and-paper RPG. Bonus points if in A, Lidda the rogue is level one and the instance of the opening is what engenders the danger in the world that calls the good-aligned adventuring party to head out to fight Evil. Lidda adventuring, as a sort of life-long atonement.

It's like I'm tying two steel beams of concepts together with a wet paper towel...with the perforated partitions still in the length! The beams are standing on end. Not only may they fall away from each other, but they may otherwise topple into each other in a befuddling puddle of metal.

(click to show/hide)

In regards to the example monster, thanks to Fun finds thread v3.0's Soundwave for listing Kezef the Chaos Hound (Champions of Ruin, pages 144-147), whoever found them originally, and Sword of Truth.

I can think of no cogent examples where an Ascended Glitch [...] are feasible, positive outcomes.

...If I understand you correctly, I aver that they are all positive outcomes. That's the point of an Ascended Glitch. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you seem to have caught on to what I originally intended with the article. I made a big conclusion-jump.

Now that InnaBinder is responded to in kind, I could think of a better example to respond to veekie with, here instead of as an edit in my previous post. Yet yonder, but a few sentences, may suffice, and I elaborated on it (i.e., "the blame game out-game vs. in-game") above, in the spoiler.

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

Destination: Fun! But, I'm sure anyone else here has more practical experience than I, so the assertion that defusion is the goal holds more weight. Care to back yourself up with evidence, even anecdotal? Back-up you? Care to back you up? Back-up yourself?

I would love to respond to this.  But, as far as I can tell, it's not written in English.

Paraphrase:

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

I take the goal to be utilitarian enjoyment of the game as a group, rather than defusion of antagonism. By "defusion of antagonism", you mean removal of "these things". However, I'm sure anyone else here has more practical experience than I, so Unbeliever's assertion that the goal of this thread is the "defusion of antagonism" holds more weight; there is reason to believe that Unbeliever is to be trusted more than me, in terms of the mission here. Please provide evidence for your argument; your words hold sway, but without real-life examples to support what you mean.

What do I mean by the former goal (of "utilitarian enjoyment of the game as a group")? That's actually what I address in the preceding response of the originating post and properly elaborate upon above.

Do I make of the sense?

[ariasderros]

Personally, I'd advocate against kicking the players in the teeth to prove the point.  That'd be my last resort option, as it's bound to create more antagonism rather than defuse it, which I take it to be the goal. 

Destination: Fun! But, I'm sure anyone else here has more practical experience than I, so the assertion that defusion is the goal holds more weight. Care to back yourself up with evidence, even anecdotal? Back-up you? Care to back you up? Back-up yourself?

I would love to respond to this.  But, as far as I can tell, it's not written in English.

If I am reading it correctly -- and I emphasize the tentative nature of that statement -- I was taking the OP's goal to have a functioning, lasting game.  If you create a situation of antagonism and arms races between the players and DMs, games fall apart quickly.

Here, I'll provide anecdotal evidence.
I was DM.
Hated to tell people "no", instead relying on explaining that what was fair for them was fair for me, and the DM always wins arms races.
Told one player to keep in mind the rest of the parties power level.
Told him again.
Character forcibly retired at behest of ENTIRE GROUP.
Told him again.
Told him again.
Started to have other issues with maintaining fun, because THAT PLAYER decided to start taking over all of the decisions for the group. They let him, because they were getting tired of arguing with him in and out of character, and were tired of him continuously resetting his power level, but never being apropos.
Told him again.

One person. I didn't tell him "no". I tried to work with someone that couldn't be worked with. Game died. It was too much of my fault for not having a "firm hand" as DM too really bitch too much. Then again, I was there to have fun too, not be an authoritarian.

[veekie]

Also an alternative to escalation of offense, escalation of defense can be used.

Make things harder to land touch attacks on(miss chances, dangerous auras), make it riskier to cast in melee(more use of high reach and readied interruptions), boost up Dex for monsters(Fey and Outsiders tend to have fairly good Dex) and use more hordes, less solos(since its single target). Actually using immunities might be too much(because it negates even the investment put in), but as DM you can always change the paradigm to make things less efficient.

[littha]

Make them fight summoner druids with Beckon the Frozen and skeleton hordes for a couple of weeks and he will probably stop using it. Throw a White/Silver dragon or two in there for good measure.

The summoner is a fun choice because there is at least one target still vulnerable to the effect so the game becomes get to the druid before the greenbound frozen wolves eat you.

[Complete4th]

C4, you specified you’re not a fan of gentelmens’ agreements in general (unless there was - to borrow a phrase - a hidden clause in your comment that made your distaste for them extend only as far as my specific example).  Gentlemen’s agreements often include ban/nerf-lists, regardless of whether that was the case in this specific example.  That’s why I asked what you suggested instead, and why I was surprised when your suggestion was, in fact, a ban/nerf-list.

