The Gentlemen's Agreement: making it more precise [Archive]

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 03:00 AM

These principles are intended as broad guidelines for D&D games, and should be interpreted by their spirit primarily. This list is not intended for use in arguments or disputes, but as precepts to prevent such disputes from arising in the first place.

Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense, and reasonably compatible in playstyle.
Players should not optimize their characters or tactics beyond the capacity of the DM to produce reasonable encounters and antagonists, or beyond the capacity of other players to meaningfully contribute.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter, usually and in most cases by ensuring that no character is effectively removed from all or most of the combat.
Players are expected to comply with such railroading as may be essential to a smooth game. The DM is not to use excessive railroading.
The DM should familiarize himself with the rules as much as practical, and when a rapid decision is necessary for smooth play, should consider revisiting that after the session to be sure it's correct and sensible; houserules should be used with care.
Neither players nor DM are to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
Players are expected to avoid providing the DM with easy hooks with which to render their characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not mandatory class features, but only a few times, unless the character has already had ample opportunity to develop reasonable protections for them.
Players should be allowed to define and control their characters in all ways for the most part, barring such interactions as the DM or group may consider unfitting for the world or the game; likewise, the DM defines and controls NPCs, even those the player characters may be closely connected to, subject to reasonable suggestions.
A reasonable effort should be put forward by each player and the DM to accurately present their own desires and expectations for the game and to understand the others' expectations and desires of the same; compromise may often be necessary to make the game fun for all.

Definitions:
Railroading, as used here, refers generally to a DM negating player choice by having all possible courses lead to the same result (mild to moderate, depending on how obvious it is), "wonderful" NPCs who steer you around (moderate to severe), blocking some actions with no or very thin in-game rationale (moderate to severe), or punishing players/characters for messing up the plot (severe to very severe). It's not always immediately detectable, but most DMs aren't as good at concealing it as they think they are.

Optimization includes both practical and excessive varieties — that is, character build and tactical choices that either contribute well to the party, or overshadow others. (The lack of optimization tends to cause problems as well.) It takes a good bit of skill and system knowledge to be able to optimize any concept and class appropriately, but there are some things that are a lot easier to manage; also, DMing at higher levels of optimization tends to require more skill, more preparation time, or both.

1Previous versions: The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter, usually by ensuring that no character is effectively removed from all or most of the combat.
The players are expected to avoid providing the DM with easy hooks with which to render their characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not mandatory class features.
The DM is expected not to repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant, unless the character has already had ample opportunity to develop reasonable protections for those.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply with such railroading as may be essential to a smooth game.
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.
Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, and reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense.

The thread was started with a recent post:

The Players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No Player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by Fiat.
The players are expected to not provide the DM with easy hooks with which to render the characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not manditory class features.
The DM is expected to not repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The DM is expected to provide the resources required for non-spellcasters to compete with spellcasters. Spellcasters are expected to get less then PC WBL, but are also expected to not be required to maintain their spell component pouch.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply to a minimum required ammount of Railroading
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

Of these, I agreed with all but the sixth for the majority of games.

Is there anything this list is missing, any polish that could be applied to the wording, or anything that isn't really necessary? I'll start off with a few minor tweaks to spelling/capitalization.

Ravens_cry

2013-01-09, 03:19 AM

I think if you over elucidate a gentleman's agreement, it no longer is a gentleman's agreement.

Arcanist

2013-01-09, 03:36 AM

I think if you over elucidate a gentleman's agreement, it no longer is a gentleman's agreement.

Shush! We wear top hats an act fancy in this thread

http://pretprieel.nl/pictures/futurama_bender_monocle.jpg

But in all seriousness, remove the little thing saying that Spellcasters get gimpped on WBL because of the Spell Component Pouch regardless of how much sense it totally makes :smallbiggrin:

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 03:58 AM

I think if you over elucidate a gentleman's agreement, it no longer is a gentleman's agreement.

Hmm. That may be a danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take for the sake of argument. If it turns out poorly, we'll all be free to just ignore it.

But in all seriousness, remove the little thing saying that Spellcasters get gimpped on WBL because of the Spell Component Pouch regardless of how much sense it totally makes :smallbiggrin:

OK, item 6 should be deleted? I guess I'll make that change now.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-09, 04:11 AM

* No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.

This one worries me a bit. See I'm playing with someone who made a completely useless character. Accomplishing anything points that out and makes the player feel irrelevant. Yet the player refuses to improve effectiveness of the character.

If I followed that rule I'd have to play pure-classed, not chicken infested commoner. And still be careful not to upset the player.

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 04:59 AM

This one worries me a bit. See I'm playing with someone who made a completely useless character. Accomplishing anything points that out and makes the player feel irrelevant. Yet the player refuses to improve effectiveness of the character.

If I followed that rule I'd have to play pure-classed, not chicken infested commoner. And still be careful not to upset the player.

Well, you could argue that "don't make it easy for the DM to make your character irrelevant" would fix that.

However, I suspect a new principle would be good, something like "Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, and reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense." (This also covers the problem of stick-in-the-mud LG paladin in the same party as CE murder-rogue.)

willpell

2013-01-09, 05:00 AM

I was (I think) the one to suggest that this become it's own thread, primarily because I wanted to respond to this (the rest is more or less perfect as-is, except for the now removed "e.5" rule, which I didn't even notice before it was downvoted):

The players are expected to avoid providing the DM with easy hooks with which to render their characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not mandatory class features.
The DM is expected not to repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.

Can someone (either Toapat, as the original poster, or anyone else who is fairly certain they know what said poster meant by it) go into more detail about what this means? Some examples perhaps? The only thing I can think of is maybe the ranger's Track feat, which I've heard called "a plot railroad disguised as a class feature". And I'm not even sure that's what this is meant to mean, so i can haz clarification plz?

LordBlades

2013-01-09, 05:08 AM

In regard to a I think it could be better phrased as 'the players should not exceed the optimization level the DM is comfortable with'. In the end it doesn't really matter if the DM optimizes less than you or not, but whether he's comfortable with the amount of optimization required to challenge you. In the end, it takes a lot less DM optimization to challenge an optimized monk tan it does to challenge a semi-optimized druid.

In regard to b I think it should better be stated as 'a player shouldn't build a character too far above or below the level of competence that the group agrees on'. A DMM persist cleric makes a fighter completely irrelevant, but if the rest of the group is artficer, druid and wizard, the one doing it wrong is the fighter player, not the cleric.

Regarding d, I don't think it should apply. I've never had any issue with one trick ponies as long as the player is fully aware that his one trick wouldn't come up all the time, and he'll be left with nothing to do in a significant amount of time. If the player knows what he's getting himself into by playing a one trick pony I see no problem with it.

Darius Kane

2013-01-09, 05:28 AM

Making the Gentleman's Agreement into rules will only invite/encourage jerks to bypass or bend them. Saying "Guys, if I'll see any funny stuff, I'm fiat'ing/Rule Zero'ing it out of existence and the perpetrator gets only a single warning" is enough for me.

kardar233

2013-01-09, 06:51 AM

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 07:20 AM

Carry2

2013-01-09, 07:28 AM

As rules? Yes, probably. They should instead be presented as principles. The spirit of them is the important part; the wording is only there to indicate the gist of it.
Nope, I think it's actually perfectly viable to present things like this as rules, either up front and formally, or as a side-effect of other mechanics. Which is something you actually see in other RPG systems.

"The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game..."

Umm... maybe the designers should be responsible for not introducing those flaws?

Look, I realise this is 3.xe D&D we're talking about, and it is what it is. But taking what are clearly rules-patches and talking about them as if they somehow weren't smacks badly of doublethink.

Pandiano

2013-01-09, 07:51 AM

I was (I think) the one to suggest that this become it's own thread, primarily because I wanted to respond to this (the rest is more or less perfect as-is, except for the now removed "e.5" rule, which I didn't even notice before it was downvoted):

Can someone (either Toapat, as the original poster, or anyone else who is fairly certain they know what said poster meant by it) go into more detail about what this means? Some examples perhaps? The only thing I can think of is maybe the ranger's Track feat, which I've heard called "a plot railroad disguised as a class feature". And I'm not even sure that's what this is meant to mean, so i can haz clarification plz?

That paragraph sounds like things lika an item familiar that can cripple the PC if taken away. Or a flaw like crippling fear of black cats.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 07:54 AM

Fouredged Sword

2013-01-09, 08:24 AM

You can handy cap a character so long as it is not arbitrary. NPC's can think and plan, but must do so reasonably and logically and within the capabilities of the character. The Int 30 wizard divining the party does so better than the int 4 ogre who has them wander into his cave.

willpell

2013-01-09, 10:42 AM

Definitely agree with Tuggyne over DariusKane here...the Gentlemen's Agreement is worth spelling out, even if it's not a "rule" per se, since putting it in a semi-formal form of format (ha!) means everyone is more or less on the same page with regard to it. It can hardly be considered binding in this form, it's just a guideline, and if one side seems to be transgressing it and the other calls, the first can't claim that they obeyed the letter of the law, because it's not a law in the first place.

That paragraph sounds like things lika an item familiar that can cripple the PC if taken away. Or a flaw like crippling fear of black cats.

Well item familiars give you an insanely huge power boost specifically because they offer the risk of it being taken away. Flaws only give a single feat so they shouldn't be anywhere near that big, but there's no point in letting a player take a flaw if it never comes up. If your character can't get out of his bedroll in the morning without being mobbed by black cats, the DM is clearly overdoing it. But if I took that flaw, I would expect to see a black cat at least once during a campaign; otherwise the GM might as well just have said "take an extra feat" and spared me the pencil lead it took to write down the Flaw.

Oscredwin

2013-01-09, 11:26 AM

Could we clarify Item C, please? As it reads, it runs into the problem I was noting in the other thread that a DM who hits his Players with Dispel Magic (or even Downdraft, come to that) is 'arbitrarily handicapping the Player.'

The issue is that the player should have some decision to make next round, this is what's important. This is a principle of game design, you can hit the character with some setback, as long as the player is still making decisions it's ok. Grounding a fighter who then shoots the flying monster for 1d8+4 (str bow) against a monster with DR 10/slashing then he has a 1/4 chance of doing 1-2 damage. If he doesn't have any other options in the combat then you've stopped the player from playing. Grounding the wizard and the wizard can still blast or cast a SoS, try and fly again, or buff her flying allies. The wizard has options.

The exception to this is the "lose" condition, which can stop the player from playing. In DnD this is called death. It's ok to kill your players, you should only do it when they've met the lose conditions they think are fair. What's fair is specific to your game. In modern DnD that means they've made a couple of stupid decisions they regret, back in the day it could be a lot more arbitrary.

Aside: This is why the people who don't like the full attack classes don't like them. Saying "I attack" isn't an option, saying "I charge" isn't much better (it can be interesting to set up the charge). This is a large reason that ToB classes are liked so much, they have a list of things they can do each round.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 11:31 AM

The issue is that the player should have some decision to make next round, this is what's important. This is a principle of game design, you can hit the character with some setback, as long as the player is still making decisions it's ok. Grounding a fighter who then shoots the flying monster for 1d8+4 (str bow) against a monster with DR 10/slashing then he has a 1/4 chance of doing 1-2 damage. If he doesn't have any other options in the combat then you've stopped the player from playing. Grounding the wizard and the wizard can still blast or cast a SoS, try and fly again, or buff her flying allies. The wizard has options.

The exception to this is the "lose" condition, which can stop the player from playing. In DnD this is called death. It's ok to kill your players, you should only do it when they've met the lose conditions they think are fair. What's fair is specific to your game. In modern DnD that means they've made a couple of stupid decisions they regret, back in the day it could be a lot more arbitrary.

Aside: This is why the people who don't like the full attack classes don't like them. Saying "I attack" isn't an option, saying "I charge" isn't much better (it can be interesting to set up the charge). This is a large reason that ToB classes are liked so much, they have a list of things they can do each round.

If that's the definition, then I'll vehemently disagree with "C" for reasons I've already outlined. You're basically telling the DM he's not allowed to use a huge swath of spells and other status-effect inducers in the game, let alone use intelligent tactics in combat.

EDIT: You should probably stick to killing the Characters, not the Players. :smallwink:

Deadline

2013-01-09, 12:04 PM

Could we clarify Item C, please? As it reads, it runs into the problem I was noting in the other thread that a DM who hits his Players with Dispel Magic (or even Downdraft, come to that) is 'arbitrarily handicapping the Player.'

Actually, it's "lazy DMing" rather than arbitrary, in my opinion. A good player will suck it up, and accept that they now get to sit and watch for two hours while the combat plays out without them, but the DM is probably fooling himself if he thinks that player is having as much fun as they would be if they were still contributing in some way to the fight.

Finding a way for the villain to take advantage (in a way that makes sense) while still keeping the player engaged is very hard sometimes, especially when something as trivial as a single spell can take the PC completely out of the fight.

For example, it might make perfect sense for the villain to open with a Save or Die spell that is almost certainly going to kill the party rogue. Now the rogue's player gets to sit there and watch as the epic battle unfolds, but is not being engaged. A better option with regards to entertainment would be to hit that rogue with something that temporarily disables him, or to hit him with that save or die near the end of the fight. Or, if you know your cleric has something to bring the rogue back into the fight a round or two later, go ahead and slap him with that Save or Die.

Stealing the wizard's spellbook can make for a great story arc. Doing it repeatedly is going to get very tiresome, and lead to problems. The same goes for the Paladin code. If it is your goal to try to get every Paladin to fall in every game you run, you have a problem, and it isn't the players who are picking the Paladin class.

Essentially, good encounter design leaves everyone feeling like they got to participate, have fun, and were useful in some way. This is, essentially, DMing 101.

If you have a group of players who all have fun with frequent character death, or actually enjoy it when they have to sit and watch a combat for hours, then obviously that makes encounter design way easier (because you can just fling things at the party without any concern for player engagement). Finding out what you and your players enjoy and catering to that is key.

If that's the definition, then I'll vehemently disagree with "C" for reasons I've already outlined. You're basically telling the DM he's not allowed to use a huge swath of spells and other status-effect inducers in the game, let alone use intelligent tactics in combat.

Not at all, but you are essentially telling him when such actions are viable for maintaining player engagement.

To put it another way:

You can have an encounter make sense.
You can have an encounter be fun.
You can have an encounter that is both of the above, but it is more difficult to do than just having the encounter make sense.

Making sure that you and your players are expecting and enjoying the same things is vital to being able to have that third piece more easily. Otherwise you wind up with complaints of "killer/unfair/bad DMs" and "whiny/entitled players" when in reality it isn't any of those things.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 12:13 PM

Actually, it's "lazy DMing" rather than arbitrary, in my opinion. A good player will suck it up, and accept that they now get to sit and watch for two hours while the combat plays out without them, but the DM is probably fooling himself if he thinks that player is having as much fun as they would be if they were still contributing in some way to the fight.

Finding a way for the villain to take advantage (in a way that makes sense) while still keeping the player engaged is very hard sometimes, especially when something as trivial as a single spell can take the PC completely out of the fight.

For example, it might make perfect sense for the villain to open with a Save or Die spell that is almost certainly going to kill the party rogue. Now the rogue's player gets to sit there and watch as the epic battle unfolds, but is not being engaged. A better option with regards to entertainment would be to hit that rogue with something that temporarily disables him, or to hit him with that save or die near the end of the fight. Or, if you know your cleric has something to bring the rogue back into the fight a round or two later, go ahead and slap him with that Save or Die.

Stealing the wizard's spellbook can make for a great story arc. Doing it repeatedly is going to get very tiresome, and lead to problems. The same goes for the Paladin code. If it is your goal to try to get every Paladin to fall in every game you run, you have a problem, and it isn't the players who are picking the Paladin class.

Essentially, good encounter design leaves everyone feeling like they got to participate, have fun, and were useful in some way. This is, essentially, DMing 101.

If you have a group of players who all have fun with frequent character death, or actually enjoy it when they have to sit and watch a combat for hours, then obviously that makes encounter design way easier (because you can just fling things at the party without any concern for player engagement). Finding out what you and your players enjoy and catering to that is key.
Would you agree or disagree that a Dispel Magic is "temporarily disabling" as opposed to outright killing the PC? To my mind, it qualifies as "temporarily disabling," and is apparently something DMs aren't supposed to use, judging from responses. If you disagree that it's "temporarily disabling," could you explain why (barring niche cases of flying over a cliff with no access to Feather Fall or similar)?

By that metric, what "temporarily disabling" option would you suggest that doesn't remove the PC from combat, prevent them from engaging the enemy efficiently, or remove their primary shtick?

EDIT:

Not at all, but you are essentially telling him when such actions are viable for maintaining player engagement.I saw no mention of the circumstances when it was viable, which means (to me) that there are no such circumstances.

Deadline

2013-01-09, 12:18 PM

Would you agree or disagree that a Dispel Magic is "temporarily disabling" as opposed to outright killing the PC? To my mind, it qualifies as "temporarily disabling," and is apparently something DMs aren't supposed to use, judging from responses. If you disagree that it's "temporarily disabling," could you explain why (barring niche cases of flying over a cliff with no access to Feather Fall or similar)?

Good question, and if you think there is an easy answer, there isn't. Without having a super detailed scenario, I'd ask the following question:

Does the PC, or anyone in the rest of the party, have a way to bring the PC back into the fight? If so, then the disabling is temporary. If not, you may want to avoid it if regular player engagement is what your group enjoys.

Alternatively, using Dispel Magic before escaping (and thus ending the encounter) is perfectly fine, because the player is only unengaged for a brief time (assuming player engagement is what you and your group finds to be fun).

I saw no mention of the circumstances when it was viable, which means (to me) that there are no such circumstances.

There's no real reason for the Gentlemen's Agreement listed above if your group doesn't find player engagement to be enjoyable (or at least not a necessity). Thus I am making the assumption that it revolves around player engagement (based on the references to making a character irrelevant or unable to meaningfully participate regularly).

Ah, I think I see where your objection is:

The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by fiat.

You are missing the fiat bit on the end of that. Still, the item doesn't read well to me either. I think it should be changed, given that the fiat bit is covered elsewhere in the other bullet points.

animewatcha

2013-01-09, 12:19 PM

If someone can dispel magic the buffs in place, then shouldn't the players change their priorities on who to target since there is an 'apparent' 'caster' ( or trap ) that can possibly lock down your caster/folks?

For those whose players got killed, often times there are multiple mobs right? You often trust these players to know how the mob 'should act' atleast in an OOC sense. Why not change the initiative of a mob here or there so that it can be the same as another mob. DM controls mob A. Dead player controls mob B. Helps to speed up the combat a bit. Keep in mind that this is for those players who can be trusted to not 'help the party'.

Deadline

2013-01-09, 12:45 PM

After looking at it some more, B, D and E all cover the "invalidating/negating player engagement" bit sufficiently, so I don't think C needs it. You could re-write C as:

The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter.

Or you could simply state:

The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players.

And leave the second part above to be implied/covered by items B, D and E.

Arcanist

2013-01-09, 12:46 PM

Deadline

2013-01-09, 12:48 PM

If these are rules are to be taken seriously they cannot imply anything. That is one of the reasons why we have the drowning rules :smallannoyed:

Which work fine unless deliberately treated in an idiotic manner to render drown-healing a real thing at the table.

But point taken.

I'd suggest that item C be changed to:

The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 01:07 PM

Actually, I wasn't missing the "by fiat" bit, but I'm unaware of any methods where the DM could be using NPCs to handicap a Player that will not be portrayed as "arbitrary," given the above metric that appears to indicate that a Wizard who casts spells that are neither blasting nor self-targeting is "arbitrarily handicapping a Player by fiat."

Arcanist

2013-01-09, 01:41 PM

I'd like to bring up the topic of DM's fiat while it is still fresh in our minds.

I see a lot of people arguing to the point that anything that would prove detrimental to the PC's as being called out as DM's fiat. To me? That is stupid. Why wouldn't a BBEG not carry around a scroll of Teleport to escape or fast travel, why wouldn't they have some method of disabling a caster? Honestly as long as it is within WBL of the appropriate villain they can and probably should have it if they plan to succeed at all.

The BBEG is entitled to just as much WBL as a single member of the PC's party and not a copper piece more. This WBL must be used to advance the BBEG's villainous schemes, however may not be used to purchase a Wish, a Miracle, a Limited Wish, or a Reality Revision (or item with the ability to cast or manifest these spells/powers).

All Mooks, Monsters, Villains and dictators will play at the PC's level of intelligence and to the best of there abilities so long as it does not directly contradict any rules made prior and hereafter.

I would like to add something that says that purposely ejecting PC's out of combat permanently is out and define temporary as less then 5 rounds.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 02:21 PM

I'd like to bring up the topic of DM's fiat while it is still fresh in our minds.

I see a lot of people arguing to the point that anything that would prove detrimental to the PC's as being called out as DM's fiat. To me? That is stupid. Why wouldn't a BBEG not carry around a scroll of Teleport to escape or fast travel, why wouldn't they have some method of disabling a caster? Honestly as long as it is within WBL of the appropriate villain they can and probably should have it if they plan to succeed at all.

The answer that I can glean from responses to this topic (and others like it) is that a BBEG wouldn't carry around a scroll of Teleport, or have a method of disabling a caster, because using them would be deprotagonizing to one or more of the PCs, and DMs should avoid that at virtually any cost.

I would like to add something that says that purposely ejecting PC's out of combat permanently is out and define temporary as less then 5 rounds. Given that I generally see people indicate that combat should be over in less than 5 Rounds (or, at least, all over but the shouting, e.g. the enemy is immobilized and just needs to be whittled down by the party Meatshield), I'm not sure what good a distinction like this does. 'Out of combat for 4 Rounds' appears to be identical to 'out of combat permanently' by the commonly assumed metrics bandied about on the boards.

Icewraith

2013-01-09, 02:41 PM

I think that perhaps the issue isn't repeatedly exploiting the weakness of a character, it's repeatedly exploiting it without allowing the player time to compensate.

For example, we have the BBEG wizard opening with a Fort-Save or Die on the Rogue. This is good tactics on th epart of the wizard.

But if the Rogue has gotten to the point of fighting a prepared wizard with access to SODs, shouldn't the players be expecting this sort of thing? Like instead of just "the rogue faces a SOD from the wizard" and boom no fun for the player, if you've thrown a few less lethal fort save monsters so the rogue has figured out "Hmm - I kinda suck at Fort saves and maybe need some protection vs. death magic and whatnot."

If the rogue keeps on running into wizards prepared with SODs and keeps on getting targeted in the first round, and the party doesn't try to compensate for that AND the Dm doesn't maybe drop something like one of those scarabs that absorb a limited number of death effects to give the players time to come up with a longer term solution, then the fault is sort of spread around.

Actually come to think of it, clauses d and e should already cover this sort of thing.

If there is any value in this thread it will come from the exploration of scenarios like this I think, so if nothing else we've got a general guide to game harmony instead of a codified list.

Vorr

2013-01-09, 02:42 PM

Current form:

The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, but not to arbitrarily handicap a player by fiat.
The players are expected to avoid providing the DM with easy hooks with which to render their characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not mandatory class features.
The DM is expected not to repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply with a minimum required amount of railroading.
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.

I'd say this list is horrible.

1.How does a player ''optimize less then the DM''? They play stupid? Talk about a dumb boring game.
2.This is a matter of opinion. If a single player does anything, then another player might feel bad. And you can't really do anything about say Joe who sits at the table and only says five words. So if your character takes any action, you will make Joe's irrelevant.
3.The first part is fine, but the second makes the world a lame Disney Movie. With this agreement, it could not even get dark at night as that would ''handcap players''. Or if the bad guys duck and cover from the Awesome Archer.
4.This kinda says ''nothing can effect the characters'', and really makes the game pointless.
5.And this is just saying all foes must be dumb.
6.This is fine if it must be said.
7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

I'd go more for:
1.By sitting down to play this group game with everyone you are agreeing to play a game with a group of people at all times. This means that you can not leave the group and have a solo adventure for any reason. You also must talk and intact with the other players continuously.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 03:03 PM

I'd say this list is horrible.

1.How does a player ''optimize less then the DM''? They play stupid? Talk about a dumb boring game.
2.This is a matter of opinion. If a single player does anything, then another player might feel bad. And you can't really do anything about say Joe who sits at the table and only says five words. So if your character takes any action, you will make Joe's irrelevant.
3.The first part is fine, but the second makes the world a lame Disney Movie. With this agreement, it could not even get dark at night as that would ''handcap players''. Or if the bad guys duck and cover from the Awesome Archer.
4.This kinda says ''nothing can effect the characters'', and really makes the game pointless.
5.And this is just saying all foes must be dumb.
6.This is fine if it must be said.
7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

I'd go more for:
1.By sitting down to play this group game with everyone you are agreeing to play a game with a group of people at all times. This means that you can not leave the group and have a solo adventure for any reason. You also must talk and intact with the other players continuously.So much to disagree with, in 1 simple rule. Assuming you meant "interact" and not "intact," "at all times" means that they can't ever stop playing, as written, so they can't go to school or work, or leave. "Can not leave the group. . . must talk and interact. . . continuously" means that everyone must - at all times - constantly be talking over each other without respite. A bathroom break or a pause to sip some Mountain Dew violates this rule.

ahenobarbi

2013-01-09, 03:09 PM

A bathroom break or a pause to sip some Mountain Dew violates this rule.

Well you could "talk" and "interact" even during bathroom break (nothing says you can't have a door separating you, but may be a bit awkward) or while drinking (just drink while the other person is speaking).

As fog school/ job/ sleep fluff it as taking a break about what you should say and it will be fine.

Vorr

2013-01-09, 03:27 PM

So much to disagree with, in 1 simple rule. Assuming you meant "interact" and not "intact," "at all times" means that they can't ever stop playing, as written, so they can't go to school or work, or leave. "Can not leave the group. . . must talk and interact. . . continuously" means that everyone must - at all times - constantly be talking over each other without respite. A bathroom break or a pause to sip some Mountain Dew violates this rule.

If you need to be rule lawyer about it, simply add: you may not be silent for more then five minutes without direct DM approval. Oh and might as well add: All decisions about the group must be made as a group and each member of the group must have a say. You may not just tag along. If you are unwillg or unable to do the social activities of this social game, they you may need to leave and go play a video game or something.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 03:39 PM

If you need to be rule lawyer about it, simply add: you may not be silent for more then five minutes without direct DM approval. Oh and might as well add: All decisions about the group must be made as a group and each member of the group must have a say. You may not just tag along. If you are unwillg or unable to do the social activities of this social game, they you may need to leave and go play a video game or something.

I would like to believe that you're joking, here.

