[3.P] How do you feel about needing a gentleman's agreement not to break 3.P?

[Endarire]

Definition
A gentleman's agreement is an explicit or an implicit arrangement between two or more parties to do something. For example, a GM and a player may form a gentleman's agreement to use abilities available to tier 3 and below characters.

Forming a gentleman's agreement has the connotations of avoiding mutually assured destruction and self-nerfing.

Discussion
It's expected that a GM would nix infinite loops and nearly infinite loops. There is material, ambiguously written, that the GM should interpret in the way that most helps the game.

Then there's clear material which, when used as written, may turn the game into something the group did not intend or did not want to play. For example, a Sorcerer who starts as a blaster may learn invisibility (because it's cool) then realize his boom spells make him visible. He then focuses on crowd control, buff, and summon spells that let him remain invisible, and suddenly the group and the Sorcerer are significantly more powerful.

[i}Evard's black tentacles[/i] is quite potent for a level 4 spell. If the party Wizard starts using it in a typical dungeon crawl setting, it means enemies are close to guaranteed to be grabbed then squeezed to death, or close.

A higher tier example: The GM allows players to do 'crazy' things like Xoriat Planar Shepherds and Beholder Mages, but promises that he'll include these or perhaps even more powerful options if anyone does such things.

Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

[Psyren]

Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

But if you play anything other than Pun-Pun you are self-nerfing. You must have a reason for not playing pun-pun in every game.

[ErrantX]

I've made those in games before for the polymorph spell lines. Too much hassle, and besides, almost every player I know doesn't have the stats they need right there immediately, they slow the game down to look them up.

-X

[Sir Giacomo]

I guess keeping in mind at all times that it is a group game is gentlemen's agreement enough.

- Giacomo

[Callista]

But if you play anything other than Pun-Pun you are self-nerfing. You must have a reason for not playing pun-pun in every game.

How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

[ArcanistSupreme]

How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

Plus, you can still optimize weaker classes. Some people play Truenamers just for the challenge.

[Knaight]

The gentleman's agreement is fine, the fact that the system has to be known well and flaws gingerly tiptoed around so it doesn't break accidentally obnoxious. Its part of the reason I don't play 3.x, everything I do play self balances as much as it needs to, which is usually a lesser extent anyways.

[Susano-wo]

Really, I think its safe to assume "self nerf" means nerfed for this or that build, not that he *needs* to play Tier 1 chars constantly/Pun Pun.

That being said, I don't really understand someone objecting to a self nerf, but not objecting to DM nerfing. ASking the DM to nerf you is basically the same as nerfing yourself, though I guess I can see the psychology behind asking someone to bind your arm, rather than simply not using it to fight.

I like mehcanical fixes. I prefer to not have people have to worry "is this over the line?." But I accept it as necessary in some cases.

EDIT: and I second what Knaight said, except I deal with the occasiaonal obnoxiousness and still play 3.X ^ ^

[JaronK]

How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

So true. I want to actually have fun in the game and participate in a story. If I can solve the entire story arc by casting a couple spells, nothing fun happens!

JaronK

[Saph]

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

This. Tabletop RPGs can function with heavy optimisation if the DM's good, but it's not really what they're designed for. A pen-and-paper RPG is basically a cooperative game, not a competitive one; there has to be some kind of gentleman's agreement or the game doesn't work!

The games best suited to extreme optimisation are the highly competitive ones where winning is pretty much everything; something like chess, or Starcraft. I don't know of any tabletop RPG that really does it well.

[Psyren]

How about "because Pun-Pun isn't fun anymore"?

Beyond a certain point, the more powerful the character, the less fun you'll have. You want to optimize for entertainment value, not for sheer power.

That was sort of my point.

[dsmiles]

Definition
Why Ask?
I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

Not everyone feels the same. I like low-to medium-op games. High-op games bother me. My group has an unwritten rule that uber-optimization is right out. None of us like one-shotting the bbeg. We enjoy the drama of a close-to-the-vest battle. To each their own.

[shadow_archmagi]

All games are already ultimately a gentleman's agreement.