Sorry, looking back on my previous post, I realize I didn’t express myself very well.

My Def of the Gent’s Agreement: “I won’t use OP stuff unless you do.” [Possibly with a list of stuff the DM considers OP.] A Gent’s Agreement might exist in addition to an outright nerf/ban list...as a separate entity.

My Def of a Nerf/Ban List: “Here’s a list of OP stuff. This is how it’s nerfed and/or not allowed. Also, I reserve the right to nerf or ban stuff on the off chance that something game-breaking comes up.”

Your definition seems to combine the two, so I second Unbeliever’s suggestion. Screw the arms race! Just nerf or ban everything on your list, and avoid these “Do I push the button, or don’t I?” dilemmas.

[skydragonknight]

Not particularly fond of nerfs, though there's no point in not having every option on the table. Read This as an example of a well-reasoned nerf. A social solution is still prefferable, though not always obtainable.

[Kethrian]

So they changed ability score penalties in Pathfinder?  Because in 3.5 penalties can reduce a creature to 0 (except for specific spells), and do not stack from the same source.  It's still a decent fix, and one that my group uses, applying a penalty instead of damage, for the duration of the spell.  And we do not put the artificial limit of minimum 1 on it, either, and do not let it stack with itself or its lesser version.

[zook1shoe]

This is interesting.


I feel like Unbeliever's post felt like the most logical solution for a long term game. But several others sounded more more fun, but probably much more risky to the overall health of the game.

[skydragonknight]

So they changed ability score penalties in Pathfinder?  Because in 3.5 penalties can reduce a creature to 0 (except for specific spells), and do not stack from the same source.  It's still a decent fix, and one that my group uses, applying a penalty instead of damage, for the duration of the spell.  And we do not put the artificial limit of minimum 1 on it, either, and do not let it stack with itself or its lesser version.

Yeah, not sure where the minimum 1 comes from. I know it's specifically listed in some spells, so the guy was probably confused. Still, it would at least prevent the spell from stacking with itself, limiting the scope of potential abuse.

It's basically going to come down to group dynamics whether a social solution, a metagame solution (ground rules, houserules, etc.) or an in-game solution will work best. Not exactly helpful, I know, but my knowledge of the group in question is staggeringly limited.

[veekie]

Well, it depends on the group. One thing with social contracts is that you should stick to them if made, or it can erode trust with some players(especially those who like to push the limits). They may really want the enhanced risk in combat even.
Its also important to avoid the practice of "No fuck you" in turn, by singling out particular players. And of course, the DM's secret, that unbalanced combat spells aren't ever going to be a major threat, since anyone important enough would be able to resist them, the mooks were going to die anyway and theres WAY more of them where that came from.

[InnaBinder]

...If I understand you correctly, I aver that they are all positive outcomes. That's the point of an Ascended Glitch. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you seem to have caught on to what I originally intended with the article. I made a big conclusion-jump.

If you're honestly of the opinion that:
a) a TPK by Shivering Touch (or other poorly-defended Big Red Button option)
b) an ever-escalating arms race between DM and players
c) retroactive bans on materials already on character sheets and
d) singling out an individual player for retribution or booting from the campaign
are all POSITIVE OUTCOMES, then I'm not sure that we have enough common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.  I would consider every single one of those a negative outcome, personally.  That's why I created this thread in the first place.  I was seeking input on legitimately positive outcomes.

[Unbeliever]

...
I feel like Unbeliever's post felt like the most logical solution for a long term game. But several others sounded more more fun, but probably much more risky to the overall health of the game.

just to augment

@Gentleman's Agreements in General
I actually don't advocate, as a general matter, either the OP's particular gentleman's agreement or an extensive nerf/ban list.  The one my various and sundry gaming groups use is something along these lines.  We state a power level for a campaign, i.e., give an archetypal example of what we deem an appropriate character for it power-wise.  In most cases our campaigns are on roughly the same power level, so something like a straightforward Druid or well-built Warblade is a good rangefinder.  But, any build skeleton will work.

And, then, you're pretty much allowed to use whatever you like so long as you stick close to that rangefinder.  That allows a weaker class or build to use things that might be "broken" otherwise, so long as the whole thing when it comes together is still on par with the rangefinder.  It's also less labor-intensive.  I don't have the energy to go through and draft a nerf/ban list, although it's worth noting that Shivering Touch has been essentially off limits in nearly every campaign I've played (my Norse cold-themed Archivist didn't even use it ...). 