Vorr

2013-01-09, 03:41 PM

I would like to believe that you're joking, here.

Well, this is quoted from my House Rule Booklet in the 1st section ''we are here to play a social game''.....

Raven777

2013-01-09, 03:43 PM

"Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, and reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense."

This is an absolute must and should be the cornerstone of the agreement. Nothing draws a game to a bickering halt more than the party bitching at each other because the LG fighter thinks the party should always obey local authorities and the CN sorcerer wants to raid the city watch garrison to get a MacGuffin back. Players should agree to put the needs of the party first in all circumstances. After all, paladin codes and divinity ethos are fictional. Wasting fellow players time and fun is not.

Namfuak

2013-01-09, 05:24 PM

I'd say this list is horrible.

1.By sitting down to play this group game with everyone you are agreeing to play a game with a group of people at all times. This means that you can not leave the group and have a solo adventure for any reason. You also must talk and intact with the other players continuously.

So what you are saying is that if I wanted to say, enter the Fist of the Forest prestige class, I'm not able to do so because it requires me to do some solo-RPing to get into the organization? Or are you saying every member of the party has to come along with me and watch me train, commenting the whole way? Perhaps you would be better off saying "If there is a cause for someone to enter a scenario alone, they should try to find a time to do it while other players are not meeting." I would also argue that some people are more interested in the combat aspect of the game and create characters to reflect that, so they shouldn't be penalized for generally going "My character is neither charismatic nor intelligent, so I'm going to let you guys handle the puzzles and social situations. Just point me at the bad guys."

This is an absolute must and should be the cornerstone of the agreement. Nothing draws a game to a bickering halt more than the party bitching at each other because the LG fighter thinks the party should always obey local authorities and the CN sorcerer wants to raid the city watch garrison to get a MacGuffin back. Players should agree to put the needs of the party first in all circumstances. After all, paladin codes and divinity ethos are fictional. Wasting fellow players time and fun is not.

I don't see anything wrong with a difference of opinion, that can be fun to RP. The problem arises when the only reason two party members even group with the other is because of player magnetism rather than ingame reasoning. If the LG fighter would never agree with the sorcerer's actions, perhaps one of them needs to leave the party and make a new character. Could be the same character mechanically and just different in terms of alignment.

Of course, the fighter or sorcerer could also remember what Rich said about character decision-making.

Venusaur

2013-01-09, 05:35 PM

I'd say this list is horrible.

1.How does a player ''optimize less then the DM''? They play stupid? Talk about a dumb boring game.
2.This is a matter of opinion. If a single player does anything, then another player might feel bad. And you can't really do anything about say Joe who sits at the table and only says five words. So if your character takes any action, you will make Joe's irrelevant.
3.The first part is fine, but the second makes the world a lame Disney Movie. With this agreement, it could not even get dark at night as that would ''handcap players''. Or if the bad guys duck and cover from the Awesome Archer.
4.This kinda says ''nothing can effect the characters'', and really makes the game pointless.
5.And this is just saying all foes must be dumb.
6.This is fine if it must be said.
7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

1. No, this means you don't bring Pun-Pun or something out of Team Solars when it's the DM's first time playing.

2. Just because the cleric can buff himself with DMM persist to be a far better fighter than the fighter doesn't mean he should. The rule says "completely and absolutely irrelevant", and doing an action won't make Joe feel that way.

3. Note the word arbitrarily. This is important. Night is not arbitrary. Saying "oh that cold is special cold and ignores your cold resistance" or "oh, that average guard Guardy McGuarderson can beat your 30+ bluff check even though he is just an average grunt is".

4.What? This rule is partially "don't make a 1 trick pony", and part "don't make the paladin make a decision that would make him fall no matter his response."

5. No, it is saying if the fighter builds a tripper, then the party shouldn't only fighting Dragons, Giant Centipedes, and gelatinous cubes.

6. Nothing to say here

7. and 8. 7 does say that every plot has some sort of railroad. However, players should make their own decisions sometimes, or at least make them feel like they are deciding where to go. Schrodinger's dungeon is a good technique to know.

toapat

2013-01-09, 06:20 PM

Can someone (either Toapat, as the original poster, or anyone else who is fairly certain they know what said poster meant by it) go into more detail about what this means? Some examples perhaps? The only thing I can think of is maybe the ranger's Track feat, which I've heard called "a plot railroad disguised as a class feature". And I'm not even sure that's what this is meant to mean, so i can haz clarification plz?

It tied into the following:

Class features, such as the Knight's, Paladin's, and Samurai's codes of conduct, which can easily be used to screw over a player, the Spellbooks of Archivists and Wizards, which can cripple either class if taken, and by extention cripple the party, and it was to tie into the rule removed by Tuggyne.

The WBL rule was badly worded, it should be along the lines of this:

The DM is expected to provide to classes who absolutely require it, WBL above and beyond that recommended, such as a cloak of Flight to a Fighter of 5th level. Spellcasters should receive less then standard WBL, by about one third, but, as compensation, are not required to maintain their spell component pouches.

I also must Amend my original post, with these rules:

No player is allowed to steal another player's equipment or resources, unless it is a consumable to be used immediately.

Players are expected to make well rounded characters, etiher mechanically or in backstory.

If that's the definition, then I'll vehemently disagree with "C" for reasons I've already outlined. You're basically telling the DM he's not allowed to use a huge swath of spells and other status-effect inducers in the game, let alone use intelligent tactics in combat.

EDIT: You should probably stick to killing the Characters, not the Players. :smallwink:

No, the DM is allowed to do so, He is not allowed to do it repeatedly. Because he is then breaking Condition 2

I'd say this list is horrible.

1.How does a player ''optimize less then the DM''? They play stupid? Talk about a dumb boring game.
2.This is a matter of opinion. If a single player does anything, then another player might feel bad. And you can't really do anything about say Joe who sits at the table and only says five words. So if your character takes any action, you will make Joe's irrelevant.
3.The first part is fine, but the second makes the world a lame Disney Movie. With this agreement, it could not even get dark at night as that would ''handcap players''. Or if the bad guys duck and cover from the Awesome Archer.
4.This kinda says ''nothing can effect the characters'', and really makes the game pointless.
5.And this is just saying all foes must be dumb.
6.This is fine if it must be said.
7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

I'd go more for:
1.By sitting down to play this group game with everyone you are agreeing to play a game with a group of people at all times. This means that you can not leave the group and have a solo adventure for any reason. You also must talk and intact with the other players continuously.

1: Big Stupid Fighter Translation: Do not start an Arms Race
2: the fact that pretty much any T1 can make a better fighter then the fighter. You are not to make the person who wanted to play Fighty McMeatshield feel like they are completely useless by doing things like casting Die or Die Harders.
3: As has been said, if the party has a Horizon Tripper, then they should not be exclusively be fighting things that can not be tripped. Night is not an arbitrary thing, A Dead Magic Field is.
4: No, it means the DM is expected not to use things like the Paladin code of conduct against paladins with a "You must make a choice, and each choice involves the ritual sacrifice of babies to perform."
5: Keyword is repeatedly, and i meant that the DM is not allowed to do things like have the God's spell library stolen multiple times in a campaign. Fighting intelligently is different from abusing the divine right as a DM to have the party traverse a corridor rigged with continuous, permanently armed, Dysjuction traps.
6:
7+8: The DM is to provide enough structure for a story to take place, such as painting a picture of interesting events and locals within a week's journey. He is not to have railroading such as the kind seen in the DM of the Rings webcomic that Shemus Young did for a few years.

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 06:33 PM

No, the DM is allowed to do so, He is not allowed to do it repeatedly. Because he is then breaking Condition 2I see no such language in the OP; I see a blanket ban of "not allowed" in the language, with no exceptions for scarcity of use. You're welcome to amend the OP's words to include such exceptions, but please acknowledge that it is, in fact, an amendment.

toapat

2013-01-09, 06:42 PM

I see no such language in the OP; I see a blanket ban of "not allowed" in the language, with no exceptions for scarcity of use. You're welcome to amend the OP's words to include such exceptions, but please acknowledge that it is, in fact, an amendment.

The OP has made changes based on incomplete information, i did not word part of the agreement clearly, and that has caused him to remove a significantly important clause based upon defects in the system

Roog

2013-01-09, 07:54 PM

7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

RPGs are not necessarily stories in that sense. Have you heard of a sandbox game?

Vorr

2013-01-09, 08:48 PM

So what you are saying is that if I wanted to say, enter the Fist of the Forest prestige class, I'm not able to do so because it requires me to do some solo-RPing to get into the organization? Or are you saying every member of the party has to come along with me and watch me train, commenting the whole way?

Well, a character can't just take a level in the middle of a game while they are deep in the Swamp of Doom. In this case we'd need to set up some time to solo game.

I would also argue that some people are more interested in the combat aspect of the game and create characters to reflect that, so they shouldn't be penalized for generally going "My character is neither charismatic nor intelligent, so I'm going to let you guys handle the puzzles and social situations. Just point me at the bad guys."

The game works better if everyone is on the same page. If two players are doing a social situation for two hours and the other three players are playing x-box in the other room...well, then you don't have a five person gaming group anymore.

toapat

2013-01-09, 08:55 PM

The game works better if everyone is on the same page. If two players are doing a social situation for two hours and the other three players are playing x-box in the other room...well, then you don't have a five person gaming group anymore.

Social has 2 parts:

The social Storytelling part, that anyone is allowed to play in, and the Social, mechanical part, where the face gets on their podium. If you have Mechanical social for 2 hours, the DM is doing something wrong.

TuggyNE

2013-01-09, 09:15 PM

Yeesh this has exploded. I'll try to respond to everything that hasn't been thoroughly covered already. First, though, it's occurred to me that each principle could benefit from an example or two, so suggestions for those would be greatly welcomed.

Nope, I think it's actually perfectly viable to present things like this as rules, either up front and formally, or as a side-effect of other mechanics. Which is something you actually see in other RPG systems.

"The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game..."

Umm... maybe the designers should be responsible for not introducing those flaws?

Look, I realise this is 3.xe D&D we're talking about, and it is what it is. But taking what are clearly rules-patches and talking about them as if they somehow weren't smacks badly of doublethink.

Hmm. Some of them are relatively specific to flaws in the system, yes. However, some of them are principles that are useful for nearly any game. I'll see if I can separate those out. In any case, while it is possible to make useful rules patches that are treated as rules (for example, the RACSD project linked in my sig), that's not the purpose here; rather, the purpose is to define guiding principles that should inspire any needed fixes on a high level.

Definitely agree with Tuggyne over DariusKane here...the Gentlemen's Agreement is worth spelling out, even if it's not a "rule" per se, since putting it in a semi-formal form of format (ha!) means everyone is more or less on the same page with regard to it. It can hardly be considered binding in this form, it's just a guideline, and if one side seems to be transgressing it and the other calls, the first can't claim that they obeyed the letter of the law, because it's not a law in the first place.

Yes, exactly. There are already a lot of "letter of the law" provisions in D&D; what is needed is a set of high-level principles that are respected for the spirit, not the letter.

Well item familiars give you an insanely huge power boost specifically because they offer the risk of it being taken away. Flaws only give a single feat so they shouldn't be anywhere near that big, but there's no point in letting a player take a flaw if it never comes up. If your character can't get out of his bedroll in the morning without being mobbed by black cats, the DM is clearly overdoing it. But if I took that flaw, I would expect to see a black cat at least once during a campaign; otherwise the GM might as well just have said "take an extra feat" and spared me the pencil lead it took to write down the Flaw.

Item familiars are kind of poorly designed, because of that massive binary difference: either the character is substantially underpowered, because they lost their familiar, or they're significantly overpowered, because they still have it. That's not a good design decision.

However, if you do use them anyway, care should be taken to ensure that the drawback is neither meaningless nor omnipresent.

If that's the definition, then I'll vehemently disagree with "C" for reasons I've already outlined. You're basically telling the DM he's not allowed to use a huge swath of spells and other status-effect inducers in the game, let alone use intelligent tactics in combat.

That wasn't the intent, but I suppose it could be misunderstood that way. Hopefully the new form is clearer and more correct.

The issue is that the player should have some decision to make next round, this is what's important. This is a principle of game design, you can hit the character with some setback, as long as the player is still making decisions it's ok. Grounding a fighter who then shoots the flying monster for 1d8+4 (str bow) against a monster with DR 10/slashing then he has a 1/4 chance of doing 1-2 damage. If he doesn't have any other options in the combat then you've stopped the player from playing. Grounding the wizard and the wizard can still blast or cast a SoS, try and fly again, or buff her flying allies. The wizard has options.
Actually, it's "lazy DMing" rather than arbitrary, in my opinion. A good player will suck it up, and accept that they now get to sit and watch for two hours while the combat plays out without them, but the DM is probably fooling himself if he thinks that player is having as much fun as they would be if they were still contributing in some way to the fight.

These are also good explanations. In particular, good players will often be willing and able to compensate for mistakes or flaws in DMing, and vice versa. The goal here, however, is to minimize the need for forbearance and explain what's involved in compensating for those who are willing to learn.

Would you agree or disagree that a Dispel Magic is "temporarily disabling" as opposed to outright killing the PC? To my mind, it qualifies as "temporarily disabling," and is apparently something DMs aren't supposed to use, judging from responses.

Honestly, I'd peg (greater) dispel magic as acceptably disabling in most cases. But that's just my intuition.

If someone can dispel magic the buffs in place, then shouldn't the players change their priorities on who to target since there is an 'apparent' 'caster' ( or trap ) that can possibly lock down your caster/folks?

This is usually the case anyway. Sensible in-character tactics very often focus on any apparent casters in the enemy ranks; ever heard the phrase "geek the mage first"?

After looking at it some more, B, D and E all cover the "invalidating/negating player engagement" bit sufficiently, so I don't think C needs it. You could re-write C as:

The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter.

That seems good, or at least better.

If these are rules are to be taken seriously they cannot imply anything. That is one of the reasons why we have the drowning rules :smallannoyed:

Not so. These aren't rules, they're principles; as such, the gist should be taken, rather than over-literal interpretations.

Still, clarity is good wherever possible. Does the new wording of C work better?

Actually, I wasn't missing the "by fiat" bit, but I'm unaware of any methods where the DM could be using NPCs to handicap a Player that will not be portrayed as "arbitrary," given the above metric that appears to indicate that a Wizard who casts spells that are neither blasting nor self-targeting is "arbitrarily handicapping a Player by fiat."

Er... the usual usage of "fiat" here is something that's unreasonably clever or unnaturally precise for the enemy to have plausibly been able to figure out: i.e., the DM simply said "oh yeah, let's have you target weakness X here for a bit". So I'm not sure why you'd think fiat would be so all-inclusive. Can you expand on this, or suggest alternate wordings?

I see a lot of people arguing to the point that anything that would prove detrimental to the PC's as being called out as DM's fiat.

In this thread? Which?

I would like to add something that says that purposely ejecting PC's out of combat permanently is out and define temporary as less then 5 rounds.

Hmm. I'd reword that to be closer to "for essentially the entirety of the combat", in case it's common for fights to go on for 17 rounds in a given group (or for only 2 rounds, I suppose). Added to C.

The answer that I can glean from responses to this topic (and others like it) is that a BBEG wouldn't carry around a scroll of Teleport, or have a method of disabling a caster, because using them would be deprotagonizing to one or more of the PCs, and DMs should avoid that at virtually any cost.

At the risk of repeating myself annoyingly, which responses? That is not something I would say. (Teleport, in particular, should very seldom irritate players anywhere near as much as, say, force caging them for a day.

I think that perhaps the issue isn't repeatedly exploiting the weakness of a character, it's repeatedly exploiting it without allowing the player time to compensate.

For example, we have the BBEG wizard opening with a Fort-Save or Die on the Rogue. This is good tactics on th epart of the wizard.

But if the Rogue has gotten to the point of fighting a prepared wizard with access to SODs, shouldn't the players be expecting this sort of thing? Like instead of just "the rogue faces a SOD from the wizard" and boom no fun for the player, if you've thrown a few less lethal fort save monsters so the rogue has figured out "Hmm - I kinda suck at Fort saves and maybe need some protection vs. death magic and whatnot."

If the rogue keeps on running into wizards prepared with SODs and keeps on getting targeted in the first round, and the party doesn't try to compensate for that AND the Dm doesn't maybe drop something like one of those scarabs that absorb a limited number of death effects to give the players time to come up with a longer term solution, then the fault is sort of spread around.

Yeah, this is a pretty fair explanation of the intent there.

Actually come to think of it, clauses d and e should already cover this sort of thing.

Hopefully, yes. They might benefit from a bit of expansion/clarification, though, like most of the list.

If there is any value in this thread it will come from the exploration of scenarios like this I think, so if nothing else we've got a general guide to game harmony instead of a codified list.

Heh, probably.

I'd say this list is horrible.

And a cheery good morning to you too! :smalltongue:

1.How does a player ''optimize less then the DM''? They play stupid? Talk about a dumb boring game.

The principle does not say, or even imply I think, that the players should be substantially less optimized than the DM, only that they should not be markedly more optimized.

2.This is a matter of opinion. If a single player does anything, then another player might feel bad. And you can't really do anything about say Joe who sits at the table and only says five words. So if your character takes any action, you will make Joe's irrelevant.

This has already been mentioned earlier; the solution was to add another principle, but I was waiting for more input to be sure I had it right. (Can't satisfy everyone.)

3.The first part is fine, but the second makes the world a lame Disney Movie. With this agreement, it could not even get dark at night as that would ''handcap players''. Or if the bad guys duck and cover from the Awesome Archer.

I believe this has been taken care of (except for willful misinterpretations, I suppose).

4.This kinda says ''nothing can effect the characters'', and really makes the game pointless.

No... it does say "no easy ways to knock characters out", but that is not at all the same as saying "no ways to knock characters out at all". Besides the examples earlier, consider the case of a Frenzied Berserker/Knight of Thay in the same party as a Red Wizard of Thay: they can be efficiently controlled in most cases by their partymate, but it's also a dangerous hole in their defenses that can be trivially exploited by a well-prepared enemy. As such, that's a rather lousy way to build a character.

Furthermore, it does say that the DM can and should take advantage of such holes...

5.And this is just saying all foes must be dumb.

... but only within reason. Foes need not be dumb, they need only lack perfect coordination and knowledge (and thus often attack areas that are reasonably well-defended, or sometimes almost immune).

6.This is fine if it must be said.

Let's just assume it does.

7. and 8.Any story has to be a Railroad, otherwise it goes nowhere. Even if the players think the game is railless, it's just an illusion.

Oddly, I've only heard this attitude from certain types of players/DMs. And there are a lot of players and DMs that would vehemently disagree, and point to extensive experience to demonstrate this. So I'm inclined to suspect that there really are ways to avoid railroading (for all practical purposes), but they are only practical with certain assumptions that not everyone shares.

Given that, I might actually adjust this to note that G is not always applicable, or perhaps tweak it otherwise.

I'd go more for:
1.By sitting down to play this group game with everyone you are agreeing to play a game with a group of people at all times. This means that you can not leave the group and have a solo adventure for any reason. You also must talk and intact with the other players continuously.

Completely banning solo adventures (even if it makes sense, even if the other players are not present, even if you're the only player in the campaign to begin with), but not addressing something as basic as different levels of optimization or munchkinism? Priorities could use some serious work, seems to me.

If you need to be rule lawyer about it, simply add: you may not be silent for more then five minutes without direct DM approval. Oh and might as well add: All decisions about the group must be made as a group and each member of the group must have a say. You may not just tag along. If you are unwillg or unable to do the social activities of this social game, they you may need to leave and go play a video game or something.

Ah. Again, I don't really understand why semi-passive participation is so evil and wrong; how does it hurt anything? I wouldn't consider this suitable for the majority of games, although it may well be useful for certain groups. However, it should be a voluntary agreement, rather than the default assumption of essentially all D&D groups.

This is an absolute must and should be the cornerstone of the agreement. Nothing draws a game to a bickering halt more than the party bitching at each other because the LG fighter thinks the party should always obey local authorities and the CN sorcerer wants to raid the city watch garrison to get a MacGuffin back. Players should agree to put the needs of the party first in all circumstances. After all, paladin codes and divinity ethos are fictional. Wasting fellow players time and fun is not.

Thank you for the kind words! :smallsmile:

To avoid messing up the numbering, I've added it to the end, though I do agree it's one of the more important principles at the very least.

I don't see anything wrong with a difference of opinion, that can be fun to RP. The problem arises when the only reason two party members even group with the other is because of player magnetism rather than ingame reasoning. If the LG fighter would never agree with the sorcerer's actions, perhaps one of them needs to leave the party and make a new character. Could be the same character mechanically and just different in terms of alignment.

Yes; the key is that if two characters simply cannot get along at all in the same party, they shouldn't be in the same party, and likewise if two characters simply cannot face the same challenges reasonably.

3. Note the word arbitrarily. This is important. Night is not arbitrary. Saying "oh that cold is special cold and ignores your cold resistance" or "oh, that average guard Guardy McGuarderson can beat your 30+ bluff check even though he is just an average grunt is".

4.What? This rule is partially "don't make a 1 trick pony", and part "don't make the paladin make a decision that would make him fall no matter his response."

5. No, it is saying if the fighter builds a tripper, then the party shouldn't only fighting Dragons, Giant Centipedes, and gelatinous cubes.

I felt like highlighting these as particularly sensible, though I also agree with the rest of your post. :smallwink:

The WBL rule was badly worded, it should be along the lines of this:

The DM is expected to provide to classes who absolutely require it, WBL above and beyond that recommended, such as a cloak of Flight to a Fighter of 5th level. Spellcasters should receive less then standard WBL, by about one third, but, as compensation, are not required to maintain their spell component pouches.

... since spell component pouches don't generally cost anywhere near the amount of WBL given up, even if they only contain X number of spells' worth, this doesn't really jive numerically. (It may be a useful houserule to ensure game balance, but it's not self-evidently the only way to manage this.)

No player is allowed to steal another player's equipment or resources, unless it is a consumable to be used immediately.

Hmm. Something that covers stealing should probably go in there.

Players are expected to make well rounded characters, etiher mechanically or in backstory.

Fair enough, although I'd prefer a slightly different emphasis.

The rest I basically agree with for the most part, and note the other changes I've made.

The game works better if everyone is on the same page. If two players are doing a social situation for two hours and the other three players are playing x-box in the other room...well, then you don't have a five person gaming group anymore.

True. I don't think the correct solution is necessarily to require that everyone build characters that can efficiently handle social situations, much less to require that they always participate even if their characters would plausibly make the situation worse and harder. Instead, the game should be tuned to the composition of the party, within reason; if there's a lot of BSFs, it would probably be unwise to set up a ton of plot-central social occasions, and if you do want a lot of plot-central social encounters, you should make sure everyone is able to contribute to some extent.

Which, I believe, is actually covered adequately by principles B, C, D, and I.

ngilop

2013-01-09, 09:32 PM

These principles are intended as broad guidelines for D&D games, and should be interpreted by their spirit primarily.

The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant.
The DM is to provide dynamic, active, and challenging encounters for the players, and should seek to maintain player engagement as much as possible in the encounter, usually by ensuring that no character is effectively removed from all or most of the combat.
The players are expected to avoid providing the DM with easy hooks with which to render their characters irrelevant. The DM is allowed to use any of these hooks so long as they are not mandatory class features.
The DM is expected not to repeatedly take advantage of easy hooks with which to render a character irrelevant, unless the character has already had ample opportunity to develop reasonable protections for those.
The players are not to use inherent flaws in the rules to break the game.
The players are expected to comply with such railroading as may be essential to a smooth game.
The DM is not to use excessive railroading.
Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, and reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense.

This was started with a recent post:

Of these, I agree with all but the sixth for the majority of games.

Is there anything this list is missing, any polish that could be applied to the wording, or anything that isn't really necessary? I'll start off with a few minor tweaks to spelling/capitalization.

I love this Tuggyne guy I am writing up a PbP for this forum currently ( actaully been doing it for the last few weeks and still have a few to go, LOL) and I am def including this in teh big 16 somewhere. ITS THAT DAMN IMPORTANT!!

Amphetryon

2013-01-09, 09:56 PM

the usual usage of "fiat" here is something that's unreasonably clever or unnaturally precise for the enemy to have plausibly been able to figure out: i.e., the DM simply said "oh yeah, let's have you target weakness X here for a bit". So I'm not sure why you'd think fiat would be so all-inclusive. Can you expand on this, or suggest alternate wordings?
I have seen it argued - here, in gaming groups, and on other forums - that any time a BBEG (or a LBEG, for that matter) acts to preemptively negate any of a given Player's options to engage said BBEG, it is an example of DM Fiat. The example I gave before of a Character having his Fly spell Dispelled in the opening exchange of a battle with a BBEG has been pointed to as a specific case of DM Fiat/Bad DMing. The original verbiage (since changed, and much improved) appeared to agree with the assessment that any NPC who can counteract a PCs actions is doing so via a form of DM Fiat - even if the NPC should have the information and tools necessary to do so be virtue of the story so far.

At the risk of repeating myself annoyingly, which responses? That is not something I would say. (Teleport, in particular, should very seldom irritate players anywhere near as much as, say, force caging them for a day.See the recent thread by Norin about why one would play anything but a Tier 1, starting around post #68, until one of those involved in the side discussion specifically instructed me in the thread that I was to put him on my ignore list. That example is not the only one, but it is freshest in my mind and, to my knowledge, the most recent.

toapat

2013-01-09, 09:58 PM

... since spell component pouches don't generally cost anywhere near the amount of WBL given up, even if they only contain X number of spells' worth, this doesn't really jive numerically. (It may be a useful houserule to ensure game balance, but it's not self-evidently the only way to manage this.)

Hmm. Something that covers stealing should probably go in there.

Fair enough, although I'd prefer a slightly different emphasis.

1: of the 760k a Wizard has at level 20, 460k minimum of that is entirely open to player choice, by comparison, of the 760k a Fighter, paladin, or barbarian has, 800k of that is locked down in predesignated equipment. In exchange for limiting their Insane overhead, the full casters are granted reprieve from an extremely irritating mechanic of the game. The Mundanes get what they need when they need it, the gods have to wait 2 more levels to complete their manditory equipment.

2: The agreement wasnt really up for discussion

Edit: And when i mean fiat, i mean when the DM clearly invokes Rule 0, Be it through divine intervention, or by going entirely out of the way of the presented character in order to do something. A BBEG who has 1 spell slot permanently invested in preparing Greater Dispel Magic, should be allowed to use that spell slot. On the other hand, if last weak he was a fighter with an exceptionally low wisdom and charisma score, he should not next week show up with witty retorts and a newly made Wand of Dispel magic

Raven777

2013-01-09, 10:09 PM

I don't see anything wrong with a difference of opinion, that can be fun to RP. The problem arises when the only reason two party members even group with the other is because of player magnetism rather than ingame reasoning. If the LG fighter would never agree with the sorcerer's actions, perhaps one of them needs to leave the party and make a new character. Could be the same character mechanically and just different in terms of alignment.

