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

[McPoyo]

*ignores the noise*

Perhaps some clarification is necessary then? Is this a simple survey of potential answers (which at this point has about reached its limit and you can likely end the thread soon) or are you in search of the best answer for your specific situation? If the latter is the case, then would you mind providing more context on the game and the players? There's a difference if you've known the guy for a while and he knows your play style, or if he's new to the group. Or if it's an entirely new group.

How well you know the person, how well you get along, how well the group gets along...determines whether you approach the guy as a personal friend, "one of the guys", an associate (perhaps a friend of a friend), or just as a GM and will focus our answers towards the ones most applicable to the actual situation.

The player has already been approached, and blew off the OPs concerns. Entering yet another "social agreement" isn't going to work in this case in my experience. Why would one social contract being broken not cause another to be broken?

[veekie]

Pretty much, just move to mitigation, making sure it has the correct level of impact, and keep the results of this agreement in mind when dealing with the player in question. Shivering Touch is hardly a game killer unless you get blindsided by it.

[skydragonknight]

(click to show/hide)

I was about to reply to McPoyo, but my response to him inspired this idea, which I thought was a more constructive use of my time.

You could just ad hoc the xp awards based on the CR that matches the actual challenge of the encounter rather than the book value (the exceptions being good luck and creative/sound tactics, which should never be punished). Then using "I win buttons" is the same as shooting your character in the foot. After all, the fastest way to change someone's opinion about something is to show them that it's not in their best interest.

Though this is mostly to address future problems - veekie is right that Shivering Touch is on the low end of the OP spectrum.

[ariasderros]

@OP
My recommendation, re-read this entire thread, read only Skydragon and Veekie's posts. Mostly Veekie's.

If all else fails, today's SMBC seems relevant.

[NiteCyper]

*ignores the noise*

Perhaps some clarification is necessary then? Is this a simple survey of potential answers (which at this point has about reached its limit and you can likely end the thread soon) or are you in search of the best answer for your specific situation? If the latter is the case, then would you mind providing more context on the game and the players? There's a difference if you've known the guy for a while and he knows your play style, or if he's new to the group. Or if it's an entirely new group.

How well you know the person, how well you get along, how well the group gets along...determines whether you approach the guy as a personal friend, "one of the guys", an associate (perhaps a friend of a friend), or just as a GM and will focus our answers towards the ones most applicable to the actual situation.

The player has already been approached, and blew off the OPs concerns. Entering yet another "social agreement" isn't going to work in this case in my experience. Why would one social contract being broken not cause another to be broken?

Because not all social contracts are the same.

(click to show/hide)

A.K.A. "stuff that I wish to redact for the sake of simplicity, but has been responded to, and will also not be refined herein further, in this regard"

Are criminals to be condemned from the perspective of every social contract, just because they broke one "social contract/agreement" made up by purportedly-just people somewhere (like SOPA)? No, though they are under probation.
If I shop-lift, does that affect how that I may play on a play-ground, say hello to other people, or buy goods? Technically, but not to a practical degree. Whether or not a study may be found to show high correlation between shop-lifting and the subsequent socially-contracted activities that I mention, I meant to list generic activities specifically as they do not pertain to shop-lifting in particular, yet remain under the banner title of involved with "social agreement/contract". unjust.

[McPoyo]

If he willingly flaunts a social contract to not use the stuff or "bad things will happen", he's going to willingly flaunt any other social contract of the same type because he feels it's worth the power boost he gets as a character. He's essentially calling a bluff at this point, since he doesn't think the possibility that there could be significant ramifications to his choice to step over the drawn line. Choosing to prepare a spell that was agreed to be off-limits to use multiple times per day, and his reaction when spoken to about it, shows that. It's not broad-stroke prejudice, it's how things have been presented.

Once again, you are using inaccurate examples. A criminal committing a crime or breaking a law is not the same as the case presented here, though I can easily see it argued that way, but I'll respond to it as well: If a criminal breaks a law, irrelevant of his thoughts on how just it is, there are consequences. If the consequences aren't strong enough, then it is worth breaking that law to said criminal in this example. The original question would be applied to this in a "should the Judge send me to jail, which is the punishment for my crime, for committing this crime?" fashion. The answer would be either "Yes, punish the law-breaker in a way it was pre-agreed upon", or "no, don't punish him" in this example. In the scenario presented here, there's also the "make it so he can't do it again even if he wants to do so by banning the spell" option, which would be closest to a (in a crime analogy you brought up, once again) chemical castration punishment for a repeat sex-offender. In the real world, someone on the sex-offender list has some pretty harsh consequences to their actions, and they never get to escape the fact that they were put on that list.

I don't think this is really how you want a player breaking a gentlemen's agreement to be compared, because it's not remotely the same.

[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.

