The Gentlemen's Agreement: making it more precise

[Kelb_Panthera]

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.

[demigodus]

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?

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]

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".

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.

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]

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]

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.

[toapat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? (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]

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]

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]

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 publicly known 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.

[demigodus]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

Six Players. Even split. Whee.

Are you counting yourself in that?

[Amphetryon]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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.

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.

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.

[TuggyNE]

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.

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]

Dropping out of the discussion.