Of course, the fighter or sorcerer could also remember what Rich said about character decision-making.

But the agreement should be binding from character creation onward. Which means that from the start, Player A shouldn't roleplay a thievery hating Paladin if he's aware that Player B plans on roleplaying a kleptomaniac rogue. And Player C shouldn't roleplay an undead hunting cleric when Player D mentioned a desire to be a Dread Necromancer.

Efforts should be made from the start to come up with character personalities that will actually work together as a party and not attempt to foil each other. Or at least develop towards the above over time. But too often, players take the conflict the opposite way until a confrontation arises, and then expect a character to leave and a player to whip out a new character sheet. That should NOT be how it goes.

Or in short, it is the roleplayers' job to make sure that Teeth Clenched Teamwork (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork) evolves toward Fire-Forged Friends (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FireForgedFriends).

TuggyNE

2013-01-10, 12:48 AM

I love this Tuggyne guy I am writing up a PbP for this forum currently ( actaully been doing it for the last few weeks and still have a few to go, LOL) and I am def including this in teh big 16 somewhere. ITS THAT DAMN IMPORTANT!!

Heh :smile: :redface:

I have seen it argued - here, in gaming groups, and on other forums - that any time a BBEG (or a LBEG, for that matter) acts to preemptively negate any of a given Player's options to engage said BBEG, it is an example of DM Fiat. The example I gave before of a Character having his Fly spell Dispelled in the opening exchange of a battle with a BBEG has been pointed to as a specific case of DM Fiat/Bad DMing. The original verbiage (since changed, and much improved) appeared to agree with the assessment that any NPC who can counteract a PCs actions is doing so via a form of DM Fiat - even if the NPC should have the information and tools necessary to do so be virtue of the story so far.

See the recent thread by Norin about why one would play anything but a Tier 1, starting around post #68, until one of those involved in the side discussion specifically instructed me in the thread that I was to put him on my ignore list. That example is not the only one, but it is freshest in my mind and, to my knowledge, the most recent.

Hmm. It's hard to be sure, even upon rereading the thread (which, if you remember, actually spawned this one), that that was the intended meaning; perhaps I'm reading in a more moderate meaning than was actually stated. Answerer is given to hyperbole, but he seemed to disagree (indeed, rather strongly) with your characterizations of his position. So that suggests that it was partly an unfortunate miscommunication.

Looking at it more, it's probably a matter of some nuance, and pretty near the borderline between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" for most. For example, dispelling a caster would usually be considered acceptable, because there's always something more for them to do and because it's an obvious precaution, but dispelling a fighter less so, mostly because it has unfortunate metagame consequences (though not because it's out of character for the enemy to do so). So you can't reduce it down to "dispel bad, blast good", because it's just not that simple. (As Deadline mentioned earlier.)

Putting it another way, not only does a DM have to make an encounter make sense for the characters involved, they must also make it fun for the players. It's a two-pronged problem. (I think someone earlier in this thread mentioned essentially this formulation, actually.)

In any case, I do disagree that (greater) dispel magic is always out of bounds, or even most of the time, and I don't think that's a reasonable position to take.

1: of the 760k a Wizard has at level 20, 460k minimum of that is entirely open to player choice, by comparison, of the 760k a Fighter, paladin, or barbarian has, 800k of that is locked down in predesignated equipment. In exchange for limiting their Insane overhead, the full casters are granted reprieve from an extremely irritating mechanic of the game. The Mundanes get what they need when they need it, the gods have to wait 2 more levels to complete their manditory equipment.

Again, that's not an unreasonable houserule, but I'm not really convinced it's suitable as a transcending principle that essentially all games should follow as a matter of course. And the justification is essentially cobbled together; I prefer something that's logical organically, or else makes no pretense that it's anything but a metagame compensation for a specific flaw.

(Also, spell component pouches are almost insultingly easy to manage, and not really irritating at all; get one or two at first level and another whenever you get another spell level, and it'll be essentially impossible to ever lack what you need to cast, barring an enemy specializing in Chained shatter or similar nigh-fiat; even sundering won't be effective, and none of them ever run out.)

2: The agreement wasnt really up for discussion

Za?

Or in short, it is the roleplayers' job to make sure that Teeth Clenched Teamwork (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TeethClenchedTeamwork) evolves toward Fire-Forged Friends (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FireForgedFriends).

Indeed.

Tr011

2013-01-10, 05:12 AM

LordBlades

2013-01-10, 05:46 AM

I'm not sure why so many people talk of casters as plain stronger characters. That's just not true. The strongest classes are casters, yes, but there are also weak casters (like the Shugenja, Healer, Warlocks and that Necro class from dragon compendium) and strong mundane classes (like hulking hurler, warhulk, many warshapers and other properly optimized mundane characters that outshadow the weak casters with ease).

First of all, warlock isn't a caster, it uses an entirely different subsystem.

Secondly, casters are plain stronger on average. The strongest non-casters are indeed stronger than the weakest casters but the average caster is quite a bit stronger than the average non-caster.

The overwhelming majority of casters are tier 3 and above (IIRC only healer and adept are lower) while the overwhelming majority of non-casters are tier 3 and below (with even tier 3 being made up of a minority of non-casters, and there's absolutely 0 of them in tier 1 and 2)

Darius Kane

2013-01-10, 08:02 AM

The overwhelming majority of casters are tier 3 and above (IIRC only healer and adept are lower)
And Warmage.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 08:41 AM

Looking at it more, it's probably a matter of some nuance, and pretty near the borderline between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" for most. For example, dispelling a caster would usually be considered acceptable, because there's always something more for them to do and because it's an obvious precaution, but dispelling a fighter less so, mostly because it has unfortunate metagame consequences (though not because it's out of character for the enemy to do so). So you can't reduce it down to "dispel bad, blast good", because it's just not that simple. Let's say the caster in this example is played intelligently, because, you know, Wizard. For instance, he's purchased a simple Hat of Disguise to look like another Fighter, so that the fact that he puts on his Wizard robe and hat doesn't automatically make him the primary target for the BBEG. Now, please explain how the BBEG's opening salvo of Dispel Magic is "acceptable" against Fighter A (who is the Wizard in disguise) but not against Fighter B (who is actually the Fighter). I'm curious about the in-game justification as well as the metagame one, here.

TopCheese

2013-01-10, 09:01 AM

Axier

2013-01-10, 09:23 AM

The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.

Problem with this line, I feel that a proper gentleman can over optimize, and still behave in accordance with the party without outshining them.

Make the wizard, and never use his real power to do anything but make other people look good, and protect the entire party from the DM, should he make a mistake and try to kill you all.

Also, I feel that the gentlemen's agreement can be boiled down into one simple message:
Don't be an arse, help people have fun.

Imperials and their damn lists... :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 10:50 AM

Well there are now 2 fighters coming at said BBEG and they probably have magic buffing them. The BBEG doesn't know what sort of magic but he would rather not find out (could be something he never seen before).

Surprise round: Dispel Magic on Fighter A
First round of combat: Dispel Magic on Fighter B

But hey I might be thinking to logically. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah this has happened before to my group, but then again we were walking around town with our guard down as the bard was shouting (singing) about how we killed a ton of evil cult guys.

Right, but by the previously established metrics, Dispel Magic on Fighter B was bad DMing, while Dispel Magic on Fighter A was good DMing (or at least, was not bad DMing).

Deadline

2013-01-10, 11:00 AM

Right, but by the previously established metrics, Dispel Magic on Fighter B was bad DMing, while Dispel Magic on Fighter A was good DMing (or at least, was not bad DMing).

I'm fairly certain the explanation for why your Dispel Magic scenario was potentially a poor choice was given to you multiple times (in this thread), so would you mind just coming out and saying exactly what it is you are driving at?

You appear to either completely not understand what is being discussed (unlikely, because I've read many of your other posts on the forum and you are quite clearly knowledgeable), or you are trying to drive at a point (and failing, because no one is engaging what appears to be a baiting tactic).

In the other thread that was the originator for this one, you already got one user to request that you put him on your ignore list for, essentially, not arguing in good faith (at least, that's what it looked like to me, maybe you two have a history here I don't know about). What is it you are driving at here?

tl;dr - It seems like you have some wisdom bomb you are dying to drop here, so bomb's away!

TopCheese

2013-01-10, 11:14 AM

Right, but by the previously established metrics, Dispel Magic on Fighter B was bad DMing, while Dispel Magic on Fighter A was good DMing (or at least, was not bad DMing).

I don't find it to be either bad nor good DMing. Hell one action can't show you who is a good or bad DM.

Perhaps one of the best things in a fight would be for the caster to be hit with a dispel magic. This just means the monster didn't hit the fighter with a SoD (I can hear it in the rolls when Fighters have to roll a will save). So really if I was a caster and got hit by a dispel magic I would look over to the fighter and say "you're welcome" and then begin to tell the laws of reality to sit down and shut up (as a popular elf would say).

Don't get me wrong though... If every monster started having dispel magic, amf, dead zone artifacts, disjunction, and really good counter spelling (without knowing this going into the campaign) then yeah that can be seen as bad DMing. But a fight here or there? Nah.

As a DM myself I tend to change spells from permanent effects to 1d4 (or higher die) rounds of effect (whatever the monster used). A Medusa hits a player with her gaze and turns him to stone? 1d4 rounds of stone (fort save each round) and blamo they are back in the game. PC hit by dispel magic? 1d4 rounds later the magic isn't suppressed anymore. I've found this creates a sense of "oh crap" but still let's the player thrive to live long enough to get their full ability back (sight, magic items, etc).

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 11:29 AM

I'm fairly certain the explanation for why your Dispel Magic scenario was potentially a poor choice was given to you multiple times (in this thread), so would you mind just coming out and saying exactly what it is you are driving at?

You appear to either completely not understand what is being discussed (unlikely, because I've read many of your other posts on the forum and you are quite clearly knowledgeable), or you are trying to drive at a point (and failing, because no one is engaging what appears to be a baiting tactic).

In the other thread that was the originator for this one, you already got one user to request that you put him on your ignore list for, essentially, not arguing in good faith (at least, that's what it looked like to me, maybe you two have a history here I don't know about). What is it you are driving at here?

tl;dr - It seems like you have some wisdom bomb you are dying to drop here, so bomb's away!
What I'm getting at is that I don't grok the explanations given. I don't see a legitimate reason that holds up to in-game and metagame scrutiny as to why targeting one apparent Fighter is good DMing and targeting another apparent Fighter is bad DMing.

As someone who strives to be a good DM, I'm trying desperately to understand the clear lines of demarcation which apparently you and others readily see, and why they are what they are.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 11:30 AM

What I'm getting at is that I don't grok the explanations given.

Did you disagree with my argument regarding player engagement? If so, why?

Maybe if I can understand what about my argument isn't clear or is objectionable, I can try to clarify or fix it.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 11:44 AM

Did you disagree with my argument regarding player engagement? If so, why?

Maybe if I can understand what about my argument isn't clear or is objectionable, I can try to clarify or fix it.

I don't see how your argument regarding Player engagement answers the question from both an in-game and metagame perspective. I don't see how having the Wizard target the faux Fighter and not the real Fighter sustains immersion and maintains Player engagement better than the inverse. I don't see how that choice is anything other than a metagame conceit in any circumstance where the Wizard is actually acting intelligently, rather than randomly - and if the Wizard is acting randomly (maybe he's a Wild Mage) the notion that random choice A is somehow a *good* choice while random choice B is somehow a *bad* choice on the part of the DM becomes even more unfathomable to me.

In short, I don't see how a Wizard using sub-optimal tactics is more engaging for the Players than a Wizard using tactics appropriate for his INT score; if anything, a Wizard who uses sub-optimal tactics would seem to be less engaging because it is my firm belief that sub-optimal actions for a genius-level NPC are jarring to verisimilitude in a majority of cases.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 11:52 AM

I don't see how your argument regarding Player engagement answers the question from both an in-game and metagame perspective. I don't see how having the Wizard target the faux Fighter and not the real Fighter sustains immersion and maintains Player engagement better than the inverse.

Ah, this is a new dispel magic scenario as opposed to the one which eliminates the fighter from participating, yes?

I don't see how that choice is anything other than a metagame conceit in any circumstance where the Wizard is actually acting intelligently, rather than randomly - and if the Wizard is acting randomly (maybe he's a Wild Mage) the notion that random choice A is somehow a *good* choice while random choice B is somehow a *bad* choice on the part of the DM becomes even more unfathomable to me.

I don't think the DM should necessarily ever have their NPC's act randomly. I did make the case that the DM should endeavor to ensure that their NPC's avoided taking actions that would deny a player from participating in the game for extended periods of time. Because most of the time, for many players, simply watching and not participating is boring. And forcing those players into that sort of role for potentially hours (combats can take a long time) is "bad" DMing.

Do you disagree with any of that part of my assessment? I should also probably ask whether you think player engagement is important. Because if you don't, there isn't much point in my continuing.

Put bluntly, do you think a player will have more fun participating in a 2-hour combat, or sitting the entire two hours and watching the combat because his character has been removed from play.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 12:49 PM

Ah, this is a new dispel magic scenario as opposed to the one which eliminates the fighter from participating, yes?Nope, it's exactly the same scenario. We have a Fighter who got someone (perhaps the party Wizard) to cast Fly on him, in a party with a Wizard who flies and wears a Hat of Disguise so that he appears to be another Fighter. Targeting the former (the Fighter) is WrongBadFun - or so I have been told repeatedly across multiple threads on more boards than just this one; targeting the latter (the Wizard in Fighter's garb) is acceptable - again, so I have been told repeatedly. Please explain why this is true from an in-game and metagame perspective.

I don't think the DM should necessarily ever have their NPC's act randomly. I did make the case that the DM should endeavor to ensure that their NPC's avoided taking actions that would deny a player from participating in the game for extended periods of time. Because most of the time, for many players, simply watching and not participating is boring. And forcing those players into that sort of role for potentially hours (combats can take a long time) is "bad" DMing.

Do you disagree with any of that part of my assessment? I should also probably ask whether you think player engagement is important. Because if you don't, there isn't much point in my continuing.

Put bluntly, do you think a player will have more fun participating in a 2-hour combat, or sitting the entire two hours and watching the combat because his character has been removed from play. I really feel like we're talking past each other, here. Tell me why targeting the one PC is good DMing and good storytelling, while targeting the other is bad DMing and bad storytelling.

Yes. Player engagement is important. A Player who chooses a Wizard and finds that he's the target of the BBEG in a majority of cases despite a Hat of Disguise and before his actions indicate he's not just another Figher is not being engaged on an in-game and metagame level, but being punished by the DM for his Class choice, as far as I can tell and as far as various Players I've known would have me believe. Do you agree, or disagree?

toapat

2013-01-10, 12:53 PM

Za?

I wrote the original post exactly as the rules of the Gentleman's Agreement is clearly understood by the community (people not connecting being properly optimized to the DM's ability to the DM/player Arms race is not my fault), and added a rule to fix the fact that by no measure is WBL even remotely correct. Casters have vast swaths of economic overhead, while mundanes and equipment reliant classes have less then none.

To present it in another way:

Each class is expected to have 200k GP in floating wealth at level 20. DMs are to grant appropriate gear at appropriate times to all classes and players, Ignoring the presented standards in the Dungeon Masters Guide. Spellcasters are to be compensated for their overal reduced Wealth by being granted Spell component pouches which they are not to abuse, and do not have to maintain the pouches.

Player possessions are divided into three parts: Gear, Utilities, and consumables. Gear consists of any equipment a character may use by applying the item to an item slot, as well as attribute tomes, and does not count against the 200k of wealth if they do not have activatable spell abilities. Utilities consist of general adventuring gear that is reusable, such as a 10 foot pole, 50 feet or rope, or a handy haversack. Consumables consist of potions, scrolls and wands, and count against a character's wealth so long as they are possessed and unused. Wands count as having as many charges as they were purchased with until exhausted.

Namfuak

2013-01-10, 01:19 PM

Deadline

2013-01-10, 01:24 PM

Nope, it's exactly the same scenario. We have a Fighter who got someone (perhaps the party Wizard) to cast Fly on him, in a party with a Wizard who flies and wears a Hat of Disguise so that he appears to be another Fighter. Targeting the former (the Fighter) is WrongBadFun - or so I have been told repeatedly across multiple threads on more boards than just this one; targeting the latter (the Wizard in Fighter's garb) is acceptable - again, so I have been told repeatedly. Please explain why this is true from an in-game and metagame perspective.

I'm assuming that it's because the dispel takes said fighter completely out of the fight, whereas the Wizard has the ability to still participate? (Did I miss where this scenario was detailed?)

Just for clarification, if the dispel takes the wizard completely out of the fight, I'd qualify that as a poor choice for the DM to make. It might make complete sense for the villain to do so, but it's still a poor choice in regards to player engagement.

In other words, actions that the NPC can take that completely negate player involvement are poor actions for the DM to choose if player engagement is something he is shooting for.

I really feel like we're talking past each other, here. Tell me why targeting the one PC is good DMing and good storytelling, while targeting the other is bad DMing and bad storytelling.

We may be talking past each other, I'm not sure. I'm trying to get at the meat of the disconnect, and I'm not sure hurling hypothetical scenarios at each other is necessary or useful. I've been trying to boil it down to a specific principle regarding player engagement. But I'll bite I guess and try it your way (see above and below).

Yes. Player engagement is important. A Player who chooses a Wizard and finds that he's the target of the BBEG in a majority of cases despite a Hat of Disguise and before his actions indicate he's not just another Figher is not being engaged on an in-game and metagame level, but being punished by the DM for his Class choice, as far as I can tell and as far as various Players I've known would have me believe. Do you agree, or disagree?

Well sure, if the DM decides to constantly pick on one character class and has NPC's use bizarre tactics that they wouldn't possibly know just to make life harder for that class, there's a problem. Is anyone aside from Vorr arguing that this sort of thing is ok for the DM to do? (I may have missed it if they are).

To be perfectly clear, I do think specifically targeting the wizard without a good rationale indicates an issue. However my specific argument is in regards to how that targeting affects the wizard's participation in the encounter. In other words, there are two potential problems that I'm seeing there. One is a DM with a chip on his should for wizards (or the wizard player), and the other is a potentially poor choice of NPC action that takes the wizard completely out of the fight. You can have one without the other (i.e. the dispel doesn't take the wizard out of the fight, but the DM still has that chip on his shoulder).

The thing that makes examples like this difficult to use is that there is a great deal of subjectivity in them. You've mentioned yourself that a player might perceive that they are being picked on or are being forced to sit on the sidelines (when they actually aren't). That's actually a somewhat different issue of managing player expectations (I'd rather not go there until we've ironed out this, if you don't mind).

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 01:35 PM

To be perfectly clear, I do think specifically targeting the wizard without a good rationale indicates an issue.How does a BBEG act in the opening of a combat, having won Initiative and having been forewarned of the PCs approach with time to buff beforehand, without creating this issue? Blasting reeks of poor tactical choices - either by the BBEG or by the party, for putting themselves in Optimal Lightning Bolt Formation. BFC can often trivialize the entire encounter, making an otherwise good matchup nigh un-winnable for the PCs simply by dint of the Initiative roll. Targeting a specific Character - even if that Character is arguably the most powerful member of the party (the Wizard) - 'indicates an issue.'

EDIT:
(Did I miss where this scenario was detailed?)Because it was originally posited that targeting the Wizard was good and targeting other than the Wizard was bad without regard for the specific scenario, I must believe that those who hold this position feel that it is true in the vast majority of scenarios, if not every one of them. If my immediate example of a Wizard with a Hat of Disguise is some sort of Strawman that only happens in a tiny fraction of games. . . well, that means I've seen a majority of games and discussions that talk about something that almost never happens.

Roog

2013-01-10, 01:37 PM

I wrote the original post exactly as the rules of the Gentleman's Agreement is clearly understood by the community.

What community is that?

ahenobarbi

2013-01-10, 01:48 PM

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 01:57 PM

I think it's a good example of a problem with having characters from significantly different tiers in a party. In the scenario you described DM has to choose between:
- Punishing wizard player for playing wizard (with no in-game reason), which is a bad idea.
- Making fighter useless, which is a bad idea.
- Making evil guy behave dumb (not dispell at all), which is a bad idea.

A solution is to not have Fighter and Wizard in the same party.

How would this be improved if the Fighter were a Warblade, and the Wizard a Sorcerer (so as to be within a single Tier of each other)?

ahenobarbi

2013-01-10, 02:13 PM

How would this be improved if the Fighter were a Warblade, and the Wizard a Sorcerer (so as to be within a single Tier of each other)?

Dispelled warblade should have something to do (I'm not sure, my gropu doesn't use ToB but it's tier 3 so it should, right?). So dispelling warblade shouldn't run players fun. So you can treat the characters roughly the same (so player of sorcerer will not be punished for playing stronger class).

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 02:17 PM

toapat

2013-01-10, 02:20 PM

Dispelled warblade should have something to do (I'm not sure, my gropu doesn't use ToB but it's tier 3 so it should, right?). So dispelling warblade shouldn't run players fun. So you can treat the characters roughly the same (so player of sorcerer will not be punished for playing stronger class).

No, it doesnt. Warblade is simply Fighter with a higher floor, lower relative ceiling, and less high end damage. Technically he is still T4, because they have nothing that mechanically makes them useful outside of combat. Their skill list is equally weak, and they still rely on things like the Wings of flight. there is apparently a Shadow Hand maneuver that functions as some sort of fly speed, but in that case, you are comparing the guy with more feats then he could ever need, and the guy who has a starting leg up on his competition but is chained to his floor.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-10, 02:28 PM

No, it doesnt. Warblade is simply Fighter with a higher floor, lower relative ceiling, and less high end damage. Technically he is still T4, because they have nothing that mechanically makes them useful outside of combat. Their skill list is equally weak, and they still rely on things like the Wings of flight. there is apparently a Shadow Hand maneuver that functions as some sort of fly speed, but in that case, you are comparing the guy with more feats then he could ever need, and the guy who has a starting leg up on his competition but is chained to his floor.

No matter how many times you say that the Warblade is tier 4, you do not stop being wrong. His skill list has significant out of combat utility and gives him a way to interact with social encounters. Mountain Hammer and other maneuvers can be used outside of combat, and the ability to gain Scent (as well as mobility from Tiger Claw) is not to be underestimated. Start backing your statements up with facts.

toapat

2013-01-10, 02:57 PM

No matter how many times you say that the Warblade is tier 4, you do not stop being wrong. His skill list has significant out of combat utility and gives him a way to interact with social encounters. Mountain Hammer and other maneuvers can be used outside of combat, and the ability to gain Scent (as well as mobility from Tiger Claw) is not to be underestimated. Start backing your statements up with facts.

And skills have time and again been completely thrown out with the tier system.

He has a total of 1 additional actually useful non-combat skill over the fighter, and all of the mobility skills that every class should have but dont. the 2 Knowledge skills dont even have functional value in the game, unless the DM is that serious in making a system of laws for each nation in the setting. Know: History doesnt matter in any sense other then maybe as a modifier to Disguise checks to maintain a persona.

Anything rendered irrelevant by a commoner before 3rd level (the level that on this forum appears to be the preferred level for a low level start) does not count as additional functionality. The rules also mandate considerations such as axes being more efficient against wood being able to deal efficiently with materials in the Rules compendium. In combat Mountain Hammer counts, Out of it it doesnt unless the DM is going to start a Tome of Horrors type dungeon.

Scent is useless at anything other then 5' without track and survival, a skill which you dont get as a class skill without spending feats to specifically add it.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-10, 03:49 PM

@ the dispel on fighter VS dispel on wizard discussion:

I can't help but think this is built on a very faulty premise; that the fighter is taken out of the fight completely by a single dispel just because he loses his fly or overland flight effect.

If it's fly his source for the spell effect is still somewhere nearby. Why is it he can't simply get it cast again? Also, dispel or greater dispel shouldn't be a guaranteed hit unless the effect is from a magic item with a low caster level such as a wand or scroll, since the party's caster is presumably of a high enough caster level that his spells have a decent chance of resisting dispell attempts aimed at them.

It's a little more plausible for overland flight since it was presumably cast with the understanding that it wouldn't be needed more than once per day, per character, but even then it should have a fair chance to resist dispelling and it's source (the caster) is still near at hand to either bring back the effect for a shorter duration by fly or else limit or remove the enemy's ability to fly.

Unless losing his flight effect is guaranteed or near-guaranteed death (and the party has no source for revivify or similar) it's -not- taking the fighter out of the fight permanently, just temporarily, barring multiple poor tactical decisions on the part of the group as a whole.

It's not punishing the character and his player for picking a poor class, it's a natural consequence of stacking several poor tactical decisions on top of each other; specifically, relying on an easily dispelled flight effect, having no means of restoring the flight effect if it is dispelled, and having no means of limiting the enemy's ability to fly. Whether or not the fighter, personally, is responsible for all of these decisions is irrelevant to the fact they've all been made.

If the enemy trying his level best to defeat the party within the limits of his capabilities and intellect is bad DM'ing, then I'll happily accept the title of Bad DM. Especially if the bad guy's winning is the result of such poor tactical thinking on the part of the entire party.

Kid gloves? What the hell are those?:smallamused:

More to the point: this argument is based around a subjective point; where the line is drawn between what's challenging and what's just mean.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 03:56 PM

Unless losing his flight effect is guaranteed or near-guaranteed death (and the party has no source for revivify or similar) it's -not- taking the fighter out of the fight permanently, just temporarily, barring multiple poor tactical decisions on the part of the group as a whole.While I agree, the original argument stated that it was bad DMing even if the Fighter in this example had a backup weapon of a Longbow and was still able to engage the enemy with it, because he was no longer able to contribute at the level which he desired and (apparently) deserved.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 05:45 PM

While I agree, the original argument stated that it was bad DMing even if the Fighter in this example had a backup weapon of a Longbow and was still able to engage the enemy with it, because he was no longer able to contribute at the level which he desired and (apparently) deserved.

If that's the argument you think I've been making, you're wrong. I've been specifically referring to taking the character out of play. My initial understanding of said scenario was that the fighter had no ranged option. But then, I don't recall a wizard with a Hat of Disguise in the initial description of said scenario either. And the NPC targeting the wizard despite his precautions was a new addition. This is why I wanted to try and discuss the specific argument I was talking about, rather than try to hit moving targets in the form of specific scenarios.