I worry that a comprehensive nerf/ban list might lead people to conclude that anything that hasn't been banned is "fair game."  Which might lead them to abandon their instincts to balance and restrain themselves.  The version of the gentleman's agreement I advocate also leads to a bit more of a flexible, collaborative exchange, which I find useful for group dynamics. 

It does have a significant drawback, though.  Judging the overall power of a build is most definitely an art rather than a science.  So, you end up misestimating sometimes.  It helps when it's coupled with a sense that things can be revised, both in order to nerf or to increase firepower, after they've seen some play.

[Unbeliever]

...If I understand you correctly, I aver that they are all positive outcomes. That's the point of an Ascended Glitch. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you seem to have caught on to what I originally intended with the article. I made a big conclusion-jump.

If you're honestly of the opinion that:
a) a TPK by Shivering Touch (or other poorly-defended Big Red Button option)
b) an ever-escalating arms race between DM and players
c) retroactive bans on materials already on character sheets and
d) singling out an individual player for retribution or booting from the campaign
are all POSITIVE OUTCOMES, then I'm not sure that we have enough common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.  I would consider every single one of those a negative outcome, personally.  That's why I created this thread in the first place.  I was seeking input on legitimately positive outcomes.

Sorry to double-post.  Personally, I don't view (c) as a big problem.  But, I can understand that people would have differing opinions on that.  I mean, you're talking to someone who has self-nerfed combos after realizing how bonkers they were at the table. 

As I mentioned before, you can probably live with a player casting Shivering Touch every so often.  Protect your BBEGs from it a bit:  I'd suggest giving them some condition removal abilities, so that the Shivering Touch isn't useless, it forces them to use some resources, but not an encounter-ender.  And, then maybe use this as an opportunity to shift the gentleman's agreement you have to something that works better.  And, be transparent with the players that you realize that the outcome of the previous set-up would just be (a), (b), or (d) all of which are bad. 

[InnaBinder]

...If I understand you correctly, I aver that they are all positive outcomes. That's the point of an Ascended Glitch. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you seem to have caught on to what I originally intended with the article. I made a big conclusion-jump.

If you're honestly of the opinion that:
a) a TPK by Shivering Touch (or other poorly-defended Big Red Button option)
b) an ever-escalating arms race between DM and players
c) retroactive bans on materials already on character sheets and
d) singling out an individual player for retribution or booting from the campaign
are all POSITIVE OUTCOMES, then I'm not sure that we have enough common ground to continue a reasonable discussion.  I would consider every single one of those a negative outcome, personally.  That's why I created this thread in the first place.  I was seeking input on legitimately positive outcomes.

Sorry to double-post.  Personally, I don't view (c) as a big problem.  But, I can understand that people would have differing opinions on that.  I mean, you're talking to someone who has self-nerfed combos after realizing how bonkers they were at the table. 

As I mentioned before, you can probably live with a player casting Shivering Touch every so often.  Protect your BBEGs from it a bit:  I'd suggest giving them some condition removal abilities, so that the Shivering Touch isn't useless, it forces them to use some resources, but not an encounter-ender.  And, then maybe use this as an opportunity to shift the gentleman's agreement you have to something that works better.  And, be transparent with the players that you realize that the outcome of the previous set-up would just be (a), (b), or (d) all of which are bad.

No worries (on my account, anyway) regarding the double post.  As I indicated, I view C as a problem, in much the same way that A, B, and D are problems; for that reason, I'm not seeing "shift the gentleman's agreement to something that works better" as a strictly positive option.  I'm also not a fan of spontaneously granting BBEGs counters they wouldn't otherwise reasonably choose, as that reads as another flavor of option B, which we've both labeled as a "bad" choice.

[sirpercival]

Here's the thing, though.  Once the "restricted" list is open, you have to pay attention to verisimilitude.  If those things (like Shivering Touch) exist, it's likely that intelligent BBEGs will know that they exist, and will put in place methods to counteract them.  At least, any BBEG who's read the Evil Overlord list.

[McPoyo]

NNot to mention, in this case, there is a player who has clearly chosen to dilate the social construct of the gentleman's agreementin this game. Any other form of "behave like a civilized person and don't break the power level everyone wants" will work as ineffectively as it has in this case.

There are really only two options if talking to the problem player doesn't fix it (as was indicated beryearly in this thread): ban it, or use at back against the pcs. Doesn't have to be rampant, but dropping a pc or two every couple fights may force the group to do something about it.

Honestly, if he isn't mature enough to correct a disruptive behavior when it's brought up in private, he isn't mature enough for anything but a ban list or nerflist.

Semi-related: stop acting like a gentleman's agreement is somehow "more civilized" or "better" than a ban list. It's a ban list with a different name, and slightly less consequence for breaking it..

[McPoyo]

((Doublepost))