There are so many ways to break a game without optimizing that one more unspoken rule doesn't really hurt it.

For instance, my group had an unspoken rule that honestly, gender wasn't going to come up, because that was going to get weird fast. We also turned off everything electronic when the game started, and so on.

[JaronK]

I think Self Nerfing only really comes up once the character is in play. It feels wrong for an uber powerful Wizard to just say "well, sure, I could stop this world ending threat right now and go home, but instead I'll tag along and buff the Fighter so it's nice and fun for everything." That ruins verisimilitude... and it's why I don't like playing uber powerful Wizards anymore. But I don't think it's self nerfing to come up with a character that isn't as powerful as another one you could have come up with... one that actually fits in the story.

JaronK

[Saph]

But I don't think it's self nerfing to come up with a character that isn't as powerful as another one you could have come up with...

And as Psyren pointed out, unless you're playing a character who's infinitely powerful, your character will always be less powerful than another one you could have come up with.

[Rixx]

Optimal != fun

[Psyren]

Optimal != fun

There are many kinds of optimal.

[cfalcon]

I think Self Nerfing only really comes up once the character is in play. It feels wrong for an uber powerful Wizard to just say "well, sure, I could stop this world ending threat right now and go home, but instead I'll tag along and buff the Fighter so it's nice and fun for everything."

Buff spells are low risk activities. If you focus your efforts on making your allies stronger you don't always have the most efficient way to defeat every encounter- but you DO have a reliable and CONSISTENT method of handling a wide variety of encounters, and the total spell load out of such a strategy is smaller than a blaster wizard (obviously), or even a heavy controller or a big player in the save-or-die game. If the battle with the BBEG was a sham and then he reveals his TRUE FORM, like some Final Fantasy battle, then would you rather have expended all your spell slots and be going 'wut', or would you like to have a team of hasted, greater heroismed dudes ready to tear that jerkface apart?

Granted, that's an unlikely situation, but a buffing is still a safe activity until you have discerned exactly how best to handle any given situation, and it's hardly ever very wrong. I feel it's very in character for some wizards to run that way.

[JaronK]

I don't think you understood what I meant at all. I wasn't talking about the Wizard deciding to buff someone instead of novaing his spells away. I was more thinking about the Wizard deciding not to just scry and die the BBEG from the safety of his own home (CoP + Mindrape on a Commoner + Love's Pain in a flowing time/timeless plain for the insta-gib), and instead going on an epic journey with the Fighter and his comic relief pal, buffing the Fighter the whole way, and spending a year doing so.

JaronK

[Endarire]

I made a Conjurer focused on crowd control. After a GM nerfed my other options by almost always passing saves, I stopped using spells with saves. I focused on summoning awhile until group buffing became viable. The group enjoyed haste, draconic polymorph, fly, and so on, but I was disappointed that this wasn't the original point of this build.

Were I a less versatile character, then if the GM denied my shtick (like tripping people), I'd be stuck with lots of useless baggage and may need a different character to be viable.

[Crow]

I dislike needing to self nerf. My temperment is to go to extremes. I optimize as a hobby, because build mistakes, especially my build mistakes, bother me.

So, I assume that you are either a highly acclaimed professor, extremely successful business professional, or top-tier elite athlete?

If not, maybe you could focus your temperment into things outside of the game so as not to (inadvertantly?) cause imbalance issues in-game?

[Grommen]

I always DM with these types of agreements.

Like when I run a Shadowrun game. They agree to not make me angry by killing my bad guys too fast and making Gun Bunnies with .001 essence.

And I don't kill them all with Panther Assault Cannons.

I think D&D games are a bit more complex. With 3.5 and Pathfinder you have to keep a heaver hand on the balance or the players will accidentally or deleberty run away with the power curve.

[Psyx]

And I don't kill them all with Panther Assault Cannons.

This. I've never needed to actually formalise a gentleman's agreement with players or GMs. I can restrain myself. If players were to over-optimise, I'm pretty sure I can drop enough pianos to kill them regardless. And as a player, I won't over-optimise, so long as GMs don't start playing silly!