As far as your attempt to put words in my mouth, you may want to re-read what I said, if you are interested. If it matters, I stated that there were two potential problems you were describing. One was a player engagement issue, the other was a "DM is out to punish wizards". I went on to state that if the DM was targeting the wizard without a reason other than "Must punish wizards", that indicates an issue. And keep in mind that I was trying to specifically address the scenario you gave, as you requested. You then took a single line out of that argument (and the context of the scenario) and attempted to ... what? I don't even know where you were going with that. You either didn't understand that I was discussing in context to your scenario, or you are attempting to claim I said something else and argue against that.

There are, of course, a whole host of entirely valid reasons a bad guy might target any particular character, but I don't see how that is related to your example or the point I was trying to make at all. (Unless the example has morphed again into something else and I missed it again.)

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 05:51 PM

If that's the argument you think I've been making, you're wrong.I never said it was your argument. I said it was the original argument - the one that has gotten me to go on and on trying to clarify the intent of the Gentleman's Agreement, and that predates this particular thread.

Please do not misquote me in order to tell me I'm mistaken.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 06:01 PM

Question for Amphetryon, do you take issue with my arguments about player engagement?

Deadline

2013-01-10, 06:04 PM

If you are implying that I have directly misquoted you, please show me where I did so.

I pointed that out in my post earlier where you took a single line from my post, yanked it very far out of context, and attempted to argue against something I didn't say. If you were arguing against someone else and quoted my post by accident, by all means let me know.

At any rate, see my edit. The "not fun" comment was inappropriate and said in irritation, so I've removed it.

Edit - It's post #68 specifically, if it that was somehow unclear.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 06:15 PM

Question for Amphetryon, do you take issue with my arguments about player engagement?

I've yet to understand how targeting one PC over another has any effect on Player engagement. If an NPC uses methods that threaten to take a PC out of the combat for X number of rounds, that appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forth by more than one poster against my position and by Players I have known - regardless of whether the PC is a Wizard, a Fighter, or any other Class. If, on the other hand, an NPC uses methods that are clearly suboptimal, that tampers with verisimilitude and appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forward by various posters on this and other forums and by Players I have known. Therefore, I don't take issue with it, but I don't see it as cogent to the point I've been arguing. If I've missed some nuance of Player engagement that you think clarifies this, let me know.

EDIT: I was not arguing against someone else in #68, I was arguing against the scenario as presented to that point.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 06:43 PM

I've yet to understand how targeting one PC over another has any effect on Player engagement. If an NPC uses methods that threaten to take a PC out of the combat for X number of rounds, that appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forth by more than one poster against my position and by Players I have known - regardless of whether the PC is a Wizard, a Fighter, or any other Class. If, on the other hand, an NPC uses methods that are clearly suboptimal, that tampers with verisimilitude and appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forward by various posters on this and other forums and by Players I have known. Therefore, I don't take issue with it, but I don't see it as cogent to the point I've been arguing. If I've missed some nuance of Player engagement that you think clarifies this, let me know.

Fair enough. I'll go into some detail. Just as a quick aside, if you find that you are having to address too many different discussions at once, I can easily bow out or wait until you've hit those other points.

Let's try this in bullet points:

I don't think targeting one player over another has any real effect on player engagement, that was in reference to the whole "DM out to get wizards" bit - and I mentioned that it was an entirely different issue than player engagement. So feel free to ignore that with regards to the point I'm making.
I think any action that takes a player and sidelines them (i.e. keeps them from participating) harms player engagement. As you've pointed out, some of this is necessary by the D&D rules, and is necessary to avoid tampering with verisimilitude. I agree with this.
I think that if Player Engagement is something you find important in your games, Encounter design and NPC decisions become much more difficult than if you just "use the best tactics for that NPC". Yes, this means that a bad guy might not use the optimal spell against the party up front. As I stated before, finding a choice that both makes sense and keeps players in the fight is the optimal for player engagement. That doesn't mean it can't be detrimental to the player(s). A player may sulk that their super tactic doesn't work, but they'll likely be more upset if they don't get to do anything at all. (Sometimes, there's just no pleasing 'em).
The "Gentleman's Agreement", as I see it, is a codified list of behaviors that prioritizes player engagement.
Any real-world application of the Gentleman's Agreement is going to be at least partially subjective, by necessity.
If your group doesn't find Player Engagement important, none of this applies.

Edit - To address your reply about post #68, could you explain the statement below then? Because it looked to me like you were claiming that it was equivalent with what I was saying, and it's not even close. If you meant something else by it, then your meaning isn't clear to me.

Targeting a specific Character - even if that Character is arguably the most powerful member of the party (the Wizard) - 'indicates an issue.'

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 06:54 PM

I'm only pulling out one bullet point:

I think that if Player Engagement is something you find important in your games, Encounter design and NPC decisions become much more difficult than if you just "use the best tactics for that NPC". Yes, this means that a bad guy might not use the optimal spell against the party up front. As I stated before, finding a choice that both makes sense and keeps players in the fight is the optimal for player engagement. That doesn't mean it can't be detrimental to the player(s). A player may sulk that their super tactic doesn't work, but they'll likely be more upset if they don't get to do anything at all. (Sometimes, there's just no pleasing 'em)

As I've said - or tried to, at any rate - both "use the best tactics for that NPC" and "bad guy might not use the optimal spell against the party up front" have been called detrimental to Player Engagement, in my experience. Given that basis, I'm left to believe there must be some other option which is not detrimental to Player Engagement, because both options thus far have clear room for improvement. An effort which you can improve upon is not best effort, by definition, unless the word "best" has been robbed of meaning.

EDIT:
To be perfectly clear, I do think specifically targeting the wizard without a good rationale indicates an issue. However my specific argument is in regards to how that targeting affects the wizard's participation in the encounter. In other words, there are two potential problems that I'm seeing there. One is a DM with a chip on his should for wizards (or the wizard player), and the other is a potentially poor choice of NPC action that takes the wizard completely out of the fight. You can have one without the other (i.e. the dispel doesn't take the wizard out of the fight, but the DM still has that chip on his shoulder).
I've bolded the portion I originally quoted; I've yet to figure out an option of targeting any PC that doesn't indicate an issue, as I've tried to make clear. If the NPC targets the Wizard, my experience and reading on the subject on various PbP forums says there's bound to be some bellyaching from the Player in question for having been targeted without the NPC knowing ahead of time that he's the Wizard and therefore probably the most dangerous member of the party. (If the NPC targets the Fighter, the various discussions I've had and seen would indicate that the NPC is behaving in a way detrimental to Player Engagement, but see above). Could you clarify why having the NPC target the Wizard - or any other given member of the party - is an indicator to you that the DM has a chip on his shoulder?

Deadline

2013-01-10, 07:05 PM

As I've said - or tried to, at any rate - both "use the best tactics for that NPC" and "bad guy might not use the optimal spell against the party up front" have been called detrimental to Player Engagement, in my experience. Given that basis, I'm left to believe there must be some other option which is not detrimental to Player Engagement, because both options thus far have clear room for improvement. An effort which you can improve upon is not best effort, by definition, unless the word "best" has been robbed of meaning.

I agree, but I don't think there is an option in 3.5 D&D that isn't potentially detrimental to Player Engagement. Honestly, I think the best you can shoot for is "least detrimental". And even that will have to be determined by you and your group. Without being on the same page, one player's "minor inconvenience" is another's "totally useless!" Making sure that your player's at least have something to do most of the time is hard enough. Trying to find the always optimal path might drive a DM to the edge of sanity.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 07:09 PM

EDIT: I've bolded the portion I originally quoted; I've yet to figure out an option of targeting any PC that doesn't indicate an issue, as I've tried to make clear. If the NPC targets the Wizard, my experience and reading on the subject on various PbP forums says there's bound to be some bellyaching from the Player in question for having been targeted without the NPC knowing ahead of time that he's the Wizard and therefore probably the most dangerous member of the party. (If the NPC targets the Fighter, the various discussions I've had and seen would indicate that the NPC is behaving in a way detrimental to Player Engagement, but see above). Could you clarify why having the NPC target the Wizard - or any other given member of the party - is an indicator to you that the DM has a chip on his shoulder?

Sorry for the double post. I see where my disconnect is then, thank you for explaining that. In reference to your question, I was under the impression we were referring to a scenario where the DM was specifically "out to get wizards". If that detail is left out, then I see no issue necessarily with the choice of target. Players will always be disappointed when their character suffers a setback. I'm not sure you can do anything about that (it may even be human nature).

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 07:14 PM

I agree, but I don't think there is an option in 3.5 D&D that isn't potentially detrimental to Player Engagement. Honestly, I think the best you can shoot for is "least detrimental". And even that will have to be determined by you and your group. Without being on the same page, one player's "minor inconvenience" is another's "totally useless!" Making sure that your player's at least have something to do most of the time is hard enough. Trying to find the always optimal path might drive a DM to the edge of sanity.

And when defaulting to either choice gets you (read: me) called a "bad DM," repeatedly, in multiple forums/real life groups? Sounds like there must be some expectation of a better option.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 07:18 PM

And when defaulting to either choice gets you (read: me) called a "bad DM," repeatedly, in multiple forums/real life groups? Sounds like there must be some expectation of a better option.

You're probably running into different group preference at that point. The important question is if your gaming group calls you a bad DM or not. Random people on the internet? F* 'em.

demigodus

2013-01-10, 07:25 PM

How does a BBEG act in the opening of a combat, having won Initiative and having been forewarned of the PCs approach with time to buff beforehand, without creating this issue? Blasting reeks of poor tactical choices - either by the BBEG or by the party, for putting themselves in Optimal Lightning Bolt Formation. BFC can often trivialize the entire encounter, making an otherwise good matchup nigh un-winnable for the PCs simply by dint of the Initiative roll. Targeting a specific Character - even if that Character is arguably the most powerful member of the party (the Wizard) - 'indicates an issue.'

Simply. If you are playing at a level where players have only one, easily dispellable means of flight, and once that is dispelled they are unable to engage flying enemies anymore (using 1+d8 damage attacks on DR 10 creatures in case you crit doesn't count), don't throw fights at them where all the enemies are flying. By not having the BBEG at a level where not having 24/7 recastable flight is a poor tactic, and not having every enemy have natural flight.

Personally, I would consider this poor combat design, rather then bad DM'ing though. You created a fight that, CR be damned, is not an appropriate challenge level for some party members if enemies play intelligently.

The reason people are generally okay with targetting the wizard, is that he can usually deal with it, and get back in the fight.

Of course, sometimes fights like this are appropriate in my opinion. Specifically, if you want your players to run. They shouldn't be the norm though.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-10, 07:33 PM

And when defaulting to either choice gets you (read: me) called a "bad DM," repeatedly, in multiple forums/real life groups? Sounds like there must be some expectation of a better option.

"You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time. You cannot please all of the people all of the time."

I don't remember who originally said or wrote this quote (or even if that's an accurate quote) but it's one of the single most important things to remember when talking or thinking about any kind of social interaction. This includes DM'ing a game of D&D.

"People suck." -George Carlin (R.I.P.)

Also a very important thing to remember, but less so than the first one. :smallbiggrin:

demigodus

2013-01-10, 07:41 PM

If the enemy trying his level best to defeat the party within the limits of his capabilities and intellect is bad DM'ing, then I'll happily accept the title of Bad DM. Especially if the bad guy's winning is the result of such poor tactical thinking on the part of the entire party.

Kid gloves? What the hell are those?:smallamused:

More to the point: this argument is based around a subjective point; where the line is drawn between what's challenging and what's just mean.

Frankly, I think the line should take the party's optimization level and intelligence familiarity with the rules (if they want to play like idiots, that isn't your fault) into account. So give them advice on how to better build characters, obtain cheap/effective means of flight if you are going to have aerial battles with flight dispelling

Then, at the appropriate levels it is the fault of the players if a single dispel magic puts them out of commission. If they are level 5, the wizard spent all his slots on the fly spell because the BBEG is a raptoran and all of his minions fly (and no one built an archer), there really is nothing the party can do if the BBEG dispels their flight. If they had extra flight spells saved, someone would need to be sitting on the ground watching the show. At level 12~15? Yeah, plenty of counters available to players... once you make sure they understand the rules and optimization.

TuggyNE

2013-01-10, 07:45 PM

Let's say the caster in this example is played intelligently, because, you know, Wizard. For instance, he's purchased a simple Hat of Disguise to look like another Fighter, so that the fact that he puts on his Wizard robe and hat doesn't automatically make him the primary target for the BBEG. Now, please explain how the BBEG's opening salvo of Dispel Magic is "acceptable" against Fighter A (who is the Wizard in disguise) but not against Fighter B (who is actually the Fighter). I'm curious about the in-game justification as well as the metagame one, here.

In-game, without use of arcane sight or other divinations, it would not be acceptable to peg the Wizard as an actual Wizard. However, as mentioned, I don't see a major problem with dispel magic in most situations in any case; if the BBEG is flying and has DR or similar such that the Fighter would only be useful with an un-dispelled flight item/spell, of course that changes the balance. I don't see the inconsistency here.

Problem with this line, I feel that a proper gentleman can over optimize, and still behave in accordance with the party without outshining them.

Make the wizard, and never use his real power to do anything but make other people look good, and protect the entire party from the DM, should he make a mistake and try to kill you all.

The "nuclear deterrent" option? I suppose that's true... perhaps it should be reworded to "don't optimize enough to make the DM's job unusually hard", but that sounds a bit off as well.

Also, I feel that the gentlemen's agreement can be boiled down into one simple message:
Don't be an arse, help people have fun.

... Yes. That's why the title is "making it more precise". :smalltongue:

Right, but by the previously established metrics, Dispel Magic on Fighter B was bad DMing, while Dispel Magic on Fighter A was good DMing (or at least, was not bad DMing).

I think I'm seeing the problem; you're perceiving this as some sort of black and white "under X conditions Y is the most evil thing you can do, but under X+1, it's super-great!" That's not what's going on here; rather, it's a pragmatic assessment of the balance point between a couple of principles in some tension (namely, "make enemies make sense" and "make encounters fun for players, usually including keeping them playing"). That's also the main explanation for why you're getting a range of answers, why seemingly minor changes to the scenario can provoke significant changes, and so on.

Basically, there is no actual set of rules for this, and I don't think attempting to formulate rules will really be productive. All we can do is explain the purpose of the principles, give some examples of how the tension between them plays out (perhaps with differences between different groups), and leave the rest up to judgement.

As someone who strives to be a good DM, I'm trying desperately to understand the clear lines of demarcation which apparently you and others readily see, and why they are what they are.

They aren't clear lines of demarcation; they're tipping points between two important and frequently-opposed principles. It's a bit like the old Iron Triangle of engineering: fast, cheap, thorough — pick any two. (In this case it might be "simple, in-character, even-handed — pick any two".)

I don't see how your argument regarding Player engagement answers the question from both an in-game and metagame perspective. I don't see how having the Wizard target the faux Fighter and not the real Fighter sustains immersion and maintains Player engagement better than the inverse. I don't see how that choice is anything other than a metagame conceit in any circumstance where the Wizard is actually acting intelligently, rather than randomly - and if the Wizard is acting randomly (maybe he's a Wild Mage) the notion that random choice A is somehow a *good* choice while random choice B is somehow a *bad* choice on the part of the DM becomes even more unfathomable to me.

In short, I don't see how a Wizard using sub-optimal tactics is more engaging for the Players than a Wizard using tactics appropriate for his INT score; if anything, a Wizard who uses sub-optimal tactics would seem to be less engaging because it is my firm belief that sub-optimal actions for a genius-level NPC are jarring to verisimilitude in a majority of cases.

I think here you're missing the impact of one of the two principles entirely, and are trying to judge entirely by "does it keep the player in", which will inevitably give a skewed result.

I wrote the original post exactly as the rules of the Gentleman's Agreement is clearly understood by the community (people not connecting being properly optimized to the DM's ability to the DM/player Arms race is not my fault)

As I mentioned initially, your post was indeed quite close, but I'm not so sure it's "exactly precisely the way the community understands it"; if anything, the community here seems to consider it could use a bit more polish. Nothing wrong with that! First drafts are never perfect, after all. :smallwink:

and added a rule to fix the fact that by no measure is WBL even remotely correct. Casters have vast swaths of economic overhead, while mundanes and equipment reliant classes have less then none.

To present it in another way:

Each class is expected to have 200k GP in floating wealth at level 20. DMs are to grant appropriate gear at appropriate times to all classes and players, Ignoring the presented standards in the Dungeon Masters Guide. Spellcasters are to be compensated for their overal reduced Wealth by being granted Spell component pouches which they are not to abuse, and do not have to maintain the pouches.

Player possessions are divided into three parts: Gear, Utilities, and consumables. Gear consists of any equipment a character may use by applying the item to an item slot, as well as attribute tomes, and does not count against the 200k of wealth if they do not have activatable spell abilities. Utilities consist of general adventuring gear that is reusable, such as a 10 foot pole, 50 feet or rope, or a handy haversack. Consumables consist of potions, scrolls and wands, and count against a character's wealth so long as they are possessed and unused. Wands count as having as many charges as they were purchased with until exhausted.

Once more, this is the part that needs the most work. Not necessarily because it's wrong, but because it's not self-evidently right; it hasn't been explored very thoroughly. The problem of caster/non-caster wealth has been discussed quite a bit, yes, but the exact amount of differential that should be applied has never to my knowledge been really established. Maybe that could go on another thread for now?

EDIT: Because it was originally posited that targeting the Wizard was good and targeting other than the Wizard was bad without regard for the specific scenario, I must believe that those who hold this position feel that it is true in the vast majority of scenarios, if not every one of them.

The bolded is... hmm. I don't think that's actually the case. It is certainly not something I would argue at all, though I can't speak for everyone. (It's quite possible that previous posts were only considering a subset of situations carelessly, and that further clarification along those lines would eventually have separated out the different situations.)

I think it's a good example of a problem with having characters from significantly different tiers in a party. In the scenario you described DM has to choose between:
- Punishing wizard player for playing wizard (with no in-game reason), which is a bad idea.
- Making fighter useless, which is a bad idea.
- Making evil guy behave dumb (not dispell at all), which is a bad idea.

A solution is to not have Fighter and Wizard in the same party.

That is a solution, but a bit off from the real point, I think; it's still possible to DM well for a mixed Fighter-Wizard party, though it is harder, for this and other reasons.

@ the dispel on fighter VS dispel on wizard discussion:

I can't help but think this is built on a very faulty premise; that the fighter is taken out of the fight completely by a single dispel just because he loses his fly or overland flight effect.

If it's fly his source for the spell effect is still somewhere nearby. Why is it he can't simply get it cast again? Also, dispel or greater dispel shouldn't be a guaranteed hit unless the effect is from a magic item with a low caster level such as a wand or scroll, since the party's caster is presumably of a high enough caster level that his spells have a decent chance of resisting dispell attempts aimed at them.

It's a little more plausible for overland flight since it was presumably cast with the understanding that it wouldn't be needed more than once per day, per character, but even then it should have a fair chance to resist dispelling and it's source (the caster) is still near at hand to either bring back the effect for a shorter duration by fly or else limit or remove the enemy's ability to fly.

Unless losing his flight effect is guaranteed or near-guaranteed death (and the party has no source for revivify or similar) it's -not- taking the fighter out of the fight permanently, just temporarily, barring multiple poor tactical decisions on the part of the group as a whole.

It's not punishing the character and his player for picking a poor class, it's a natural consequence of stacking several poor tactical decisions on top of each other; specifically, relying on an easily dispelled flight effect, having no means of restoring the flight effect if it is dispelled, and having no means of limiting the enemy's ability to fly. Whether or not the fighter, personally, is responsible for all of these decisions is irrelevant to the fact they've all been made.

If the enemy trying his level best to defeat the party within the limits of his capabilities and intellect is bad DM'ing, then I'll happily accept the title of Bad DM. Especially if the bad guy's winning is the result of such poor tactical thinking on the part of the entire party.

It would be fair to classify all this as "an easy hook to render a character irrelevant", and as such, something the DM should reasonably pull a few times before the party gets wise to it. (If the party never shapes up, the DM should perhaps address some pointed words before their next dispel.)

More to the point: this argument is based around a subjective point; where the line is drawn between what's challenging and what's just mean.

Yeah, it's definitely subjective.

While I agree, the original argument stated that it was bad DMing even if the Fighter in this example had a backup weapon of a Longbow and was still able to engage the enemy with it, because he was no longer able to contribute at the level which he desired and (apparently) deserved.

Not exactly. The argument assumed substantial DR that the longbow couldn't pierce, such that the Fighter DPR went down by a factor of 25-100 times (from "relevant" to "wet noodle", essentially).

I've yet to understand how targeting one PC over another has any effect on Player engagement. If an NPC uses methods that threaten to take a PC out of the combat for X number of rounds, that appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forth by more than one poster against my position and by Players I have known - regardless of whether the PC is a Wizard, a Fighter, or any other Class.

Correct. The argument, for what it was worth, was that a Wizard targeted in such a way would not be taken out of the combat, either effectively or entirely, because they still had a lot of things they personally could do that did not depend on anyone else. That is, a mere dispel magic is largely incapable of taking a Wizard out of the fight.

Of course, there are lots of situations where a dispel would be unable to really take a Fighter out either, and probably more than a few situations where (most) Wizards really would be taken out of the fight to some extent, at least for a few rounds while they pull their buffs back up. That's where much of the variance comes from.

If, on the other hand, an NPC uses methods that are clearly suboptimal, that tampers with verisimilitude and appears to be detrimental to Player engagement, by arguments put forward by various posters on this and other forums and by Players I have known.

It is, yes. That's part of what makes it so tricky; a DM must not only use plausibly (semi-)optimal methods, but must avoid having the consequences of those methods massively reduce player engagement. Sometimes there is no good option at all.

As I've said - or tried to, at any rate - both "use the best tactics for that NPC" and "bad guy might not use the optimal spell against the party up front" have been called detrimental to Player Engagement, in my experience. Given that basis, I'm left to believe there must be some other option which is not detrimental to Player Engagement, because both options thus far have clear room for improvement. An effort which you can improve upon is not best effort, by definition, unless the word "best" has been robbed of meaning.

In this case, it's "lesser of two evils" style of "best"; attempting to minimize loss of player engagement.

Amphetryon

2013-01-10, 07:59 PM

In this case, it's "lesser of two evils" style of "best"; attempting to minimize loss of player engagement.When both options have left me with advice from Players (mine and on the forums) that they expect me to do better next time, you can see why I would endeavor to find a third (or fourth, etc.) option.

Deadline

2013-01-10, 08:04 PM

When both options have left me with advice from Players (mine and on the forums) that they expect me to do better next time, you can see why I would endeavor to find a third (or fourth, etc.) option.

Your best bet is probably to go back and have that discussion about game preference and expectations. Ask players if they'd prefer intelligent tactics that lead to them sitting out the encounter, or if they'd prefer a different approach. Heck, try running a few one-shots in each particular style so your players have a frame of reference.

And importantly, if you don't reach agreement within the group, shoot for pleasing the majority, because that's probably the best you can hope for.

And if you ever manage to find that third option, please drop me a PM. :smallsmile:

toapat

2013-01-10, 08:53 PM

Once more, this is the part that needs the most work. Not necessarily because it's wrong, but because it's not self-evidently right; it hasn't been explored very thoroughly. The problem of caster/non-caster wealth has been discussed quite a bit, yes, but the exact amount of differential that should be applied has never to my knowledge been really established. Maybe that could go on another thread for now?

actually, it is pretty self evident if you look at stuff that a Fighter was expected to have at a given level. The exact numbers have never been crunched, but Casters always have a massive pile of cash floating for whatever they care to buy (assuming they are only spending on their +11 attributes, they can have bought both items by lvl 11), while Mundanes will always be under a tight crunch for equipment. I typically invest money into tomes when i price check, but typically the game expects you to have multiple weapons for different functions by late game. For archers and Crossbowmen, thats easily solved, but melee need an entire new weapon for each type of DR they need to bypass

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-10, 09:14 PM

actually, it is pretty self evident if you look at stuff that a Fighter was expected to have at a given level. The exact numbers have never been crunched, but Casters always have a massive pile of cash floating for whatever they care to buy (assuming they are only spending on their +11 attributes, they can have bought both items by lvl 11), while Mundanes will always be under a tight crunch for equipment. I typically invest money into tomes when i price check, but typically the game expects you to have multiple weapons for different functions by late game. For archers and Crossbowmen, thats easily solved, but melee need an entire new weapon for each type of DR they need to bypass

That the tomes and manuals are expected, much less required, is a gravely faulty assumption IMO. I'm dead-certain I'm not alone in that opinion too.

Also, why aren't the wizard or archivist's spell-books being counted against WBL? Assuming an average distribution* (and disregarding cantrips) more than 1800 spells averaging 5th level is over 9000 pages of spells for spellbook users. Assuming equal division between arcane and divine* that's 4500 pages for each of them or 5 BBB's each. At 12500gp a pop, that's 62500gp to have every spell possible available to you. Even the baseline would be the 12500gp of a single BBB to fill with up to around 200 spells. While it's not necessary to all casters it -is- necessary to two of the big 6.

*Both are bold assumptions, I admit, but I was making a point and it's well established that going off-list is not a significant challenge to good optimizers.

Many people have many opinions about WBL and the only reasonably consistent one is that it's not 100% accurate to the needs of all classes and that it's a guidline to be taken with a critical eye, rather than a hard-and-fast rule to be ruthlessly enforced.

That and it's obscenely easy to break into tiny little pieces.

Mystra

2013-01-10, 10:46 PM

More to the point: this argument is based around a subjective point; where the line is drawn between what's challenging and what's just mean.

This would be one strange line.

You could really say forever that you can't do that as it would be mean.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-10, 11:13 PM

This would be one strange line.

You could really say forever that you can't do that as it would be mean.

You could say it to anything. There is a definite point where your friends will call BS though.

"That ogre doing 25 points of damage is mean"

"suck it up. We're playing a game where combat is a thing. If you're going to whine every time you get hit, maybe you shouldn't play."

As I said, exactly where that line lies is highly subjective. I, personally, don't mind having to sit and watch for a while if I've been taken out by a poor decision on my part or by a particularly clever move from the enemy. Sure, I'll be a bit annoyed, but I can live with it and I'll be better prepared the next time the situation occurs. Even dumb-luck sidelining me is acceptable every once in a while. If I didn't want luck to be a factor, I shouldn't be playing a game where so much is determined by rolling dice.

Tolerances vary from one person to the next and even simply trying to find a mean for this community (the playground) would take more effort than its worth and would be meaningless to those whose groups are outliers to that average.