[NiteCyper]

(click to show/hide)

If he willingly flaunts a social contract to not use the stuff or "bad things will happen", he's going to willingly flaunt any other social contract of the same type because he feels it's worth the power boost he gets as a character. He's essentially calling a bluff at this point, since he doesn't think the possibility that there could be significant ramifications to his choice to step over the drawn line. Choosing to prepare a spell that was agreed to be off-limits to use multiple times per day, and his reaction when spoken to about it, shows that. It's not broad-stroke prejudice, it's how things have been presented.

Once again, you are using inaccurate examples. A criminal committing a crime or breaking a law is not the same as the case presented here, though I can easily see it argued that way, but I'll respond to it as well: If a criminal breaks a law, irrelevant of his thoughts on how just it is, there are consequences. If the consequences aren't strong enough, then it is worth breaking that law to said criminal in this example. The original question would be applied to this in a "should the Judge send me to jail, which is the punishment for my crime, for committing this crime?" fashion. The answer would be either "Yes, punish the law-breaker in a way it was pre-agreed upon", or "no, don't punish him" in this example. In the scenario presented here, there's also the "make it so he can't do it again even if he wants to do so by banning the spell" option, which would be closest to a (in a crime analogy you brought up, once again) chemical castration punishment for a repeat sex-offender. In the real world, someone on the sex-offender list has some pretty harsh consequences to their actions, and they never get to escape the fact that they were put on that list.

I don't think this is really how you want a player breaking a gentlemen's agreement to be compared, because it's not remotely the same.

If he willingly flaunts a social contract to not use the stuff or "bad things will happen", he's going to willingly flaunt any other social contract of the same type because he feels it's worth the power boost he gets as a character.

I agree. My case is that we don't actually know that the list was properly described that way. I can describe elements of our argument as vaguely as "potentially problematic", but that does not mean evil, as I take you to mean. In your hypothetical case of evil, of course it's not hard to label the player then as evil, but I argue that it's not evil, but ignorance. I grant that even then, it can still be argued otherwise. I don't agree with the rest of the assertion of "if the player misdemeans, they will relapse".

He's essentially calling a bluff at this point, since he doesn't think the possibility that there could be significant ramifications to his choice to step over the drawn line.

OK, you've moved from hypothesis to fact. Continuing on my previous response, as far as can be told, the player could see the situation as "step over the drawn line and significant ramifications not necessarily sufficiently described yet as evil" and the player could be thinking "I want to step over the drawn line and press the button". All regardless of what the player thinks of the possibility of significant ramifications.

Choosing to prepare a spell that was agreed to be off-limits to use multiple times per day, and his reaction when spoken to about it, shows that.

I can't agree that "the player's reaction when spoken to about the use of the potentially problematic spell Shivering Touch that was agreed to be off-limits to use multiple times per day", of "it's not a banned spell, so I don't see what the problem is" shows that [my first quote excerpt of you]. Now you've thrown in the assumption that it's "a spell that was agreed to be off-limits to use multiple times per day". I don't agree that it's off-limits. I don't agree with an assumption that there was anything said about a taboo nature of "use multiple times per day", because I don't recall such a thing being mentioned.

I agree with the rest.

[McPoyo]

Since all we have to go on is the OP's description of events, which shows things as I have predicated my quoted statements on, it's why my responses have been formulated the way they have.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on anything besides the appropriateness of your analogies, but this thread continually pushing for "why not try another social agreement" seems completely counter-intuitive when the player is flagrantly disregarding the previous one, and claiming not to see that it's really that bad that he did it. His PoV is irrelevant, the GM posited some things not to use in order to keep rocket-tag from accelerating, and the player-base agreed to that. Seems to be a simple order of "well, then execute what you said would happen as the GM". The only other option if that's not wanting to be pursued would be to just simply use a ban-list instead, and save yourself the frustration of players breaking it because it's not a big deal to them if "shit gets real".

I'm not sure where the "evil/bad" comparison came from, but I haven't used it.

[NiteCyper]

This thread continually pushing for "why not try another social agreement" seems completely counter-intuitive when the player is flagrantly disregarding the previous one, and claiming not to see that it's really that bad that he did it. His PoV is irrelevant.

Here's what you disagree with me on.

I'm not sure where the "evil/bad" comparison came from, but I haven't used it.

If he willingly flaunts a social contract to not use the stuff or "bad things will happen", he's going to willingly flaunt any other social contract of the same type because he feels it's worth the power boost he gets as a character.

bad things

Sounds like evil to me. Willingly flaunting a social contract of not using the potentially problematic stuff or "bad things will happen" is doing something that will cause evil is tantamount to doing evil.

[McPoyo]

Ah, I'm functioning under a different operative definition of evil, I see where you're coming from now, and it makes sense how you use it. In this instance, I have the same perspective on the player's motivations in relation to "bad", but it doesn't change the fact that escalating rocket-tag is generally seen as "a bad thing to occur".