[Jacque]

In my game we use the agreement that whatever the players use, I am allowed to use as the GM. This usually puts an end to all game-breaking issues.

[Feliks878]

I'll echo what a lot of people have already said: All PnP RPGs are basically some form of social contract between the DM and the Players, as well as the Players among themselves. Breaking the contract is what causes problems, and it can come in many forms: (A player wants to be Evil in a generally Good/Neutral game, a player who only really enjoys Hack 'n' Slash ends up in some High Political Intrigue and tries to solve every problem with sharp bits of metal)

If you mean more specific, spelled out agreements, these are good too, but they're not always perfect. A major issue is the level of understanding within a group. Many people have different understandings of optimization. In my own group, for example, while a few players are familiar with the concept of Cleric/Wizard/Druid being powerful classes, none of them have actually seen a Tier list, and wouldn't know what an Incantrix is if it bit them in the leg. (Side note, glorious mental image right there).

This means that I need to build characters who are more balanced within the party, and if I'm DMing I should probably avoid throwing a Troll who has picked up fire and acid immunity at the party, and if I'm a player I probably should shy away from wish loops and a few spells/builds that are a little high on the optimization line to stay in step with the Fighter who only takes core feats because he only owns a PHB or the guy who really likes Monk because of all the attacks she gets and thinks tripping is a waste of an action because it doesn't deal hitpoint damage.

However, the problem occurs when players interpret things differently. Within a group, especially a group that doesn't adhere to strict guidelines such as the Tier System. One person's view of "overpowered" is vastly different then another, and you may end up accomplishing nothing but annoying people by trying to set arbitrary limits on what they can do, from their point of view. Especially if you ban something - let's say Alter Self - because of what it CAN do, when all the player was going to do was use it like a powered up Disguise Self.

In general, it's understood that people can be rational if approached in a rational manner. It's hard to have a fiat against certain problems from the get go - with a few exceptions (the polymorph tree is a popular target here), you don't know what's going to be a problem. When something is though, and a player perhaps doesn't realize how much spotlight he or she is stealing, talking to him or her is usually a really good start.

[Tyndmyr]

So, I assume that you are either a highly acclaimed professor, extremely successful business professional, or top-tier elite athlete?

If not, maybe you could focus your temperment into things outside of the game so as not to (inadvertantly?) cause imbalance issues in-game?

No need to get personal. I happen to be quite successful in my professional life and also enjoy high-op games, but I doubt that's anything more than a coincidence. I also doubt that the desire to play a specific way will be filled by working more/harder.

A gentlemans agreement isn't the only way to fix 3.x, but its certainly the easiest.

[Jolly]

DnD is a collaborative game, if you cvan't have fun without making your character the most powerfullest being ever then you're playing the wrong game. It's like crying that the quarterback on a football team or the lead singer in a band get all the attention. It's supposed to be a group effort, not a "I'm gonna do what I want and who cares about anyone else" game.

[Lev]

Gandalf: What? Yeah I'm higher level and I'm T1, but I give you my word that I'll act as if I'm lower level.

DM: Well, won't you just use that as leverage socially to make you seem more important even if you hold back on the mechanical side?

Gandalf: Nope, won't happen.



Moments Later




DM: Soloing a balor huh, what happened to that self nerf?

Gandalf: BEHOLD, I HAVE RETURNED AS GANDALF THE OPTIMIZED!

[Feliks878]

Spoiler

Show

Gandalf: What? Yeah I'm higher level and I'm T1, but I give you my word that I'll act as if I'm lower level.

DM: Well, won't you just use that as leverage socially to make you seem more important even if you hold back on the mechanical side?

Gandalf: Nope, won't happen.



Moments Later




DM: Soloing a balor huh, what happened to that self nerf?

Gandalf: BEHOLD, I HAVE RETURNED AS GANDALF THE OPTIMIZED!

Oh wow. I laughed. That was amazing.

[ithildur]

Oh wow. I laughed. That was amazing.

Priceless. Best post on these forums yet I've seen.