Like the quote I referenced says. You can't please everyone all the time. Trying is pointless. The best you can do is try to please yourself and the handful of people you play with as much as you're able. When even that small set is impossible to universally please, you take the option that works for the majority and tell the other dude, "sorry, Bro. I'll make it up to you when I can."

toapat

2013-01-10, 11:37 PM

Also, why aren't the wizard or archivist's spell-books being counted against WBL? Assuming an average distribution* (and disregarding cantrips) more than 1800 spells averaging 5th level is over 9000 pages of spells for spellbook users. Assuming equal division between arcane and divine* that's 4500 pages for each of them or 5 BBB's each. At 12500gp a pop, that's 62500gp to have every spell possible available to you. Even the baseline would be the 12500gp of a single BBB to fill with up to around 200 spells. While it's not necessary to all casters it -is- necessary to two of the big 6.

An Archivist/Wizard dual 9 Theurge can invest fully in getting every spell (that they can obtain) as both arcane and divine, and would still have more then the 200k overhead that the rule is giving to mundanes, as i said, i typically assume something different then the designers do when im writing out a fighter's equipment spread, and i still invest more then WBL has easily. the rule is that everyone gets the stuff they need to function off the books, but consumables and spell items are limited to 200k per player

TuggyNE

2013-01-10, 11:56 PM

actually, it is pretty self evident if you look at stuff that a Fighter was expected to have at a given level. The exact numbers have never been crunched, but Casters always have a massive pile of cash floating for whatever they care to buy (assuming they are only spending on their +11 attributes, they can have bought both items by lvl 11), while Mundanes will always be under a tight crunch for equipment. I typically invest money into tomes when i price check, but typically the game expects you to have multiple weapons for different functions by late game. For archers and Crossbowmen, thats easily solved, but melee need an entire new weapon for each type of DR they need to bypass

The fact that this relies on exact numbers (or even approximations) in order to be correct makes it highly suspect as a guiding principle. It's just not that sort of thing. That doesn't mean you're wrong, mind you, just that even accurate and sensible ratios between probable casters and probable mundanes is not really the province of this thread.

And, unfortunately, so far it seems to be magic numbers with no very obvious derivation. I would be interested in examining that, though, so please start another thread.

An Archivist/Wizard dual 9 Theurge can invest fully in getting every spell (that they can obtain) as both arcane and divine, and would still have more then the 200k overhead that the rule is giving to mundanes, as i said, i typically assume something different then the designers do when im writing out a fighter's equipment spread, and i still invest more then WBL has easily. the rule is that everyone gets the stuff they need to function off the books, but consumables and spell items are limited to 200k per player

What about at other levels than 20, lower or higher?

toapat

2013-01-11, 12:04 AM

What about at other levels than 20, lower or higher?

1: I dont consider Epic to really count as within the standard agreement for 3.5 I dont know the Fine Gentleman's agreement though, but i believe part of it involves not nuking each other member of the party with the nuke spell.

2: i know the line from 1-20 for the PC overhead WBL cant be linear, but i dont have a Quadratic for you.

Arcanist

2013-01-11, 12:15 AM

1: I dont consider Epic to really count as within the standard agreement for 3.5 I dont know the Fine Gentleman's agreement though, but i believe part of it involves not nuking each other member of the party with the nuke spell.

I actually enjoy playing at Epic level since at that level of game play it doesn't matter how much you optimize since the DM doesn't have to hold back because of the CR system. They can (and should) be giving you end of the world sequences on a daily basis.

I'd like to quote an old DM of mines that I had once upon a time

In your standard 1-20 campaign you are often fighting to save or conquer the world as a whole. At Epic level, that campaign becomes an adventuring day.

Even if you conquer the world in one day, that is just ONE world... Why conquer one when you can conquer them all? :smallamused: (replace Conquer with Save if you are Good or whatever).

2: i know the line from 1-20 for the PC overhead WBL cant be linear, but i dont have a Quadratic for you.

EHHHHH!!! It's always been a dream of mines to find a half decent WBL formula that can make everyone happy since I do agree with you that WBL is pretty borked for Mundanes who require MUCH more to play effective and Casters who require MUCH less to play effectively.

toapat

2013-01-11, 12:43 AM

I actually enjoy playing at Epic level since at that level of game play it doesn't matter how much you optimize since the DM doesn't have to hold back because of the CR system. They can (and should) be giving you end of the world sequences on a daily basis.

As i said, i dont know the details of The Fine Gentleman's Agreement, and as i said, i dont have a line for the WBL overhead.

Amphetryon

2013-01-11, 09:12 AM

I think here you're missing the impact of one of the two principles entirely, and are trying to judge entirely by "does it keep the player in", which will inevitably give a skewed result. Do you think "does it keep the Player in" is an in-game concern, a metagame concern, or both? To my mind, it is an in-game AND metagame concern, and so needs to be resolved for both principles.

EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN: When I have used disabling tactics for the BBEG, or used intelligent 'focus attention on those who appear most dangerous' tactics for a group of adversaries, I have been told it is unfair, and damaging to Player engagement because it removes said Player's Character from the action on both an in-game and metagame level. In the same groups, having the caster BBEG use blasting tactics leads to (different) Players talking about 'kid gloves' or how 'the BBEG failed to read the Evil Overlord list' and, in Character, wonder how an NPC with such poor tactical sense is perceived as a threat.

To my mind, neither of those outcomes reads as positive, and both are bad for the game from an in-game and metagame perspective.

If I've somehow conflated your point, please let me know.

ericgrau

2013-01-11, 01:46 PM

demigodus

2013-01-11, 01:51 PM

I think if you get overly detailed then it defeats the purpose.

For the players I'd say:
1. Don't use a level of optimization that is significantly different from the rest of the party.
2. Don't exploit loopholes in the rules.

For the DM I'd say:
Provide a mostly consistent public framework within which to play.

That's about it. There's more regarding other aspects of the game, but I think this covers playing nice.

For the players I would make it:
1. Don't use power levels that are significantly different from the rest of the party

an insanely optimized monk is not going to be a problem with a moderately optimized druid

For 2, sometimes what is a loophole is not clear. So rather, I would make it:
2. If the RAI for a rule is unclear, or would be too powerful, explain both sides to the DM, then ask for his ruling, and respect it

The DM should, of course, listen to the full reasoning for both sides of the problem before making a decision.

So one more point for the DM side:
2. Do not make knee jerk reactions. Consider why rules exist, and what the impacts of any house rules you make, or do not make are. Often ask other experienced players/DMs for their inputs first.

ericgrau

2013-01-11, 01:58 PM

I think we're saying something similar though with the same goal. From there tips are helpful, but 95% of it is that people are at least trying. And I think most people already do; that's why it's often assumed that this exists by default.

demigodus

2013-01-11, 02:42 PM

Yeah, my intention was to alter the details of your words / clarify it, not change the major idea I thought you were trying to state.

For example, the only reason I clarified number 2, is because a lot of people tend to believe that how they intuitively interpret something is "common sense", and therefore everyone obviously sees it that way, and if they argue against it, are just trying to exploit the rules. In reality, different people can have different intuition. Consequently, you need to discuss (at your table), whether something specific is a rules exploit or not. You can't assume others will automatically see it your way. Yet humans tend to assume this before giving it more thought.

Threadnaught

2013-01-11, 03:26 PM

Is it okay to have a villain, take out someone for ten out of fifteen rounds of combat, by targeting their best Save? (in this exact case he had to roll a 6 or higher, but rolled a 2)

A villain who has prepared this particular Spell before and is attempting to discover what the characters can do... Other than attack with melee and spam Fire Spells. Which said villain has already prepared for. :smallamused:

I'd say a villain who had a choice of dispelling a Fighter and Wizard, should choose one at random, since they both look the same in this instance. Then fight the remainder.

Stouts

2013-01-11, 03:38 PM

Is it okay to have a villain, take out someone for ten out of fifteen rounds of combat, by targeting their best Save? (in this exact case he had to roll a 6 or higher, but rolled a 2)

I believe that someone mentioned earlier in the thread that they did this, but if completely disabling a character (eg, petrify) is a real concern, you can just make permanent / long durations into short ones. This let's you have your BBEG act rationally without having to worry overly much about player engagement or the 'fairness' of target choice.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-11, 04:05 PM

Do you think "does it keep the Player in" is an in-game concern, a metagame concern, or both? To my mind, it is an in-game AND metagame concern, and so needs to be resolved for both principles.

EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN: When I have used disabling tactics for the BBEG, or used intelligent 'focus attention on those who appear most dangerous' tactics for a group of adversaries, I have been told it is unfair, and damaging to Player engagement because it removes said Player's Character from the action on both an in-game and metagame level. In the same groups, having the caster BBEG use blasting tactics leads to (different) Players talking about 'kid gloves' or how 'the BBEG failed to read the Evil Overlord list' and, in Character, wonder how an NPC with such poor tactical sense is perceived as a threat.

To my mind, neither of those outcomes reads as positive, and both are bad for the game from an in-game and metagame perspective.

If I've somehow conflated your point, please let me know.

Don't forget that the DM is a player too. His engagement in the scenario is just as important, perhaps more important, than the other players. If the DM doesn't care anymore there won't be a game for much longer.

For your specific example, you'd have to use whichever option fit the majority of the players and the DM. If you're getting more complaints about the dumb villian than the smart one, use the smart version and tell the minority that they're just going to have to suck it up. Your job as the DM is to make the game as fun as you can for everyone involved. If you can't make it equally fun for everyone, then it's likely because of differing expectations and opinions of what's fun, which is something you have no control over and cannot be reasonably expected to overcome.

On a personal note, someone whining that it's unfair for the villian to make a sound tactical decision is making a mistatement. What they mean is, "that sucks and I don't like it" but it's most certainly not unfair. Unfair would be if he's making this decision on information he couldn't possibly have. The wizard dispelling one of the fighter or wizard that look the same should choose at random unless he has some means of either piercing the disguise or otherwise determining which poses the graver threat.

This is assuming they're equidistant from him. Targetting whichever is closer would be appropriate as well.

Amphetryon

2013-01-11, 04:07 PM

If you're getting more complaints about the dumb villian than the smart one, use the smart version and tell the minority that they're just going to have to suck it up. Six Players. Even split. Whee.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-11, 04:08 PM

Six Players. Even split. Whee.

Are you counting yourself in that?

Amphetryon

2013-01-11, 04:09 PM

Are you counting yourself in that?

Nope. Given that either choice gets me grief from 1/2 of the Players at my table that aren't me, being the deciding vote doesn't provide much benefit.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-11, 04:13 PM

Nope. Given that either choice gets me grief from 1/2 of the Players at my table that aren't me, being the deciding vote doesn't provide much benefit.

Sure it does. What's fun for you matters too. If you don't have an opinion either way (something I find difficult to believe) then you really are stuck, but the DM -has- to be the tie-breaker on issues like this.

Also, the call of unfair for targetting the enemy that appears to be the greatest threat still strikes me as eroneous use of the word unfair. Unpleasant, sure, but not unfair.

demigodus

2013-01-11, 07:20 PM

Six Players. Even split. Whee.

Tell them to figure it out amongst themselves by next session. And by the time next session starts, you want them to tell you how, they as a group have agreed, that you should run the game. And if they can't solve this like civilized humans by then, you will solve it like gamers: you will roll a d6; odds, save or sucks stay, evens, kiddy gloves are on. And no one gets to complain, because failure to agree is universal consent to trust in the heart of the dice.

^ this is more or less what I would do. Of course, I tend to assume I'm playing with civilized, intelligent people, capable of things like talking to each other, listening, thinking, and reasoning. So I might just be crazy.

Threadnaught

2013-01-11, 08:18 PM

I believe that someone mentioned earlier in the thread that they did this, but if completely disabling a character (eg, petrify) is a real concern, you can just make permanent / long durations into short ones. This let's you have your BBEG act rationally without having to worry overly much about player engagement or the 'fairness' of target choice.

Well my then BBEG, a Lich, used Hideous Laughter on the Wizard whose Will Save is +7, he got a +4 because the Lich was Undead and the DC was 17, Lich knew he was a Wizard. It was supposed to be a wasted action, but my Wizard failed his save. Spectacularly may I add? And he accepted his inability to contribute to the fight, the absolute hardest enemy they've ever fought in this campaign, was a Lich with 10 levels in Wizard, punching them.
Sadly for me, I rolled an 8 on the regeneration and they decided to go hunting for it's Phylactery. They found it and the Lich regenerating, before they decided to be smart and smash it, I had to use a line from Xykon just to be funny. :smallbiggrin:
Would anyone be shocked to learn the players upon destroying the Phylactery, were given 10000exp? Enough to level them up, right after they barely made it to level 6. They won't be seeing much of level 7 either.
I did have the Lich planned to be a nuisance a little while longer. :smallamused:

Both players enjoy it when they're challenged, both in combat and out (though I'm better at in combat) and even though we're all still learning the finer aspects of the game. We've go most of the OP set in stone as actual rules.

Nope. Given that either choice gets me grief from 1/2 of the Players at my table that aren't me, being the deciding vote doesn't provide much benefit.

Sure it does. What's fun for you matters too. If you don't have an opinion either way (something I find difficult to believe) then you really are stuck, but the DM -has- to be the tie-breaker on issues like this.

I agree with Kelb, since half of them want a challenge and the other half want babying, play the game you want to play, you're the one with the deciding vote.

Also, the call of unfair for targetting the enemy that appears to be the greatest threat still strikes me as eroneous use of the word unfair. Unpleasant, sure, but not unfair.

Y'know every time I've read your posts in this thread I've been like one of those nodding dogs? This is no exception, well I may be nodding a little more eagerly here. Bravo again Kelb, I wish I could have you as a player. :smallwink:

On a personal note, someone whining that it's unfair for the villian to make a sound tactical decision is making a mistatement. What they mean is, "that sucks and I don't like it" but it's most certainly not unfair. Unfair would be if he's making this decision on information he couldn't possibly have. The wizard dispelling one of the fighter or wizard that look the same should choose at random unless he has some means of either piercing the disguise or otherwise determining which poses the graver threat.

Don't forget that the DM is a player too.

Aye aye aye, so much to sig, no room to sig it in. :smallfrown:

TuggyNE

2013-01-11, 08:47 PM

I'm considering reorganizing the current set of principles: renumbering them, collapsing a few together, and so forth. Also, new principle coming in shortly for DM judgement calls/houserules.

Do you think "does it keep the Player in" is an in-game concern, a metagame concern, or both? To my mind, it is an in-game AND metagame concern, and so needs to be resolved for both principles.

Keeping the player in is a metagame concern, though keeping the character in is a separate in-game concern (that is, making fights unwinnable for the party by taking characters out is also something to avoid, entirely aside from the problem that sitting around doing nothing is not very fun); making intelligent and dangerous foes is largely an in-game concern, though making foes avoid making decisions based on knowledge they couldn't reasonably have is a metagame concern.

Yeah it's just a bit complicated. :smalltongue:

EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN: When I have used disabling tactics for the BBEG, or used intelligent 'focus attention on those who appear most dangerous' tactics for a group of adversaries, I have been told it is unfair, and damaging to Player engagement because it removes said Player's Character from the action on both an in-game and metagame level. In the same groups, having the caster BBEG use blasting tactics leads to (different) Players talking about 'kid gloves' or how 'the BBEG failed to read the Evil Overlord list' and, in Character, wonder how an NPC with such poor tactical sense is perceived as a threat.

To my mind, neither of those outcomes reads as positive, and both are bad for the game from an in-game and metagame perspective.

To be quite blunt, your players are whining. They need to accept that there is no way to have a dangerous foe without them sometimes making good on that danger. The trick, though, is to minimize those choices that are not only dangerous to the character (debuffing, for example, or HP damage) but tend to keep the player out (petrification, stunning, baleful polymorph), while still making choices that are at least reasonably optimal.

However, since the expected outcome is (usually) that the PCs will win, total effective power level should generally be low enough that they can pull that off.

There's also the fact that, for a BBEG in general, it's common for things to be more dangerous; outright killing a character on purpose may even be acceptable (as long as they have at least some reasonable chance of avoiding or mitigating this), while that's not generally something a random encounter should be specifically aiming for.

For the players I'd say:
1. Don't use a level of optimization that is significantly different from the rest of the party.
2. Don't exploit loopholes in the rules.

For the DM I'd say:
Provide a mostly consistent publicly known framework within which to play.

That does cover most of it, with the marked exception of the LG paladin CE rogue problem. However, it requires even more interpolation than the current version. It also leaves some areas open that may be desirable for a few experienced groups, but not for those that need guidance — for example, it does nothing to encourage players or DMs to handle SoDs sensibly.

2. Do not make knee jerk reactions. Consider why rules exist, and what the impacts of any house rules you make, or do not make are. Often ask other experienced players/DMs for their inputs first.

This is a good thing to remember, although I'd reword it a bit to avoid forcing DMs to take 75 minutes on every minor ruling in game. (That is, a snap decision is fine once, but it's commonly recommended to revisit the decision after the game if there's any doubt.)

Is it okay to have a villain, take out someone for ten out of fifteen rounds of combat, by targeting their best Save? (in this exact case he had to roll a 6 or higher, but rolled a 2)

Based on further information later in the thread, yeah. (Really) bad things happen sometimes; in most cases, however, it's unwise to design the encounter so they're likely.

On a personal note, someone whining that it's unfair for the villian to make a sound tactical decision is making a mistatement. What they mean is, "that sucks and I don't like it" but it's most certainly not unfair. Unfair would be if he's making this decision on information he couldn't possibly have. The wizard dispelling one of the fighter or wizard that look the same should choose at random unless he has some means of either piercing the disguise or otherwise determining which poses the graver threat.

Yes. To expand on this a bit: sometimes you the player will get hit with something you don't like, which is not in itself grounds for changing DM style, but getting hit with a bunch of those is defeating the purpose of playing a game to a fair extent. (Whether or not it's fair.)

Amphetryon

2013-01-11, 08:55 PM

Dropping out of the discussion.

toapat

2013-01-11, 11:12 PM

I'm considering reorganizing the current set of principles: renumbering them, collapsing a few together, and so forth. Also, new principle coming in shortly for DM judgement calls/houserules.

You do realize this is the internet, You can not make concessions because of people bickering on it. The wording of one rule had to be redone, which i have posted, a rule was missing, and it was added, but You must not concede any measure of the Gentleman's Agreement because it is not an agreement for a single game of DnD, It is a Preface to the entire edition of 3.5, Warning and Advising Players and DMs to how they should interact with eachother.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-11, 11:28 PM

You do realize this is the internet, You can not make concessions because of people bickering on it. The wording of one rule had to be redone, which i have posted, a rule was missing, and it was added, but You must not concede any measure of the Gentleman's Agreement because it is not an agreement for a single game of DnD, It is a Preface to the entire edition of 3.5, Warning and Advising Players and DMs to how they should interact with eachother.

How can this guide be even remotely accurate without being reviewed and revised by the community? How can it be useful if it easily creates misunderstanding?

There's a difference between bickering and constructive criticism. This thread is still, mostly, comprised of the latter.

Naturally, no version of this will be perfectly acceptable to everyone but for it to be more than a waste of time it needs to be acceptable by the majority.

I don't think we've reached a final version here yet.

TuggyNE

2013-01-11, 11:45 PM

You do realize this is the internet, You can not make concessions because of people bickering on it. The wording of one rule had to be redone, which i have posted, a rule was missing, and it was added, but You must not concede any measure of the Gentleman's Agreement because it is not an agreement for a single game of DnD, It is a Preface to the entire edition of 3.5, Warning and Advising Players and DMs to how they should interact with eachother.

I don't believe any concessions have been made to bickering yet: some things have been changed because they were unclear, or even wrong or misleading. And while I agree indeed with the purpose (and would even expand it), I don't see any particular reason to treat the initial form as more than a very good draft.

How can this guide be even remotely accurate without being reviewed and revised by the community? How can it be useful if it easily creates misunderstanding?

Basically, that.

I don't think we've reached a final version here yet.

Nor do I. For one thing, each of the principles could probably do with an example or two; for another, there's still some polish to be done.

Finally, the thread is a mere 5 pages long! :smalltongue:

toapat

2013-01-12, 12:00 AM

How can this guide be even remotely accurate without being reviewed and revised by the community?

Because i wrote it from reading commentary on DnD.

This is also the internet, the natural state of it is permanent disagreement. There are no Gentleman's agreements on it.

A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two or more parties. It is typically oral, though may be written, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentlemen's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary.

It says no where in there that the Agreement has to be entirely acceptable in every way to both parties. I have both the DM and players making concessions. All except the 6th rule i wrote has the Players conceeding something to the DM. The DM is to conceed things in all but rule 7.

If this agreement was to be allowed to be handled as Tug and you are proposing, this would be the end result:

The DM is to bend over backwards to provide a world for the players to tromp through unhindered. This is a bad thing.

Where as i handled the agreement as the rules bounding a bitter rivalry between a group of multiple diametrically opposed individuals as to best suit their individual and group needs. IE, the DM is allowed to be a **** sometimes, but not constantly, with rule 5. The players are not to encourage the DM to be a ****, rule 4.

Oh, actually reviewing your changes, you made Rule 3 useless. The entire point was that if the DM has good reason, he is fully well allowed to remove a character from combat. The only instance that doesnt count is with Dead Magic Zones, which are solidly overpowered. Fiat is entirely by rule 0.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 12:15 AM

Because i wrote it from reading commentary on DnD.

This is also the internet, the natural state of it is permanent disagreement. There are no Gentleman's agreements on it.

It says no where in there that the Agreement has to be entirely acceptable in every way to both parties. I have both the DM and players making concessions. All except the 6th rule i wrote has the Players conceeding something to the DM. The DM is to conceed things in all but rule 7.

If this agreement was to be allowed to be handled as Tug and you are proposing, this would be the end result:

The DM is to bend over backwards to provide a world for the players to tromp through unhindered. This is a bad thing.

Where as i handled the agreement as the rules bounding a bitter rivalry between a group of multiple diametrically opposed individuals as to best suit their individual and group needs. IE, the DM is allowed to be a **** sometimes, but not constantly, with rule 5. The players are not to encourage the DM to be a ****, rule 4.

I'm not sure you know what the word "agree" means. Noone's suggesting that this has to, or even can, be perfectly acceptable to all who read it. If it's not acceptable to the majority of people, however, it's not something anyone will agree to, informally or otherwise.

I also feel I have to comment on the utter hubris it takes to say that your observations are flawless and that the draft you made was just nigh perfect.

That combined with the obvious cynicism in this post make simply accepting your word as the final word on this matter absolutely absurd.

If you have a group where you consider the players and the DM to be two diametrically opposed positions then I pity you. Note that this is a general statement rather than a comment for you, specifically, Toapat. That pity is for anyone stuck in such a group. Such an antagonistic dynamic just isn't healthy for any relationship.

toapat

2013-01-12, 12:28 AM

If you have a group where you consider the players and the DM to be two diametrically opposed positions then I pity you. Note that this is a general statement rather than a comment for you, specifically, Toapat. That pity is for anyone stuck in such a group. Such an antagonistic dynamic just isn't healthy for any relationship.

I dont have a group, i live in the worst hell imaginable for finding any sort of MTG, DnD, or anything groups.

I wrote the rules as though they were diametrically opposed, even though they should not be. Others may think the DM shouldnt be allowed to pull players out of combat for bad decisions, Me? I say the DM should be allowed to do anything, so long as it 1: Is not going to result in reroll unless he makes sure players have a back up concept 2: Does not come down to Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies. If he does pull someone out of combat entirely, well, that is a great time for Players make all the Rolls to be added into the game.

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 12:30 AM

Because i wrote it from reading commentary on DnD.

Good for you! My idea is that generally, two heads are better than one, three heads are better than two, and so forth, within reason, so the more critique, the better.

I have both the DM and players making concessions. All except the 6th rule i wrote has the Players conceeding something to the DM. The DM is to conceed things in all but rule 7.

6 out of the current 9 rules, and part of another, constrain player actions; the DM is constrained by 3 out of 9 rules at present, and part of another. I'm probably counting something differently, but I'm not sure how this is especially worse.

If this agreement was to be allowed to be handled as Tug and you are proposing, this would be the end result:

The DM is to bend over backwards to provide a world for the players to tromp through unhindered.

This is ... no. That's not a thing that will happen. Neither Kelb nor I have (to my knowledge) ever posted substantially to that effect at all; if anything, Kelb tends to be rather sternly against entitlement, and I try to be extremely even-handed (with possibly dubious success). So it's safe to say that it will simply never turn out that way; it's not even plausible.

Where as i handled the agreement as the rules bounding a bitter rivalry between a group of multiple diametrically opposed individuals as to best suit their individual and group needs. IE, the DM is allowed to be a **** sometimes, but not constantly, with rule 5. The players are not to encourage the DM to be a ****, rule 4.

I don't personally believe a "bitter rivalry" between "diametrically opposed" people can reasonably be solved by an informal agreement, however good it might be. If that was your intention you'll have to really crank it up a lot. However, I also don't think most D&D groups are anywhere near so intensely opposed to each other on principle, so it shouldn't be a problem in practice.

toapat

2013-01-12, 12:40 AM

This is ... no. That's not a thing that will happen. Neither Kelb nor I have (to my knowledge) ever posted substantially to that effect at all; if anything, Kelb tends to be rather sternly against entitlement, and I try to be extremely even-handed (with possibly dubious success). So it's safe to say that it will simply never turn out that way; it's not even plausible.

Im not talking your input, what i mean is that by opening up to Design by Committee is opening up a tight fort that needs absolute law to oceans of absolute chaos. The end result is a weak and useless single rule defining the agreement.

erikun

2013-01-12, 12:48 AM

If I may jump into the discussion suddenly (and assume that the first page is accurate): I feel the need to comment on the first current rule.
Please excuse me if this line has been discussed before.

A. The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM.
One issue I have with this is that the GM has other methods of increasing a challange beyond optimization. They have access to more opponents, more damage, traps, hazards, tactics, equipment, and simply lowering the XP/gold rewards and throwing more challanges at the party. A player has none of the above, and must frequently make due with the equipment and abilities of their character.

In other words, a GM can make due with poor optimization on their part. A player generally cannot. It is generally a good thing for the GM to be the best optimizer at the table (or at least familiar with optimization), but that does not always happen.

However, that isn't really my biggest concern. My big concern is that, in any one particular party, there may be some players who need to optimize more to achieve a party balance with other players. A rogue playing in a group with a (reasonably competent) druid, cleric, and wizard will need considerable optimization to be useful and relevant in such a party. One the other side of things, a wizard playing in a party full of fighters and barbarians would want to optimize to provide enough relevant buffs for the entire party while still having spells to act as expected for a wizard.