[nijineko]

i suspect that the phenomena of escalating rocket tag is simply a lack of understanding of tactics and strategy as applied to the in-game and roleplaying situations and constraints. but then, most people aren't trained in that sort of thing, and even fewer are actually good at it.

[InnaBinder]

*ignores the noise*

Perhaps some clarification is necessary then? Is this a simple survey of potential answers (which at this point has about reached its limit and you can likely end the thread soon) or are you in search of the best answer for your specific situation? If the latter is the case, then would you mind providing more context on the game and the players? There's a difference if you've known the guy for a while and he knows your play style, or if he's new to the group. Or if it's an entirely new group.

How well you know the person, how well you get along, how well the group gets along...determines whether you approach the guy as a personal friend, "one of the guys", an associate (perhaps a friend of a friend), or just as a GM and will focus our answers towards the ones most applicable to the actual situation.

My initial post described both the problem and those solutions I'd considered and dismissed as inadequate; later posts indicate that I've also tried talking to the player without what I'd consider success.  My purpose in creating the thread was to find a solution I had not already considered and that was adequate.

All the players are a good bit younger than I, but I have known them all for over a year.  Previous discussions on the nature of gaming groups (for example, in this thread at the old site) indicate that any distinction of how well I know the player is disingenuous, as any player at the table is automatically a friend.

[radionausea]

Josh said he thought it was disingenuous and that anyone you game with is automatically your friend.  Which is drivel as was stated in umpteen posts following his.

Edit: You're one of the people arguing most vocally against Josh about that issue!

[Nagukuk]

SO, Have you considered giving a few of the NPC's the PC targets,  a ring of spell battle 

Heck even make it charged so it/they can be only used a few times, then the group wont gain uberloots when they should not have.

[Xzerios]

I dunno if its been mentioned (Im sure it has, this is BG here), but dependent on your groups level; I highly recommend two spells. Death Ward which I know we are all familiar with, and Sheltered Vitality from pg 188 of the Spell Compendium. Those two spells will cover your non undead/construct NPCs. Even if your campaign level is lower than four, you could make items with the effects. Though, this one is more dangerous as the PCs may get their grubby paws on em.

The REAL spell/class' to watch out for though is Fabricate and a tricky Artificer. Infinite gold can ruin the game starting off, and the Artificer giving everyone in the party +72 to all their attributes can be hard to overcome at low levels. :|

[InnaBinder]

SO, Have you considered giving a few of the NPC's the PC targets,  a ring of spell battle 

Heck even make it charged so it/they can be only used a few times, then the group wont gain uberloots when they should not have.

I dunno if its been mentioned (Im sure it has, this is BG here), but dependent on your groups level; I highly recommend two spells. Death Ward which I know we are all familiar with, and Sheltered Vitality from pg 188 of the Spell Compendium. Those two spells will cover your non undead/construct NPCs. Even if your campaign level is lower than four, you could make items with the effects. Though, this one is more dangerous as the PCs may get their grubby paws on em.

The REAL spell/class' to watch out for though is Fabricate and a tricky Artificer. Infinite gold can ruin the game starting off, and the Artificer giving everyone in the party +72 to all their attributes can be hard to overcome at low levels. :|

I think I'm missing something in how these suggestions are to be used as solutions, rather than escalations of the arms race.  Could you clarify how these solve the problem?

[skydragonknight]

So you want the guy to stop using OP spells in your UP group, basically. There's logically only three routes you can take - out-of-game, metagame and in-game. Let's examine:

Out-of-game level: Talk to the guy. You've already tried this, so the odds of it working on another try are slim, even if you're less subtle the second time. Unless the guy is susceptible to logic and you can make a good argument, it's safe to rule this out.
Metagame level: Ban it outright ("after careful consideration...") or nerf it (ability penalty houserule, any other houserule).
Ingame level: Mitigate it to the point where it's not that useful (lowers the frequency of use, but not the notion of it being an acceptable spell) or perhaps base encounter CR by the difficulty of the encounter to the party rather than by the book value, to penalize cheap tactics, offering a disincentive to use (this may admittedly frustrate the players to lose out on xp for the actions of only one member, but if the group accepts it and adopts the mentality of using nothing too cheap, that mentality may continue well into future games).

Those are your pretty much your options (unless I missed one - I'm sure someone will point it out) other than taking off the gloves in-game. I can't say there's a particularly 'best' one...just like medicine the solutions that will last longest will taste the worst for the players. You may lose some respect points, but ultimately if there is greater internal balance within the party, you can make up the respect points by facilitating a fun game.

[veekie]

The PF option, incidentally, turned all spells like Shivering Touch into either Afflictions(which dish out about 1d4 each round or so, for multiple rounds) or Ability Penalties(which cannot drop a score below 1). Thats one metagame approach less severe than outright banning.

[InnaBinder]

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.