To step away from D&D for a minute, a Shadowrun hacker in a combat-focused group would want to optimize so that they are both good with hacking while being decent enough in combat to remain relevant.

In all of these examples, there is one player who is clearly optimizing well beyond the other players in the group. However, they aren't creating some sort of imbalance - quite the opposite, they are doing so to remain relevant to their party.

I think that limiting optimization to some arbritrary level isn't going to help the players or the game. Plus, I'm not quite sure what that rule is intending to do. Is it supposed to mean "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to understand" or "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to challange"? Or something else?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 12:59 AM

I dont have a group, i live in the worst hell imaginable for finding any sort of MTG, DnD, or anything groups.I sympathize. I can't seem to put together a new group since I moved over 2 years ago.

I wrote the rules as though they were diametrically opposed, even though they should not be.

Then you've been shooting at ghosts. A game in which the DM and players are diametrically opposed forces is a game that simply cannot function in any sustainable way. Even in a high-lethality meat-grinder of a campaign (of which I've only done one or two, with the rest of the group being forewarned and in agreement) the players and DM are still a group of friends or at least friendly aquaintences that are at the table to have fun together. This demands a degree of cooperation that precludes considering the person(s) on the other side of the DM screen as a genuine enemy.

As for me being sternly against player entitlement; I suppose there's some truth in that. I do have some pretty strongly defined ideas on what a DM is and isn't supposed to be and do in relation to his players.

I definitely subscribe to the thought behind this quote: "The DM is the arbiter of the game world. What he says goes." and it's corellary "If the DM says too many stupid things, his players go."

Being a DM is being in a position of authority that your peers have allowed or asked you to assume. It's the DM's duty, should he wish to retain the mantle of DM, to use that authority to produce a world and a campaign that's entertaining to the group on the whole. Feedback should be asked for and considered but ultimately the DM's judgement is what the game runs on.

I would like it noted, however, that I don't think a DM should interfere in how a player's character is built or played beyond setting reasonable limitations and boundaries on which the group, as a whole, agrees. Players can build what they want as long as they can reasonably explain why that character would join and remain with the party and anyone who utters the phrase "your character wouldn't do that because <reason>" has just committed a mortal sin as a gamer, IMO.

toapat

2013-01-12, 12:59 AM

I think that limiting optimization to some arbritrary level isn't going to help the players or the game. Plus, I'm not quite sure what that rule is intending to do. Is it supposed to mean "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to understand" or "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to challange"? Or something else?

As ive said before, the Alternate wording is that Neither DM nor Players are to start an Arms race.

Also, your examples are flawed. A rogue who is optimizing as much as the casters will be the most important member of the party, because, as another playgrounder said, in a party with 4 Wizards, the Fighter is the guy who gets stuff done.

The wizard is also, in the example of a low tier party, In direct violation of the rule, if the DM is not specifically matching his ability to be god.

*Solid Post*

Understand that Im writing for worst case there, not that i expect said group to stay together. I should probably rewrite my original list to be more clear.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 01:08 AM

If I may jump into the discussion suddenly (and assume that the first page is accurate): I feel the need to comment on the first current rule.
Please excuse me if this line has been discussed before.

One issue I have with this is that the GM has other methods of increasing a challange beyond optimization. They have access to more opponents, more damage, traps, hazards, tactics, equipment, and simply lowering the XP/gold rewards and throwing more challanges at the party. A player has none of the above, and must frequently make due with the equipment and abilities of their character.

In other words, a GM can make due with poor optimization on their part. A player generally cannot. It is generally a good thing for the GM to be the best optimizer at the table (or at least familiar with optimization), but that does not always happen.

However, that isn't really my biggest concern. My big concern is that, in any one particular party, there may be some players who need to optimize more to achieve a party balance with other players. A rogue playing in a group with a (reasonably competent) druid, cleric, and wizard will need considerable optimization to be useful and relevant in such a party. One the other side of things, a wizard playing in a party full of fighters and barbarians would want to optimize to provide enough relevant buffs for the entire party while still having spells to act as expected for a wizard.

To step away from D&D for a minute, a Shadowrun hacker in a combat-focused group would want to optimize so that they are both good with hacking while being decent enough in combat to remain relevant.

In all of these examples, there is one player who is clearly optimizing well beyond the other players in the group. However, they aren't creating some sort of imbalance - quite the opposite, they are doing so to remain relevant to their party.

I think that limiting optimization to some arbritrary level isn't going to help the players or the game. Plus, I'm not quite sure what that rule is intending to do. Is it supposed to mean "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to understand" or "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to challange"? Or something else?

This is a good point. It probably should read something more like

"The players are not to optimize in excess of the DM's ability to provide challenges." As an example, a player shouldn't optimize his ability to scry out the enemy if he knows his DM isn't particularly skilled in obfuscating information. Likewise, a player shouldn't optimize a combat type to the point that his DM can only provide a challenge through a small army of foes.

I don't really like "don't start an arms race" because it's meaning is a bit too vague. It's also entirely possible to do by accident, see my above example of skillful scrying VS a DM that doesn't know what to do with that. You really only find gaps in your DM's game like that the hard way.

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 01:30 AM

OK, renumbered and reorganized the principles in rough order of importance. (But left a copy of the previous version in a spoiler for easier reference to old numberings.) I am absurdly pleased that I managed to get them to exactly 7.

what i mean is that by opening up to Design by Committee is opening up a tight fort that needs absolute law to oceans of absolute chaos. The end result is a weak and useless single rule defining the agreement.

Yes, I did get that. I was trying to show why I don't believe a) I'm opening this to oceans of absolute chaos; b) that the end result will almost certainly not be anywhere near as bad as your hyperbolic example.

In particular, this is actually a considerably less democratic process than I might wish; at present, it's closer to homebrew with comments than a joint drafting session (i.e., advice or comments or corrections will probably be included or at least responded to reasonably, but not necessarily in the precise way the commenter intended or suggested). That, in turn, is because mechanically I'm the one making the edits to the first post. :smallwink:

If I may jump into the discussion suddenly (and assume that the first page is accurate): I feel the need to comment on the first current rule.
Please excuse me if this line has been discussed before.

No problem, and yes, the first post has the current version (modulo some proposed adjustments at various times).

One issue I have with this is that the GM has other methods of increasing a challange beyond optimization. They have access to more opponents, more damage, traps, hazards, tactics, equipment, and simply lowering the XP/gold rewards and throwing more challanges at the party. A player has none of the above, and must frequently make due with the equipment and abilities of their character.

In other words, a GM can make due with poor optimization on their part. A player generally cannot. It is generally a good thing for the GM to be the best optimizer at the table (or at least familiar with optimization), but that does not always happen.

However, that isn't really my biggest concern. My big concern is that, in any one particular party, there may be some players who need to optimize more to achieve a party balance with other players. A rogue playing in a group with a (reasonably competent) druid, cleric, and wizard will need considerable optimization to be useful and relevant in such a party. One the other side of things, a wizard playing in a party full of fighters and barbarians would want to optimize to provide enough relevant buffs for the entire party while still having spells to act as expected for a wizard.
[...]
In all of these examples, there is one player who is clearly optimizing well beyond the other players in the group. However, they aren't creating some sort of imbalance - quite the opposite, they are doing so to remain relevant to their party.

Both these points are valid, and I had considered them, but hadn't really figured out how to adjust the wording appropriately yet.

I finally went ahead and drafted something, which is now up.

Plus, I'm not quite sure what that rule is intending to do. Is it supposed to mean "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to understand" or "The players are not to optimize beyond the GM's ability to challange"? Or something else?

Mostly the latter. I.e., the players are not supposed to overpower the DM (or, for that matter, to enter into an arms race with him in the first place).

I would like it noted, however, that I don't think a DM should interfere in how a player's character is built or played beyond setting reasonable limitations and boundaries on which the group, as a whole, agrees. Players can build what they want as long as they can reasonably explain why that character would join and remain with the party and anyone who utters the phrase "your character wouldn't do that because <reason>" has just committed a mortal sin as a gamer, IMO.

I wonder if that should be added to the list in some capacity.

This is a good point. It probably should read something more like

"The players are not to optimize in excess of the DM's ability to provide challenges." As an example, a player shouldn't optimize his ability to scry out the enemy if he knows his DM isn't particularly skilled in obfuscating information. Likewise, a player shouldn't optimize a combat type to the point that his DM can only provide a challenge through a small army of foes.

How does the new wording suit you?

Raven777

2013-01-12, 01:38 AM

It is much better now. Though you could probably collapse Point VI about exploiting flaws as one more sentence within Point II, since it is related to the same mindset of using the material in ways that make the DM's job harder.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 01:40 AM

I wonder if that should be added to the list in some capacity.Noting that it's actually two points quoted there, yes. I think they probably should, though it'd be nice if we can find a way to phrase them more concisely.

How does the new wording suit you?I like the way number one is phrased alot better now. I'd add the phrase "in most instances" to the end of 3 though.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 01:41 AM

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 04:07 AM

Noting that it's actually two points quoted there, yes. I think they probably should, though it'd be nice if we can find a way to phrase them more concisely.

Well, we already have one of those ("reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense" should cover it).

For the other one, something about mutual respect for DM's world and players' characters would probably be good. My brain is coming up empty on good wording though. Also, does this go under iv, or is it a whole new principle? *feeble attempt to avoid messing up numerology*

I like the way number one is phrased alot better now. I'd add the phrase "in most instances" to the end of 3 though.

I assume you're referring to the former A here. Also, "usually" isn't doing it for you?

It is much better now. Though you could probably collapse Point VI about exploiting flaws as one more sentence within Point II, since it is related to the same mindset of using the material in ways that make the DM's job harder.
I disagree. Point 6 needs to apply to both sides of the screen, not just the players.

Hmm. I've adjusted it, but may still collapse it later. At first I was thinking there were several other cases where "players" meant the DM as well, but not really.

willpell

2013-01-12, 06:35 AM

I dont have a group, i live in the worst hell imaginable for finding any sort of MTG, DnD, or anything groups.

While I feel bad for you that this is true IRL, it definitely doesn't have to be true online. If you can't play any other way, play by post. That's what I do. (And I am open to recruiting if you're interested, though I am admittedly far from the best DM.) That goes for you too, Kelb.

Imperials and their damn lists... :smallbiggrin:

Is this a quote from something specific? It sounds like it would be perfect for the Empire in my game.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 07:22 AM

Well, we already have one of those ("reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense" should cover it).

For the other one, something about mutual respect for DM's world and players' characters would probably be good. My brain is coming up empty on good wording though. Also, does this go under iv, or is it a whole new principle? *feeble attempt to avoid messing up numerology*I'm sorry for your numerology but what I'm talking about there isn't railroading. Railroading is the DM forcing the players to follow his script, what I'm talking about is the much more basic matter of character construction. It goes back to ye olden days when someone would be forced to play a priest because the party needs a healer. Since -any- party is viable under a good DM, trying to force any player to play any specific role is crossing a line.

The DM makes NPC's and the players make PC's. Either side can make suggestions to the other; for example the player can tell the DM what his fighter's dad was like, but not his dad's specific build while the DM can tell a player that his world deals harshly with arcanists but he can't tell one player not to play a wizard unless he declared no wizards for all players before character creation ever began; but either side needs to be prepared for these suggestions to be disregarded or at least modified.

I assume you're referring to the former A here. Also, "usually" isn't doing it for you?"Usually" refers to how the DM handles the task while "in most instances" would refer to taking the player out of the fight. Including both would not be redundant and I think it needs to be clearer that taking a player out of a fight once in a while shouldn't be completely off the table; rare but not forbidden.

Hmm. I've adjusted it, but may still collapse it later. At first I was thinking there were several other cases where "players" meant the DM as well, but not really.

The DM is technically a player too but in common speech when someone says "players" they're usually talking about the guys running the PC's. Noone should take advantage of loopholes in the system in a typical RL game.

Darius Kane

2013-01-12, 07:26 AM

Is this a quote from something specific? It sounds like it would be perfect for the Empire in my game.
Skyrim, first minutes of the game.

Threadnaught

2013-01-12, 08:18 AM

If this agreement was to be allowed to be handled as Tug and you are proposing, this would be the end result:

The DM is to bend over backwards to provide a world for the players to tromp through unhindered. This is a bad thing.

Nobody has said this. YES it is a bad thing. It basically removes the DM's ability to play at all.

A game in which the DM and players are diametrically opposed forces is a game that simply cannot function in any sustainable way. Even in a high-lethality meat-grinder of a campaign (of which I've only done one or two, with the rest of the group being forewarned and in agreement) the players and DM are still a group of friends or at least friendly aquaintences that are at the table to have fun together. This demands a degree of cooperation that precludes considering the person(s) on the other side of the DM screen as a genuine enemy.

No problem here.

Though I will say that, it is good to have the players see the DM as their opponent when necessary in order to promote friendly competition between the players and the DM.

As for me being sternly against player entitlement; I suppose there's some truth in that. I do have some pretty strongly defined ideas on what a DM is and isn't supposed to be and do in relation to his players.

I definitely subscribe to the thought behind this quote: "The DM is the arbiter of the game world. What he says goes." and it's corellary "If the DM says too many stupid things, his players go."

Being a DM is being in a position of authority that your peers have allowed or asked you to assume. It's the DM's duty, should he wish to retain the mantle of DM, to use that authority to produce a world and a campaign that's entertaining to the group on the whole. Feedback should be asked for and considered but ultimately the DM's judgement is what the game runs on.

Kelb seriously, I can't sig everything. :smallfrown:
Just stop posting, please. :smalltongue:

I would like it noted, however, that I don't think a DM should interfere in how a player's character is built or played beyond setting reasonable limitations and boundaries on which the group, as a whole, agrees. Players can build what they want as long as they can reasonably explain why that character would join and remain with the party and anyone who utters the phrase "your character wouldn't do that because <reason>" has just committed a mortal sin as a gamer, IMO.

I actually say this a lot to my Druid, it's always about her alignment. He (the player) thinks she (the Druid) will have her alignment changed if she performs certain actions. Since her behavior is largely Neutral and that is her alignment, I break out that statement. Though to be honest, she is leaning toward Good, not enough for a change yet though.

I can't seem to put together a new group since I moved over 2 years ago.

Join my group plz? Tier 1 Campaign, a Cleric would clearly perfect the party.

willpell

2013-01-12, 08:24 AM

Though I will say that, it is good to have the players see the DM as their opponent when necessary in order to promote friendly competition between the players and the DM.

There are those of us who do not believe such a thing as friendly competition exists.

Kelb seriously, I can't sig everything. :smallfrown:
Just stop posting, please. :smalltongue:

Technically you could create a thread in General called "The Wisdom of Kelb Panthera", copy all the quotes there, and just sig that. (Not sure if the mods would allow that, but it's more or less what I originally did for my Favorite Lines from the comic.)

I actually say this a lot to my Druid, it's always about her alignment. He (the player) thinks she (the Druid) will have her alignment changed if she performs certain actions. Since her behavior is largely Neutral and that is her alignment, I break out that statement. Though to be honest, she is leaning toward Good, not enough for a change yet though.

Yeah, if you're playing classes with alignment restrictions, then you should be expected to play the alignment. It can even be in-character for you to suffer temporary depowerment and need to atone. As long as the player is into it and you're not doing it just to spite them, all is as it should be.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 08:26 PM

Nobody has said this. YES it is a bad thing. It basically removes the DM's ability to play at all.

No problem here.

Though I will say that, it is good to have the players see the DM as their opponent when necessary in order to promote friendly competition between the players and the DM.There's a huge difference between seeing the DM, or rather the character he's currently portraying, as the opposition and considering the actual person on the other side of the screen your enemy. The latter is only going to lead to an arms race at best or a major falling out between the two of you at worst. Either outcome would wreck any semblance of a fun game.

Kelb seriously, I can't sig everything. :smallfrown:
Just stop posting, please. :smalltongue: Flattery will get you nowhere, good sir. :smalltongue:

I actually say this a lot to my Druid, it's always about her alignment. He (the player) thinks she (the Druid) will have her alignment changed if she performs certain actions. Since her behavior is largely Neutral and that is her alignment, I break out that statement. Though to be honest, she is leaning toward Good, not enough for a change yet though. It would be better phrased, after hearing the character's proposed course of action, as "that action would be a step toward a different alignment than your current one," unless it was something so drastically opposed to her current alignment as to cause an instant shift. I suppose an exception can be made if it's in direct response to the question "what do you think my character should do?"

Join my group plz? Tier 1 Campaign, a Cleric would clearly perfect the party.

Sorry. I don't do PbP. I'd consider making an exception for something like the tests being proposed in a couple threads that are currently on the front page, but probably not otherwise.

Thanks for the offer though.

Threadnaught

2013-01-12, 08:59 PM

It would be better phrased, after hearing the character's proposed course of action, as "that action would be a step toward a different alignment than your current one," unless it was something so drastically opposed to her current alignment as to cause an instant shift. I suppose an exception can be made if it's in direct response to the question "what do you think my character should do?"

Actually I use the phrase we hate, when he the player tells me he thinks I'd make him Evil for doing something Chaotic. Chaotic for doing something Lawful, Lawful for doing Good. Both players have behaved mostly Neutral with leanings toward Good, Wizard is already NG so there's no risk of change here.
He thinks I'm some ass who just wants to end his character... Okay, he's completely right about that, he's just worrying about the wrong method. :smallamused:

Sorry. I don't do PbP. I'd consider making an exception for something like the tests being proposed in a couple threads that are currently on the front page, but probably not otherwise.

Thanks for the offer though.

Aha! It isn't a PbP game, we play over Skype. :smalltongue:
Psst, the DM is too lazy to even use Maptool. :smallbiggrin:

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 09:01 PM

The DM makes NPC's and the players make PC's. Either side can make suggestions to the other; for example the player can tell the DM what his fighter's dad was like, but not his dad's specific build while the DM can tell a player that his world deals harshly with arcanists but he can't tell one player not to play a wizard unless he declared no wizards for all players before character creation ever began; but either side needs to be prepared for these suggestions to be disregarded or at least modified.

Fair enough.

I've stuck in a provisional eighth principle, though I really dislike the wording. (It's verbose and clunky.)

"Usually" refers to how the DM handles the task while "in most instances" would refer to taking the player out of the fight. Including both would not be redundant and I think it needs to be clearer that taking a player out of a fight once in a while shouldn't be completely off the table; rare but not forbidden.

I suppose that makes sense, although the clumsiness of putting two conditionals in is still annoying.

Yeah, if you're playing classes with alignment restrictions, then you should be expected to play the alignment. It can even be in-character for you to suffer temporary depowerment and need to atone. As long as the player is into it and you're not doing it just to spite them, all is as it should be.

It mostly comes back to fiat. :smallwink:

There's a huge difference between seeing the DM, or rather the character he's currently portraying, as the opposition and considering the actual person on the other side of the screen your enemy. The latter is only going to lead to an arms race at best or a major falling out between the two of you at worst. Either outcome would wreck any semblance of a fun game.

Indeed. It seems to be a fairly common cause of group strife, from various threads I've read.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 09:02 PM

I just plain can't skype. My only internet access is through my nintendo wii. It's a hassle, but it's better than no internet at all.

artofregicide

2013-01-12, 09:08 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-12, 09:12 PM

This may have been brought up previously, but:

Is it still a gentleman's agreement if the majority of the players are female?

*In seriousness, I agree with the spirit of the rules, but as has been stated before: If you have to institute this, your problems run deeper than the violation of the agreement. Such as not all the players are interested in everyone in the group, including the DM, having fun.

That said, I'd absolutely use something along these lines is a good guideline. But if someone can find loopholes in the complex codex of rules that is D&D, I'm pretty certain that they can find loopholes in this too.

Looking for loopholes is missing the point of this particular excersize.

These points are given with the understanding that those who use it as a model are to follow the spirit of these suggestions rather than the letter of them.

We're worried about particular phrasing because we want to make sure the spirit of each guidline is conveyed as clearly as possible.

Raven777

2013-01-12, 09:29 PM

The agreement is merely a set of terms that everyone at a given table is made aware of as to know what to expect out of a given game and foster fair enjoyment for everyone. Hence, gentlemen's agreement*.

I see laying it down as desirable in such occasions as the game being with a group who never played together before or that includes players entirely new to the system at hand, or on a DM's first time DMing for a given group or with a given system.

Also, it makes for an interesting thread on what kind of... sportsmanship(?)... players expect out of DMs and other fellow players.

(*It should be plural btw. There's probably more than one gentleman at the table.)

TuggyNE

2013-01-12, 10:00 PM

In seriousness, I agree with the spirit of the rules, but as has been stated before: If you have to institute this, your problems run deeper than the violation of the agreement. Such as not all the players are interested in everyone in the group, including the DM, having fun.

That said, I'd absolutely use something along these lines is a good guideline. But if someone can find loopholes in the complex codex of rules that is D&D, I'm pretty certain that they can find loopholes in this too.

The idea, as Kelb and Raven have said, is not really to "institute" this, or use it as a club to beat people with, or look for loopholes; the idea is to recommend sensible guidelines to avoid trouble in the first place. If you have to fall back on "but principle VI clearly says...!" you've quite possibly already lost group cohesion anyway.

If you can think of ways to make that clearer it'd be much appreciated. :smallwink:

It should be plural btw. There's probably more than one gentleman at the table.

You are, of course, correct :smallsigh:; I was thinking of sort of a platonic ideal gentleman formulating the agreement, but that doesn't seem to be the usual usage.

artofregicide

2013-01-12, 10:13 PM

I actually understood the spirit and goals of the "Gentlemen's" agreement: I was just putting in my 2 cp: that I agree that this agreement mostly reflects the spirit of sportsmanship in D&D.

Making it as clear as possible is good: leave the confusion for the actual game.

I'm not sure if new players will always grasp concepts such as railroading and optimization, especially not how they'll play out in the game. Especially myself.

Also, I thought it was "gentlemen's agreement" but I copied the forum name. (Or I'm really confused, either one)

Finally, my comment about ladies and a gentlemen's agreement was obvious meant non-seriously.

TuggyNE

2013-01-13, 12:46 AM

I'm not sure if new players will always grasp concepts such as railroading and optimization, especially not how they'll play out in the game. Especially myself.

Hmm. Those are probably both terms to consider either rephrasing or defining.

Railroading, as used here, refers generally to a DM negating player choice by having all possible courses lead to the same result (mild to moderate, depending on how obvious it is), "wonderful" NPCs who steer you around (moderate to severe), blocking some actions with no or very thin in-game rationale (moderate to severe), or punishing players/characters for messing up the plot (severe to very severe). It's not always immediately detectable, but most DMs aren't as good at concealing it as they think they are.

Optimization includes both practical and ... "munchkin" (?) — that is, character build and tactical choices that either contribute well to the party, or overshadow others. (The lack of optimization tends to cause problems as well.) It takes a good bit of skill and system knowledge to be able to optimize any concept and class appropriately, but there are some things that are a lot easier to manage; also, DMing at higher levels of optimization tends to require more skill, more preparation time, or both.

Does that help?

Also, I thought it was "gentlemen's agreement" but I copied the forum name. (Or I'm really confused, either one)

It is now! I fixed it between your two posts. :smallwink: Changing the subject of the first post in a thread changes the thread title as a whole if done within a certain timeframe.

willpell

2013-01-13, 12:54 AM

This may have been brought up previously, but:

Is it still a gentleman's agreement if the majority of the players are female?

Why isn't "gentlewomen" a word? "Ladies" has entirely the wrong connotations here.

Optimization includes both practical and ... "munchkin" (?) — that is, character build and tactical choices that either contribute well to the party, or overshadow others. (The lack of optimization tends to cause problems as well.) It takes a good bit of skill and system knowledge to be able to optimize any concept and class appropriately, but there are some things that are a lot easier to manage; also, DMing at higher levels of optimization tends to require more skill, more preparation time, or both.

I still maintain that if your objective isn't to be the absolute best of the absolute best, it isn't "optimizing". Choosing Knowledge Devotion as one of your feats so that you'll do more damage on your attacks isn't optimizing, it's just a sensible feat choice. Making all your feat choices to do the most possible damage, that's optimizing.

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 01:03 AM

I just plain can't skype. My only internet access is through my nintendo wii. It's a hassle, but it's better than no internet at all.

UGH~ But you are too awesome to be denied complete access to the internet! I wish I ruled the world... What? If I'm going to make a wish, it matter as well encompass everything I want (getting Kelb an awesome computer is just one of those things) :smallamused:

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 01:10 AM

UGH~ But you are too awesome to be denied complete access to the internet! I wish I ruled the world... What? If I'm going to make a wish, it matter as well encompass everything I want (getting Kelb an awesome computer is just one of those things) :smallamused:

I think I'd be a bit leary of accepting something you wished for, given where you like to get your wishes.[/reference to previous discussions]:smalltongue:

On topic: yeah, I think including loose definitions for optimization and railroading in the OP would probably be helpful to new players/DM's that see this.

TuggyNE

2013-01-13, 01:24 AM

I still maintain that if your objective isn't to be the absolute best of the absolute best, it isn't "optimizing". Choosing Knowledge Devotion as one of your feats so that you'll do more damage on your attacks isn't optimizing, it's just a sensible feat choice. Making all your feat choices to do the most possible damage, that's optimizing.

Well, what would you call it when you put some effort into improving your character's performance so as to match your party, but not necessarily enough to outstrip them? If there's a more generally-useful word, I'll go ahead and use that.

I think it should be fairly evident that some people do less of whatever that is than others (or are worse at it, or both), while others go too far; the term needs to encompass the full range. (Conceptually, optimizing seems to be the process of successively approximating the desired power level, so a partly optimized character is one that doesn't match yet, usually by being weaker than intended, but not always. Alternatively, it's the process of approaching full power, so a partly optimized character is one that is not as powerful as it could be.)

Also, point of order: actually achieving Ultimate Arcane Powah!TM is not something a mere couple of feat choices by themselves will accomplish; spell choices, base and prestige class levels, and skill points are all essential, not to mention equipment, and usually also polymorph/alter self/shapechange/wild shape forms.

Finally, because all optimization (even TO) assumes certain restrictions, you can reconcile your love of absolutes by thinking of it in terms of optimizing to an additional restriction: not being substantially more powerful than your party members.

On topic: yeah, I think including loose definitions for optimization and railroading in the OP would probably be helpful to new players/DM's that see this.

OK, my initial attempts at same are up.

willpell

2013-01-13, 02:43 AM

Well, what would you call it when you put some effort into improving your character's performance so as to match your party, but not necessarily enough to outstrip them? If there's a more generally-useful word, I'll go ahead and use that.

I would probably call that "accomodation" or something to similar effect, since you're doing it to try and help your party. Or just "improvement" if it's in a more general "I am Karrgon the Dragonslayer! So I should at least be able to hit a White Wyrmling's AC once before dying...." sense.

Alternatively, it's the process of approaching full power, so a partly optimized character is one that is not as powerful as it could be.

This is the sense in which I have always understood it...but the only possible end result of that process is to become Pun-Pun or something similarly ridiculous, so I don't think it should be regarded as "optimal".

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 02:55 AM

Will, you're taking the word optimization in isolation there. By itself creating the optimal character in dnd 3.5 would indeed be pun-pun.

Building the optimal character within <player's concept> almost certainly wouldn't. By adding "with an appropriate level of power for my group's game" to the concept's parameters you make it so that shooting over that mark becomes sub-optimal.

More importantly, optimizing is reaching toward that goal whether you actually achieve an absolutely optimal result or not.

Optimization and optimizing are almost certainly the right words for the phenomenon that we're talking about.

willpell

2013-01-13, 02:59 AM

More importantly, optimizing is reaching toward that goal whether you actually achieve an absolutely optimal result or not.

By that definition every character ever built is "optimized", just not completely so, and toward parameters that aren't fully defined.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 03:06 AM

By that definition every character ever built is "optimized", just not completely so, and toward parameters that aren't fully defined.

.... yes.

The paramaters toward which a given player is optimizing are determined by that player. In most cases those paramaters take the form of a conceptualized character, such as a changeling that can pretend to be any class, for example.

Since any action taken toward making a thing function better in its designated task is optimization, then it is indeed true that every character that was ever designed, barring those who were generated entirely by random selection of available options, were optimized to at least some degree. Using the above example, having that changeling take levels in the chameleon prestige class would be optimizing it towards serving its intended function of emulating any class.

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 03:10 AM

Using the above example, having that changeling take levels in the chameleon prestige class would be optimizing it towards serving its intended function of emulating any class.

Is this RAW legal? Not accusing you of anything, just plain curious :smallconfused:

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 03:14 AM

Is this RAW legal? Not accusing you of anything, just plain curious :smallconfused:

The adaptation section for chameleon in RoD specifically calls out that in an eberron campaign changelings should be added to the races that can take the able learner feat and enter the PrC.

One of my favorite character concepts is the changeling that never grew out of the "I'm you" game that changeling children play. Chameleon was a chief part of that character.

willpell

2013-01-13, 03:22 AM

Since any action taken toward making a thing function better in its designated task is optimization, then it is indeed true that every character that was ever designed, barring those who were generated entirely by random selection of available options, were optimized to at least some degree.

Right. So when I give a character Toughness, I'm optimizing.

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 03:32 AM

Right. So when I give a character Toughness, I'm optimizing.

depends what you are optimizing for.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 03:34 AM

Right. So when I give a character Toughness, I'm optimizing.

If you genuinely believe that it'll contribute to your overall concept's goal, then yes.

You're doing it poorly, in all likelyhood, but you -are- optimizing.

How (un)successful a player is in optimizing doesn't change the fact that he is optimizing with every decision he makes with the intended goal of making his character better at what he wants it to do.

willpell

2013-01-13, 03:44 AM

How (un)successful a player is in optimizing doesn't change the fact that he is optimizing with every decision he makes with the intended goal of making his character better at what he wants it to do.

See, I don't usually make my decisions on the basis of wanting to be "better" at "doing" anything. One example is that people say when you play a Druid, you always take Natural Spell. But I have a druid whose personality dictates that it would not be appropriate for her to cast spells while she's shapeshifted. It doesn't matter that it would make her more effective; it contradicts the mindset I consider to be "her", and so it's not allowed. Another example is a Binder who kept binding Ronove for her first seven levels, because her backstory was that she promised she would, and Pact Magic is all about how your word is your bond (or at least that was how I originally read it when making her; my subsequent Binders haven't been so strict). She's running from the entire elf nation for her very life, she naturally would love to be more powerful, but switching to bind a different Vestige would completely destroy her concept, so she doesn't.

It's not about what you "do". It's about what you "are". And to me, optimizing is usually about sacrificing identity and idiosyncracy for dull mechanical power, which completely misses the point. You don't play a roleplaying game to overcome challenges or earn XP; you play it to roleplay. You need to lose sometimes in order for your victories to mean anything (as victories, that is; they can still have intrinsic value even if they're foregone conclusions, but that relies on them being more gratuitously enjoyable than I usually find the D&D rules to be), so becoming the most powerful you can possibly be is counterproductive, and thus not "optimal".

TuggyNE

2013-01-13, 04:27 AM

I would probably call that "accomodation" or something to similar effect, since you're doing it to try and help your party. Or just "improvement" if it's in a more general "I am Karrgon the Dragonslayer! So I should at least be able to hit a White Wyrmling's AC once before dying...." sense.

"Improvement" isn't so bad, but in context sounds a little odd. "Players should not improve their characters...", y'know?

But I suppose that could be used, in the absence of something clearly superior. I'll think about it a bit more and then maybe change it.

This is the sense in which I have always understood it...but the only possible end result of that process is to become Pun-Pun or something similarly ridiculous, so I don't think it should be regarded as "optimal".

A character fully optimized in isolation from any roleplaying goals will be on nearly par with Pun-Pun, usually, barring various bans. Such high levels of optimization are considered impractical, and principle II strongly discourages them.

By that definition every character ever built is "optimized", just not completely so, and toward parameters that aren't fully defined.

Indeed. However, it's customary to refer to "optimized" characters especially as those that are pretty far towards their goal, and "unoptimized" characters as those that haven't made much progress, or have made poor decisions. That's typical English language fudging for you.

There's also confusion between "(practical) optimization" and "(pure mechanical) optimization", where context is assumed to give enough of a clue as to which is meant. (In this case, either is possible; even PO for most games usually stops short of the full power the character concept could reasonably have, because it would be too difficult for the DM/group to manage.)

Hmm. That's more evidence for either improving my definitions, or improving my wording. :smallconfused:

See, I don't usually make my decisions on the basis of wanting to be "better" at "doing" anything. One example is that people say when you play a Druid, you always take Natural Spell. But I have a druid whose personality dictates that it would not be appropriate for her to cast spells while she's shapeshifted. It doesn't matter that it would make her more effective; it contradicts the mindset I consider to be "her", and so it's not allowed. Another example is a Binder who kept binding Ronove for her first seven levels, because her backstory was that she promised she would, and Pact Magic is all about how your word is your bond (or at least that was how I originally read it when making her; my subsequent Binders haven't been so strict). She's running from the entire elf nation for her very life, she naturally would love to be more powerful, but switching to bind a different Vestige would completely destroy her concept, so she doesn't.

It's not about what you "do". It's about what you "are". And to me, optimizing is usually about sacrificing identity and idiosyncracy for dull mechanical power, which completely misses the point. You don't play a roleplaying game to overcome challenges or earn XP; you play it to roleplay. You need to lose sometimes in order for your victories to mean anything (as victories, that is; they can still have intrinsic value even if they're foregone conclusions, but that relies on them being more gratuitously enjoyable than I usually find the D&D rules to be), so becoming the most powerful you can possibly be is counterproductive, and thus not "optimal".

None of that is contrary to practical optimization, which includes character concept in its list of restrictions and constraints. Congratulations! You're an optimizer! :smallwink:

willpell

2013-01-13, 06:07 AM

"Improvement" isn't so bad, but in context sounds a little odd. "Players should not improve their characters...", y'know?

More like "Players should not feel compelled to improve their characters". But in terms of the Gentlemen's Agreement, it's probably for the best if you overrule my somewhat niche opinions about the word. Not that I don't still think I'm right, but if you want to get your point across to the community, using their language even if it's wrong is probably sensible (unlike myself).

None of that is contrary to practical optimization, which includes character concept in its list of restrictions and constraints. Congratulations! You're an optimizer! :smallwink:

Yeah, I still don't buy it.

On a related topic, someone in another thread described Leadership (and its epic-level relative Landlord) as "among the cheesiest feats". Which, I can definitely see how "bring an entire second character" could be done as a way of breaking the game, but at the same time, the sidekick concept is a classic and it's not that unreasonable to want to have your character have a buddy; it's only if someone does it with obviously unreasonable intent that it becomes a problem. Hence my tendency to treat "optimizer" as a dirty word. (To me the logical connection there is obvious; let me know if you fail to see it. Not that I can probably explain it any better, but I'd still like to know if my communication skills are failing me.)

White_Drake

2013-01-13, 12:11 PM

Willpell, I don not know if this will be helpful, but for what it's worth, my definition of optimization: the strategic choice of options to reach a goal in the most efficient manner possible. Therefore, optimization could have very little to do with character power, if power is not the goal of your optimization. For example, if the goal of somebody's optimization is a character concept, such as a druid who will not use polymorph like abilities, then the appropriate optimization would be to pick spells and abilities not pertaining to polymorph effects, and trading away their wildshape class feature. This goes directly counter to another character playing a druid with the optimization goal of "build the most mechanically powerful killing machine the world has ever seen", who would be ill advised not to take natural spell. I hope this makes an equal amount of sense now that I have typed it since it was still languishing in the confines of my brain.

Edit for various typos and autocorrect foibles.

LordBlades

2013-01-13, 03:50 PM

On a related topic, someone in another thread described Leadership (and its epic-level relative Landlord) as "among the cheesiest feats". Which, I can definitely see how "bring an entire second character" could be done as a way of breaking the game, but at the same time, the sidekick concept is a classic and it's not that unreasonable to want to have your character have a buddy; it's only if someone does it with obviously unreasonable intent that it becomes a problem. Hence my tendency to treat "optimizer" as a dirty word. (To me the logical connection there is obvious; let me know if you fail to see it. Not that I can probably explain it any better, but I'd still like to know if my communication skills are failing me.)

Regarding Leadership, even if done with no intent of optimizing (just to get a sidekick), it still gives the player the opportunity of having 2xmore options and 2xmore 'screen time' as he's getting 2 chars in a game everybody else is getting only one

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 04:10 PM

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 04:14 PM

Followers can only be given commands and their actions are -always- under DM control.

Meaning don't take Leadership in Kelb's campaigns because your Cohort will kill you because:

You smell funny
He doesn't like you
His friend doesn't like you either
You'll be to careful
You'll be dead!

You better watch yourself, your Cohort is a wanted man. He has the death penality on 12 star systems. :smallwink:

Tvtyrant

2013-01-13, 04:22 PM

I vote that we use the term Classy People over Gentle men/women. Classy comes from Classical, which comes from the latin word Classicus. It refers to upper class styling, which is effectively the goal we are aiming for.

Gentle comes from Gens, which refers to blood (we get genetic from the same root.) Anyone can be classy, but only people born rich can be gentle. I believe that all people were born equal, and thus side with classy.

Classy Folk would by pretty ironic.

More seriously, I think an explicit discussion with players before a game on what is expected is good. As with relationships, communication and explicitly understood dynamics is key.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 04:40 PM

Meaning don't take Leadership in Kelb's campaigns because your Cohort will kill you because:

You smell funny
He doesn't like you
His friend doesn't like you either
You'll be to careful
You'll be dead!

You better watch yourself, your Cohort is a wanted man. He has the death penality on 12 star systems. :smallwink:

I realize that was supposed to be sarcastic but, while these are not a given, they can become true if the player tries to abuse the feat.

The key point of leadership to consider is that your followers and cohort are there because they believe in what the character that took the feat represents. Being a d-bag to your cohort is a sure way to lose a cohort. Trying to keep a cohort around when he wants to leave -can- indeed lead to betrayal.

Some character options unambiguously -do- have in-character considerations that have to be taken into account in any real game.

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 04:52 PM

I realize that was supposed to be sarcastic but, while these are not a given, they can become true if the player tries to abuse the feat.

The key point of leadership to consider is that your followers and cohort are there because they believe in what the character that took the feat represents. Being a d-bag to your cohort is a sure way to lose a cohort. Trying to keep a cohort around when he wants to leave -can- indeed lead to betrayal.

To be frank, I always figured that the Cohort was loyal to the Leader because of this text here

Having this feat enables the character to attract loyal companions and devoted followers, subordinates who assist her.

but that is just the "benefits" of the feat. :smallwink: Not saying that I wouldn't enforce the same thing, but I'm not going to have The Companion betray The Doctor The Leader. I might penalize the leader with the Cruelty penality and cause that Companion to leave, by whatever means necessary and be replaced by another Companion who is slightly weaker.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 04:58 PM

To be frank, I always figured that the Cohort was loyal to the Leader because of this text here

but that is just the "benefits" of the feat. :smallwink: Not saying that I wouldn't enforce the same thing, but I'm not going to have The Companion betray The Doctor The Leader. I might penalize the leader with the Cruelty penality and cause that Companion to leave, by whatever means necessary and be replaced by another Companion who is slightly weaker.

Generally, I wouldn't either. Betrayal begets betrayal though.
The cohort may also have some relationship, not necessarily a friendly one, to the BBEG that could force him to betray his leader in a more scripted campaign. It's not a move I'd make, since I don't generally do scripted plots, but it -is- a possibility that some DM's will enact.

toapat

2013-01-13, 05:00 PM

I, for one, allow the feat but the player is only asked what sort of cohort he'd be looking for. He does not get to build it like a second character. Control of the cohort's in-combat actions is ceded to the player but in all other situations the cohort is handled as the NPC it is under the DM's control.

How would you rule the request for a Midgard Dwarf Discountificer?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 05:03 PM

How would you rule the request for a Midgard Dwarf Discountificer?

Depends on the campaign.

Generally though, as long as the character has a high enough leadership score and doesn't mind his cohort being left at home to do the crafting, sure. Why not?

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 05:05 PM

Generally, I wouldn't either. Betrayal begets betrayal though.
The cohort may also have some relationship, not necessarily a friendly one, to the BBEG that could force him to betray his leader in a more scripted campaign. It's not a move I'd make, since I don't generally do scripted plots, but it -is- a possibility that some DM's will enact.

And I'd feel guilty about penalizing a PC for taking a feat overall with the power of plot. I mean if a DM made a feat useless to me without a RAW reason I'd be wary to using it again. DM'ing by fear is not a good way to DM (unless you are playing a scary game).

How would you rule the request for a Midgard Dwarf Discountificer?

See most DM's reactions here
http://images.wikia.com/mlpfanart/images/a/a2/Kill-it-with-fire-random-29296574-256-192.gif

EDIT:

Generally though, as long as the character has a high enough leadership score and doesn't mind his cohort being left at home to do the crafting, sure. Why not?

Portable hole with a couple bottles of air in it and possibly more Portable holes in it to make a larger work space inside is an option. A down right cheap and dirty option, but an option none the less.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 05:29 PM

And I'd feel guilty about penalizing a PC for taking a feat overall with the power of plot. I mean if a DM made a feat useless to me without a RAW reason I'd be wary to using it again. DM'ing by fear is not a good way to DM (unless you are playing a scary game). Raw takes a backseat to fun, always, and often to verisimilitude as well. If the cohort has been loyally following the PC, aiding the party, and generally being a beneficial guy to have around, who also happens to be under the enemy's thumb during certain key points in the plot, I don't see how that's -always- unacceptable. It's definitely not something you'd want to use often but it can make for a compelling story.

See most DM's reactions here
http://images.wikia.com/mlpfanart/images/a/a2/Kill-it-with-fire-random-29296574-256-192.gif

EDIT:

Portable hole with a couple bottles of air in it and possibly more Portable holes in it to make a larger work space inside is an option. A down right cheap and dirty option, but an option none the less.

At which point the dwarf says "you wanna stick me in a hole and carry me around like a trinket in your backpack?! Bug off!" then stomps off grumbling about what a disappointment this "famous leader of men and dwarves" is supposed to be. Then I ask the player if he'd like to try again with a different midgard dwarf.

Like I said, except in combat the cohort is an NPC. He's a person with his own thoughts and goals. Even in combat, the player trying to get the cohort to do something suicidal would require more from the relationship between the two characters than a mechanic saying the cohort is loyal.

The only characters the players have absolute control over are their own PC's. Everyone else is an NPC that they may or may not be able to influence in the desired manner.

Edit: oh, and I do have houserules about the interaction of multiple extradimensional storage devices interacting. I don't make alot of housrules but everyone makes a few.

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 05:35 PM

At which point the dwarf says "you wanna stick me in a hole and carry me around like a trinket in your backpack?! Bug off!"

As to where I would respond "No, I expect you to live in this mansion sized Extradimensional hole where you will be safe and able to craft hundreds of magical items. I am not forcing you to stay in that hole, you can come out whenever you wish, however I'd rather you stay in there for your own protection".

I'd leave that up to a diplomacy check honestly (or none at all since having your Cohort stay somewhere safe can be viewed as a very benevolent act and is pretty much the same as having them stay in your Bat Cave).

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-13, 05:41 PM

As to where I would respond "No, I expect you to live in this mansion sized Extradimensional hole where you will be safe and able to craft hundreds of magical items. I am not forcing you to stay in that hole, you can come out whenever you wish, however I'd rather you stay in there for your own protection".

I'd leave that up to a diplomacy check honestly (or none at all since having your Cohort stay somewhere safe can be viewed as a very benevolent act and is pretty much the same as having them stay in your Bat Cave).

I could see that diplomacy check taking place.

This does, of course, lead to the dwarf being something the enemy can steal. A key feature of portable holes is that they're portable.

It wouldn't work in my game because of the afformentioned houserules on extradimensional spaces, but I could see it working in someone else's or if my player sank the extra resources into a much bigger than normal extradimensional space (we do custom items).

Arcanist

2013-01-13, 05:46 PM

I could see that diplomacy check taking place.

This does, of course, lead to the dwarf being something the enemy can steal. A key feature of portable holes is that they're portable.

There you go. Something you can use for plot and you can use him for prison breaks if you are into that sort of thing (I'm into that sort of thing).

It wouldn't work in my game because of the afformentioned houserules on extradimensional spaces, but I could see it working in someone else's or if my player sank the extra resources into a much bigger than normal extradimensional space (we do custom items).

PM me your rules on Extradimensional space. I'd love to discuss more about the interactions of a Portable Hole and Handy haversack from the perspective of Kelb_Panthera. For now? Gentlemen! We have history to make :smallcool:

Threadnaught

2013-01-13, 06:16 PM

It wouldn't work in my game because of the afformentioned houserules on extradimensional spaces, but I could see it working in someone else's or if my player sank the extra resources into a much bigger than normal extradimensional space (we do custom items).

PM me your rules on Extradimensional space. I'd love to discuss more about the interactions of a Portable Hole and Handy haversack from the perspective of Kelb_Panthera. For now? Gentlemen! We have history to make :smallcool:

Kelb, please PM me those rules too. Extradimensional storage in RAW scares me.

willpell

2013-01-14, 01:50 AM

Gentle comes from Gens, which refers to blood (we get genetic from the same root.) Anyone can be classy, but only people born rich can be gentle. I believe that all people were born equal, and thus side with classy.

I always assumed "Gentlemen" was a slurring of "Genteel Men", ie men who are very polite and well-mannered. Also explaining the lack of a "Genteel Women" term, as standards of etiquette differ with gender norms, and "genteel" mostly references the kind of chivalrous, slightly standoffish behavior expected in the gender more likely to kill each other with swords and guns if they were not principled and respectful.

Willpell, I don not know if this will be helpful, but for what it's worth, my definition of optimization: the strategic choice of options to reach a goal in the most efficient manner possible.

Sounds closer to my understanding, which is why I tend to reject the label. To me, that word "efficient" comes with a mental picture of a man with a whip who's there to punish you if you don't mercilessly extract every drop of work possible from every second of your efforts. How dare you take a sub-optimal feat like Self-Sufficient! Into the box with you! I like being able to take an aimless, meandering path toward my goals, which I don't regard as "optimizing", but rather as "enjoying myself".

Regarding Leadership, even if done with no intent of optimizing (just to get a sidekick), it still gives the player the opportunity of having 2xmore options and 2xmore 'screen time' as he's getting 2 chars in a game everybody else is getting only one

It will probably inevitably be more, but it shouldn't be exactly double. There should be times when the follower is redundant (if both you and they make Spot checks, their success only matters if you fail, and they might still fail as well, so it improves your chances of making the Spot by roughly 25%, plus they have to be able to communicate the Spot to you, which might use up their action). And if you do something like splitting up to have the cohort explore half the dungeon while you explore the other half, you're pretty much asking for the cohort to get ganked while offscreen, leading to drama while you wonder what happened to them and have to go looking for them.

All this I don't think of as inevitably problematic. If it's clear that this player is dominating the game, I would make an effort to show more favoritism toward the other players in an attempt to compensate. I don't think there needs to be a formal solution, though certainly if I think of some rule that I like, I'll use it.

As to where I would respond "No, I expect you to live in this mansion sized Extradimensional hole where you will be safe and able to craft hundreds of magical items. I am not forcing you to stay in that hole, you can come out whenever you wish, however I'd rather you stay in there for your own protection".

He can't come out whenever he wishes; you own the Hole and it only opens when you open it. So once he goes in, you can keep him in indefinitely. I'd say he doesn't have a lot of agency in that situation.

LordBlades

2013-01-14, 02:21 AM

RE; leadership's cohort:

It's very important, when considering this feat, that the cohort is an NPC. Allowing the player that selects the feat to build his cohort and dictate all of that cohort's actions is a courtesy that some DM's extend and others do not.

I, for one, allow the feat but the player is only asked what sort of cohort he'd be looking for. He does not get to build it like a second character. Control of the cohort's in-combat actions is ceded to the player but in all other situations the cohort is handled as the NPC it is under the DM's control.

Followers can only be given commands and their actions are -always- under DM control.

Well, between retraining, psychic reformation and DCFS there's plenty of adjustments you can make to a given build. Also, form a mechanical standpoint, telling a player tat he can only specify what kind of cohort he's looking for in a broad sense only increases the chance he/she would ask for something highly customizable like 'wizard' or 'cleric' or 'druid'.

Regarding cohorts being played by the DM as NPCs outside combat,that might be hard to do in some groups. In my group for example, cohorts are quite fleshed out characters, and we like to keep them pretty involved in the story. DM roleplaying them would result in him having to talk to himself in front of everyone else for extended amounts of time.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-14, 02:45 AM

Well, between retraining, psychic reformation and DCFS there's plenty of adjustments you can make to a given build. Also, form a mechanical standpoint, telling a player tat he can only specify what kind of cohort he's looking for in a broad sense only increases the chance he/she would ask for something highly customizable like 'wizard' or 'cleric' or 'druid'.

Regarding cohorts being played by the DM as NPCs outside combat,that might be hard to do in some groups. In my group for example, cohorts are quite fleshed out characters, and we like to keep them pretty involved in the story. DM roleplaying them would result in him having to talk to himself in front of everyone else for extended amounts of time.

Those methods of rebuilding require that the cohort be willing to undergo them. Psychic reformation requires a willing target, rebuilding requires at least a level-up if not a whole quest, and the dark chaos spells say that the target chooses the feats both coming and going. Since the player doesn't build the cohort in the first place, the customizability of it is irrelevant. It comes into play with exactly what the DM gave it and may or may not take suggestions from the PC for what spells to learn or items to make (example was an artificer, remember) next. Why would a wizard (the cohort) take advice from a ranger (the PC) on which spells to learn next, for instance?

On using the cohort as one of the protagonists in the plot, that's the direct result of either the player deciding the cohort's personality or the DM giving them a personality that says they get all chatty during non-combat sequences. Fleshed-out doesn't mean that they -have- to be important characters. Besides, always doesn't necessarily mean always. If the cohort is put in a position where he absolutely has to interact with another NPC verbally and the group feels it would be wierd or boring for the DM to play both parts, then he -can- cede control to one of the players.

It's very important to note that what you've quoted is how my group does it. It's not necessarily the only way or the "correct" way.

LordBlades

2013-01-14, 03:14 AM

Those methods of rebuilding require that the cohort be willing to undergo them. Psychic reformation requires a willing target, rebuilding requires at least a level-up if not a whole quest, and the dark chaos spells say that the target chooses the feats both coming and going. Since the player doesn't build the cohort in the first place, the customizability of it is irrelevant. It comes into play with exactly what the DM gave it and may or may not take suggestions from the PC for what spells to learn or items to make (example was an artificer, remember) next. Why would a wizard (the cohort) take advice from a ranger (the PC) on which spells to learn next, for instance?

Such an approach would make diplomancers much better at having cohorts than the rest of the party:smallbiggrin: since they can convince NPCs to do a lot of stuff. That or Dominate Person.

On using the cohort as one of the protagonists in the plot, that's the direct result of either the player deciding the cohort's personality or the DM giving them a personality that says they get all chatty during non-combat sequences. Fleshed-out doesn't mean that they -have- to be important characters. Besides, always doesn't necessarily mean always. If the cohort is put in a position where he absolutely has to interact with another NPC verbally and the group feels it would be wierd or boring for the DM to play both parts, then he -can- cede control to one of the players.

To give you an example of a kind of cohort that I've seen and would be rather difficult to RP by the DM: one player was playing a viking-inspired warrior-prince who dedicated most of his time to fighting or training for fighting. He considered most of the other matters irrelevant. His cohort was his herald&skald, and handled most of the trivial tasks that the prince saw as not worthy of his attention. He'd be the one to order food or ask for shelter, he'd be the one to boast in taverns of his master's adventures, he'd be the one to negotiate payment with the city guard captain for going after the nearby goblin tribe etc.. Hearing the warrior himself speak actually became some sort of 'plot point'; it meant he really considered the matter serious or important enough to do it.

It's very important to note that what you've quoted is how my group does it. It's not necessarily the only way or the "correct" way.

Of course. In the end most important thing is to find something tat works for your group and both the DM and the players are comfortable with.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-14, 03:35 AM

Such an approach would make diplomancers much better at having cohorts than the rest of the party:smallbiggrin: since they can convince NPCs to do a lot of stuff. That or Dominate Person. I suppose, but diplomacy is another of those rare places where I've enacted houserules and a diplomancer would be rejected at character creation. The archetype's sole purpose is to always have the spotlight by diplomancing anything with two brain-cells to rub together.

To give you an example of a kind of cohort that I've seen and would be rather difficult to RP by the DM: one player was playing a viking-inspired warrior-prince who dedicated most of his time to fighting or training for fighting. He considered most of the other matters irrelevant. His cohort was his herald&skald, and handled most of the trivial tasks that the prince saw as not worthy of his attention. He'd be the one to order food or ask for shelter, he'd be the one to boast in taverns of his master's adventures, he'd be the one to negotiate payment with the city guard captain for going after the nearby goblin tribe etc.. Hearing the warrior himself speak actually became some sort of 'plot point'; it meant he really considered the matter serious or important enough to do it. Support bard, I take it?

In anycase, that definitely fits the "player decided on the cohort's personality" heading. If the player were willing to have such a character be constructed entirely with the expert NPC class I'd let him have it without burning a feat on leadership and cede total control of its RP. Leadership's cohort represents an exceptional individual that chooses to follow the leader on good faith and shared goals. What you've described sounds like a beholden retainer that's been with the character since he was a kid.

Of course. In the end most important thing is to find something tat works for your group and both the DM and the players are comfortable with.

Whole-heartedly agreed.

willpell

2013-01-14, 03:56 AM

In anycase, that definitely fits the "player decided on the cohort's personality" heading. If the player were willing to have such a character be constructed entirely with the expert NPC class I'd let him have it without burning a feat on leadership and cede total control of its RP.

How does that work? Hireling rules? If he doesn't have to pay something to have a whole extra character, even a totally noncombative one, hanging around and doing menial chores for him, then certainly everyone in the party would want a slice of that action (scroll-carrier for the wizard, walking distraction for the rogue, opener of doors for the awakened gelatinous cube, etc).

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-14, 04:11 AM

How does that work? Hireling rules? If he doesn't have to pay something to have a whole extra character, even a totally noncombative one, hanging around and doing menial chores for him, then certainly everyone in the party would want a slice of that action (scroll-carrier for the wizard, walking distraction for the rogue, opener of doors for the awakened gelatinous cube, etc).

Such a character would be a general lackey to the whole party. If the PC to which he's attached acts a d-bag about it and only ever has the minion act on his behalf, then the minion will have an "accident" at some point. Naturally, the character still being an NPC, I'd take control of him if the player tried to get him to do something too extraordinary for what's supposed to be an unimportant supporting character and mouthpiece.

If the others wanted their own individual minions and could reasonably explain having them with their character backgrounds then I'd either let everyone have one or, if it's causing a problem, ask the original player to find a way to make his character work without it or take leadership.

Also note that I never said that such a minion would have as many levels in expert as a cohort that the PC would warrant with the leadership feat. His intended function doesn't require a significant number of HP or particularly impressive skill or save modifiers. The details of how and how much such a supporting character advanced would be entirely determined by DM fiat based on the game's plot.

I actually did have a party use the hireling rules to get an expert man-servant once. That was..... interesting.

LordBlades

2013-01-14, 04:36 AM

Support bard, I take it?

In anycase, that definitely fits the "player decided on the cohort's personality" heading. If the player were willing to have such a character be constructed entirely with the expert NPC class I'd let him have it without burning a feat on leadership and cede total control of its RP. Leadership's cohort represents an exceptional individual that chooses to follow the leader on good faith and shared goals. What you've described sounds like a beholden retainer that's been with the character since he was a kid.

Yup. The warrior was a barbarian/warblade, and his spokesman was a DFI bard.

MukkTB

2013-01-14, 08:38 AM

willpell

2013-01-14, 09:09 AM

Armor can't be sundered. Not that you don't have a point otherwise. Just picking the requisite nit.

LordBlades

2013-01-14, 04:00 PM

#PC103 The players can expect not to be hit with save or dies. In exchange they will not use finger of death on the BBEG. The alternative is an arms race where the mooks try to finger the players and the next BBEG is bigger and badder.

IMO that's debatable, some people enjoy more risky games. That and by the levels save or die become common, death is just another condition you can undo without much trouble (except some corner cases). I honestly don't see why save-or-die should be set apart from any other powerful save-or-suck (in many cases save-or-suck is better).

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-14, 04:59 PM

I get pissed off when I see "The DM is not allowed to give the players a hard time." I also get pissed off when I see someone talking about DMing who brags about being a hardass and is generally unreasonable. The DM should challenge the players. So let me suggest a few additions to the gentlemen's agreement.Underlined to highlight. Some players like a DM that's a hardass, it's the underlined word that presents problems no matter how gently or viciously he treats PC's. I, for one, have run adventures at both extremes of difficulty. Sometimes people want to mow down mooks with wild abandon and sometimes people want to see how well they stand up to the meatgrinder.

The only thing that has to be considered with difficulty is consistency within the agreed upon framework. Being a hardass when the play-group doesn't want to be in the meatgrinder, or vice-versa, is being selfish and poor DM'ing.

#DM101 The DM will always create challenges in such a way that the players can deal with them without automagically losing. An encounter the players can't beat in combat can be run away from or diplomancered. A puzzle has the necessary clues to solve it provided. Ect. This is already covered, though a bit less explicitly, in the existing guidlines; specifically point III

#DM102 The DM will not kill players without giving them a clear chance to overcome the problem. Player death does not occur unless the player made a significant mistake. The only exception is terrible luck from dice rolled, as rolled on the open visible table. Suggesting that all groups should only roll in the open is suggesting that trust is something that cannot be relied upon. There are a number of rolls that -should- be made in secret and several others that can really amp up verisimilitude if they're rolled in secret.

The importance of character death is directly proportional with the party's ability to undo it. Sometimes you get ganked by suprise and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. As long as it's not used frequently it's not a guarnateed problem.

#PC103 The players can expect not to be hit with save or dies. In exchange they will not use finger of death on the BBEG. The alternative is an arms race where the mooks try to finger the players and the next BBEG is bigger and badder. This one I just plain disagree with. It's one thing if your group doesn't favor these effects but it's quite another if you consider them part and parcel to the game. It's also important to note that many SoD's have hard-counters that are not difficult to aquire and that they enter the equation at about the same level as their cures. To use your finger of death example; it's completely ineffective against someone under the effect of deathward.

This point is entirely subjective to the play-group and has no place in the guidlines being presented by this thread.

#PC104 The DM will clearly indicate the kind of game he wishes to present going in. Sandbox, epic storyline ect. The players agree to play in this kind of game and make appropriate characters. In contrast to the previous point, I wholeheartedly agree with this one. Good communication about what the group wants and expects to play is absolutely paramount to a successful gaming group.

#DM105 The DM is allowed to use debuffs and other nastiness when major antagonists are fighting the players. The players expect the antagonists to be played to their intelligence. A flying fighter can expect to be dispelled if the BBEG should be smart enough to do it. I'm splitting this one because it's actually two points. The above is the same kind of subjective point as the previous save-or-die point. How much or how little crippling debuffs and their ilk are appropriate is entirely subject to the individual play-group.
In exchange the DM will not provide meta game knowledge to random mooks or monsters the players encounter. These monsters will not act out of character to hurt the players or target weaknesses they should not know about. A random thug will not sunder the Wizards spellbook for no apparent reason. This on the other-hand is generally regarded as universally desirable. A group's tolerance for metagaming is subjective but it's almost unheard of for it to be regarded as a good thing.

#DM106 If the DM targets the players equipment or wealth in an adventure, for example sundering the warrior's armor, he will provide downtime or easy adventures for the party to acquire wealth until they have returned to appropriate wealth by level after the immediate adventure is over. Once again we have a subjective point that really needs to be left up to the individual play-group. WBL isn't a universally well-regarded mechanic and far too many groups throw it out altogether for any considerations for it to be regarded as something for all groups to bear in mind.

These criteria allow a DM to run a tough game that's still fair. Shout if you have specific objections.

My specific objections are in the point-by-point above and I must bring up the more general objection that this list of points seems to be aiming for a certain, specific level of difficulty that you've chosen as the best. Including it, as-is, would cut dramatically into how useful the guidlines this thread are putting foward are to groups that find that difficulty level too high or too low for their taste.

Being too specific in this presentation is a danger to be avoided.

MukkTB

2013-01-14, 05:44 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-14, 05:51 PM

OK so we want an adjustable knob on the difficulty. We could have the DM say easy/medium/hard at the beginning of the game and define each of those states here. Hard would probably be "Anything goes as long as the NPCs act within character." I'm not sure how you would define easy or medium.

That doesn't really work either since it's less of a knob with a few settings than it is a sliding scale with two extremes and a limitless number of degrees between them.

One man's mid-high op is another man's basline competence.

Threadnaught

2013-01-14, 08:03 PM

Kelb is correct yet again. :smallsigh:
Though the whole discussion about the difficulty of a campaign is mostly addressed in point 3.

I reckon something should be added for players who attempt to control other players' characters, or NPCs. The two exceptions to this unspoken rule being Mind Control and Player/DM permission.
Kelb's whole side on the debate about Cohorts, they're not PCs, they're NPCs. Thus they're under the DM's control. Though I have no idea how to handle an Animal Companion's speech when the Druid gets Speak with Animals as a continuous effect, so I'm currently doing the talking for her. :smallamused:

Prophes0r

2013-01-14, 08:41 PM

[indent]Players should be allowed to define and control their characters in all ways for the most part, barring such interactions as the DM or group may consider unfitting for the world or the game; likewise, the DM defines and controls NPCs, even those the player characters may be closely connected to, subject to reasonable suggestions.

I have somewhat of a problem with this particular one. It seems to come up often in many of the groups I have played in, and few ever see it for what it is.

It is the responsibility of the table as a whole to define specifically what is, and is not acceptable bot mechanically and in character. This being due to different people finding different aspects of play "fun". I find a distinct lack of communication at nearly every group I have ever played with in these regards. I also find this to be the root of nearly every problem I have encountered over the years, including the group I play with right now.

Let me give an example of this, and how It might be resolved.

In this example, 3 veteran players come to the table with PCs already prepared. They each have their own ideas of what DnD(or any system) is like, and they have prepared themselves accordingly for the experience.

PlayerA has optimized his character as a leader. He has dozens of followers and strategies to use them well. He likes long intricate planning, and watching those plans play out in combat.
PlayerB builds a Hyper barbarian. He has the stats and feats to take on any obstacle, and always barges into combat head first, relying on spur of the moment decisions and luck. His has no interest in planning (in character or as a player) and cares little for RP.
PlayerC brings a socialite. He lives to pull the strings of courtly intrigue. He participates in combat when he must, but his real interest is in deep social encounters with memorable NPCs.

Now, we can ALL see (hopefully) that this is going to cause a problem at the table. And I have never actually seen a group that was THIS fundamentally different from one another, probably because they would just never come back. But The thing to realize, is that there is ALWAYS going to be some degree of difference between players. The trick to resolving this is to communicate.

As veterans ourselves, I'm willing to bet that we all skip over those sections of the books that describe "What it's like to play". And the DM guide sections about "How to manage your playing group". We think that we have seen it all, and we already know how we like to play. This is part of the mistake. We know how WE like to play, and assume that this is how everyone else does too. Or we at LEAST assume that people with similar enough personalities like to play like we do, and this has proven not to be the case in my experience. Again, the key to resolving this is communication. The step that we always skip.

So, I propose a change to your rule to something more like this.

It is the responsibility of all at the table to understand what others at the table find fun, and to make the appropriate concessions to their own play-style to ensure that everyone playing (including the GM) has as much fun as possible. This requires an actual discussion before play to define the general feel of the campaign, how rule disputes are to be resolved, and should be in depth enough to resolve mechanical and RP issues before they start. Furthermore, if a new player is introduced, He is to be briefed on the table decisions made so far, and required to provide his own input on the current rulings.

After typing that, it seems to basically replace all the other rules anyway. Everyone will already be on the same page once you finish that part.

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-14, 09:01 PM

Maybe something about providing roleplaying hooks and backstory stuff for the GM to engage their characters in the story and plot? Players are expected to make an effort to make it relatively easy to engage their characters in the game, stuff like that?

TuggyNE

2013-01-14, 09:44 PM

After a bit of a tangent, we're back in business!

#DM101 The DM will always create challenges in such a way that the players can deal with them without automagically losing. An encounter the players can't beat in combat can be run away from or diplomancered. A puzzle has the necessary clues to solve it provided. Ect.

Hmm. Wouldn't "limited railroading" (IV) and "player engagement" (III) fix most of this? Still, a bit of clarification wouldn't hurt. Let me see if I can work that in to one of those.

#DM102 The DM will not kill players without giving them a clear chance to overcome the problem. Player death does not occur unless the player made a significant mistake. The only exception is terrible luck from dice rolled, as rolled on the open visible table.

Seems a bit subjective (especially open die rolls, which vary a lot, as Kelb already said); the rest of it (i.e., no stupidly powerful enemies) probably should be taken care of by rewording the first clause of III. How's this? "The DM is to provide reasonably challenging encounters for the players..."

#PC103 The players can expect not to be hit with save or dies. In exchange they will not use finger of death on the BBEG. The alternative is an arms race where the mooks try to finger the players and the next BBEG is bigger and badder.

How much of this is already taken care of by III and II respectively?

#PC104 The DM will clearly indicate the kind of game he wishes to present going in. Sandbox, epic storyline ect. The players agree to play in this kind of game and make appropriate characters.

This does need some elucidation. Idea below.

#DM105 The DM is allowed to use debuffs and other nastiness when major antagonists are fighting the players. The players expect the antagonists to be played to their intelligence. A flying fighter can expect to be dispelled if the BBEG should be smart enough to do it. In exchange the DM will not provide meta game knowledge to random mooks or monsters the players encounter. These monsters will not act out of character to hurt the players or target weaknesses they should not know about. A random thug will not sunder the Wizards spellbook for no apparent reason.

Hmm. I thought we'd already gone over this. :smallsigh:

#DM106 If the DM targets the players equipment or wealth in an adventure, for example sundering the warrior's armor, he will provide downtime or easy adventures for the party to acquire wealth until they have returned to appropriate wealth by level after the immediate adventure is over.

This is more "follow the system's guidelines, punk!" (Because yes, that's technically how WBL functions by default, at least in 3.x.) It's also slightly more system-specific than the rest of the list.

That reminds me; I think this should be moved into the parent forum, since it's not really specific to 3.x, or even entirely D&D. Gonna make a note of that.

IMO that's debatable, some people enjoy more risky games. That and by the levels save or die become common, death is just another condition you can undo without much trouble (except some corner cases). I honestly don't see why save-or-die should be set apart from any other powerful save-or-suck (in many cases save-or-suck is better).

Yeah, it's basically more a question of "is this an easy hook to knock a character out? If so, only use it a few times". Dying is not majorly special in D&D, because it's so reversible; it's just the best/most expensive status condition.

The only thing that has to be considered with difficulty is consistency within the agreed upon framework. Being a hardass when the play-group doesn't want to be in the meatgrinder, or vice-versa, is being selfish and poor DM'ing.

Yeah. At present the principles don't really call that out very specifically. Where do you think it should go?

I reckon something should be added for players who attempt to control other players' characters, or NPCs.

I thought that was taken care of by VIII, although clarifying it to mean their own characters (and not others') is probably good.

PlayerA has optimized his character as a leader. He has dozens of followers and strategies to use them well. He likes long intricate planning, and watching those plans play out in combat.
PlayerB builds a Hyper barbarian. He has the stats and feats to take on any obstacle, and always barges into combat head first, relying on spur of the moment decisions and luck. His has no interest in planning (in character or as a player) and cares little for RP.
PlayerC brings a socialite. He lives to pull the strings of courtly intrigue. He participates in combat when he must, but his real interest is in deep social encounters with memorable NPCs.

Now, we can ALL see (hopefully) that this is going to cause a problem at the table. And I have never actually seen a group that was THIS fundamentally different from one another, probably because they would just never come back. But The thing to realize, is that there is ALWAYS going to be some degree of difference between players. The trick to resolving this is to communicate.

To be honest, this seems like the sort of thing principle I should be handling. None of these characters are going to be entirely acceptable to each other for roleplaying, and at least one of them is of no particular use mechanically, in sharp contradistinction to the others. However, I stuck an expansion idea down at the bottom.

It is the responsibility of all at the table to understand what others at the table find fun, and to make the appropriate concessions to their own play-style to ensure that everyone playing (including the GM) has as much fun as possible. This requires an actual discussion before play to define the general feel of the campaign, how rule disputes are to be resolved, and should be in depth enough to resolve mechanical and RP issues before they start. Furthermore, if a new player is introduced, He is to be briefed on the table decisions made so far, and required to provide his own input on the current rulings.

After typing that, it seems to basically replace all the other rules anyway. Everyone will already be on the same page once you finish that part.

This is not unreasonable, but it has a crucial flaw: namely, how do you know what depth you need? If you have no idea what the potential problems are, it may be difficult to get going, and you're more than likely to forget something*. And if you do know what the potential problems are, well, it should be obvious that a simple reminder to go over them is useful, but not all-sufficient.

Essentially, I'm trying to make that more detailed — hence the subtitle "making it more precise". Something that says "hey yo, figure stuff out together!" is ... well, not quite the thing.

*For evidence, just look at how much was left out in the first draft of this, which was already pretty good.

Maybe something about providing roleplaying hooks and backstory stuff for the GM to engage their characters in the story and plot? Players are expected to make an effort to make it relatively easy to engage their characters in the game, stuff like that?

Yeah, I think there are some bits lacking; either I, IV, or VII seem the most appropriate.

For example, changing I to "Players should endeavor to make characters that are reasonably useful to the party in a mechanical sense, reasonably acceptable to the party in a roleplaying sense, and reasonably compatible in playstyle" would already improve things; adding something to IV about character backgrounds making railroading less obtrusive might also work.

Prophes0r

2013-01-14, 10:34 PM

Well, you could define a minimum depth. And then make a rule for how you all want to deal with conflicts when they inevitably come up.

You cant plan for everything, but you CAN plan how you are going to make changes when things go awry.

Raven777

2013-01-15, 03:17 AM

I thought disagreements between players on how to approach the game would get covered through Point 1, but maybe it does need more depth when it's the actual player outlook that's the issue.

For example, I know I'm a self assuming munchkin low end optimizer that will grab power first and rationalize in character reasons for it second. You know... classical case of making my character Chaotic Neutral to not get bothered with moral cases and then rolling with the game's flow. I enjoy most facets of roleplaying like conversation, diplomacy, investigation, throughout which I will fully participate. But I will not let roleplaying considerations get in the way of my unlimited power my fun. Which means that if I am presented with, say, a way to harvest souls to boost my Sorcerer's spell selection, by all means I will grab it. And when the other players, in character, go but stealing souls is eeeeeevil and we'll turn against you... I'm just giving everyone around the table this puzzled face that says your characters have not suddenly developed autonomous willpower, you just gotta play them as dealing with my new amazing spell like I've played mine as dealing with your rewardless princess rescuing charity quest for the past two weeks, duh.

This "but my character would do thiiiiiiiiiis" behavior exasperates me to no end. *Sigh*

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-15, 04:04 AM

Perhaps something to the effect of
A reasonable effort should be put foward by each player and the DM to accurately present their own desires and expectations for the game and to understand the others' expectations and desires of the same. should go toward, though not necessarily at, the top of the list.

TuggyNE

2013-01-15, 05:41 AM

OK. Some modifications to OP once again. Also, I want to make sure I've caught up on all the suggestions, so while I just went through the whole thread again, I may have missed some things. (In other words, if I haven't satisfactorily answered some idea or objection, bring it up again!)

Well, you could define a minimum depth.

Yes please, do want.

Perhaps something to the effect of
A reasonable effort should be put foward by each player and the DM to accurately present their own desires and expectations for the game and to understand the others' expectations and desires of the same. should go toward, though not necessarily at, the top of the list.

Fair enough, although it still suffers from the problem that you may well not know what questions to ask until you've run into some problems. So I'd like to expand it/refine it/whatever to give people a better idea of what to look for.

And then there were nine. (I added it at the end because I very greatly dislike messing up the numbering in the middle; we can re-sort later when we have several others. Also, adjusted wording on a couple others.)

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-15, 06:34 AM

OK. Some modifications to OP once again. Also, I want to make sure I've caught up on all the suggestions, so while I just went through the whole thread again, I may have missed some things. (In other words, if I haven't satisfactorily answered some idea or objection, bring it up again!)

Yes please, do want.

Fair enough, although it still suffers from the problem that you may well not know what questions to ask until you've run into some problems. So I'd like to expand it/refine it/whatever to give people a better idea of what to look for.

And then there were nine. (I added it at the end because I very greatly dislike messing up the numbering in the middle; we can re-sort later when we have several others. Also, adjusted wording on a couple others.)

It's really just a given that some problems won't be known until they come up. Finding out what people like and dislike is just part and parcel to having a relationship with another person.

If you could actually get -all- of the possibilities out in the open and carefully examined you could completely avoid ever having problems to begin with and guidlines like these would be unecessary.

Also, I'm really digging the new phrasing on III and I like the bit about compromise you added to IX.

TuggyNE

2013-01-15, 06:39 AM

It's really just a given that some problems won't be known until they come up. Finding out what people like and dislike is just part and parcel to having a relationship with another person.

If you could actually get -all- of the possibilities out in the open and carefully examined you could completely avoid ever having problems to begin with and guidlines like these would be unecessary.

Well yeah. I just want to get enough of a framework out here to start people asking useful questions, and then let it go from there.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-15, 06:56 AM

Well yeah. I just want to get enough of a framework out here to start people asking useful questions, and then let it go from there.

An understandable sentiment but I think that is something beyond the scope of what you're doing here. A seperate guide would be more appropriate to fielding that line of inquiry.

The expectations that -any- gamer should reasonably have is what this guide represents.

What you're talking about is how to determine what is reasonable expectations for individual play-groups.

Edit: Heh. Amusing thought; if we do a good job on this guide and then make and do a good job with that guide as well, we could print a pamphlet to give out at gaming conventions. :smalltongue:

TuggyNE

2013-01-15, 09:00 PM

An understandable sentiment but I think that is something beyond the scope of what you're doing here. A seperate guide would be more appropriate to fielding that line of inquiry.

The expectations that -any- gamer should reasonably have is what this guide represents.

What you're talking about is how to determine what is reasonable expectations for individual play-groups.

Fair enough. Hey, you want to start that thread? :smallwink:

Edit: Heh. Amusing thought; if we do a good job on this guide and then make and do a good job with that guide as well, we could print a pamphlet to give out at gaming conventions. :smalltongue:

Hehe. Well, we've already had one person use it for a PbP.... :smallcool:

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-15, 11:35 PM

Fair enough. Hey, you want to start that thread? :smallwink: Gimme a little while to think it over. If I can come up with something I'll post it and if not I'll say so in here.

Hehe. Well, we've already had one person use it for a PbP.... :smallcool:

Seems like a sign that we're on the right track to me :smallsmile:

Threadnaught

2013-01-16, 02:21 PM

Hehe. Well, we've already had one person use it for a PbP.... :smallcool:

I'd like to see our guinea pig, so we can see how well the current guidelines work. :smallwink:

Lord Torath

2013-01-16, 02:48 PM

I've always like Runecarver's "Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm)"

It seems to cover everything pretty well.

Kasbark

2013-01-16, 04:55 PM

I must say i'm a bit baffeld by reading the agreement in post #1. They certainly are very specific.

The Gentlemen's Agreement in my group has always been 'Thou shalt not cheat' and 'Thou shalt not be an arse' (also, 'Thou shalt bring beer' :-). Everything else I discuss with the invited players when I begin a new campaign.
I'll simply tell them how i'm going to run, and what i expect of them (this is a story-driven campaing so expect a decent amount of rail-roading. I'm going for about 8-12 months playing 2-3 times a month. Because of the storyline there will be these and these limitations what kind of character you can play)

I mean, don't people usually talk with their group before creating a character? Wouldn't it come up that 3 people are playing wizards, so the 4th might want to re-think playing a fighter?

toapat

2013-01-16, 05:50 PM

I mean, don't people usually talk with their group before creating a character? Wouldn't it come up that 3 people are playing wizards, so the 4th might want to re-think playing a fighter?

except, in a group of 3 God-Wizards, Middle Management Meathead fighter is the most important team member.

as far as your agreement, barring the beer, it is a more comprehensive then yours, but its the same thing largely, or at least in the original.

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-16, 06:14 PM

except, in a group of 3 God-Wizards, Middle Management Meathead fighter the purchased fighting animals that they buff is the most important team member.

Fixed that for you!

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-16, 06:37 PM

I've always like Runecarver's "Manifesto (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm)"

It seems to cover everything pretty well.
It's mostly basically the same thing we're doing here, but less concise. It also touches on several subjective points that really need to be discussed on the level of the individual play-group, rather than as general guidlines for all.

In particular the note about not allowing a character to take an action because it's potentially disruptive and the DM doesn't like the player's motive for taking that action.

The occasional random murder can be disruptive, but if that's somebody's idea of fun (it's an occasional guilty pleasure of mine in games) then barring it instead of making the character deal with the consequences of their action is taking something away from that player. If the character is with the party at the time, they can take action to try and stop him or help him cover it up. If he's not, then they won't be associated with the murder, just the murderer; about whom they can say they honestly had no idea and hang him out to dry for the authorities. In either case, they can decide in-character to eject the murdering character from the party.

If the murdering character didn't want to deal with the potential consequences of murdering an NPC in cold blood, then he shouldn't have murdered an NPC in cold blood and if the player didn't want to deal with the consequences of having his character take that action then he shouldn't have had the character take that action.

A DM should remind the player that actions have consequences and ask if he's sure he wants to do that but ultimately allow it unless the whole group, minus the offending player, feels it would be too disruptive to the game.

I must say i'm a bit baffeld by reading the agreement in post #1. They certainly are very specific.

The Gentlemen's Agreement in my group has always been 'Thou shalt not cheat' and 'Thou shalt not be an arse' (also, 'Thou shalt bring beer' :-). Everything else I discuss with the invited players when I begin a new campaign.
I'll simply tell them how i'm going to run, and what i expect of them (this is a story-driven campaing so expect a decent amount of rail-roading. I'm going for about 8-12 months playing 2-3 times a month. Because of the storyline there will be these and these limitations what kind of character you can play)

I mean, don't people usually talk with their group before creating a character? Wouldn't it come up that 3 people are playing wizards, so the 4th might want to re-think playing a fighter?

You'd probably be shocked if you ever saw the statistics on how frequently people utterly fail to communicate their desires, expectations, and concerns.

It's not even limited to gaming. All of human interaction is rife with the potential for miscommunication and failures to communicate. It is for this reason that people need to be sometimes reminded to actually communicate, rather than leave expectations and desires to one another's implicit understandings.

For example, what exactly does "don't be an arse" mean? I have my own understanding of the phrase but unless you elucidate yours, we don't necessarily think that all of the same things constitute "being an arse."

E.G. I don't see a problem with a baddy stealing a wizard's spellbook if that wizard has taken little to no precaution to prevent such a theft. Other posters believe that to be exemplary of being an ass. Neither of us is wrong because it's a subjective point. Therefore, this is a point about which there needs to be dialogue at some point. Something as simple as "hey wizard player, will you rage-quit if your spellbook ever gets stolen?" when the player presents a wizard for the game will get a discussion on the subject started.