Restored to Rule [OOC]

[VestigeArcanist]

Vlad, I do respect your right as a GM to manage the power levels of the party. It is essential to the plot of the game, and if that power was not used, then many people would find the game not at all fun.

With that said, I must protest this decision. Enchantment is widely consider the weakest school of magic, and for good reason. Nearly every limitation and obstacle that can be placed on it has been placed. Ineffective against creatures, uneffective against large groups, uneffective vs mages, spell resistance, bonus to saves if morally against certain actions, NPC get social skill checks to detect the magic.

Not to mention this invalidates my character concept. Putting aside the mechanical build, Thomas's backstory has him trying his very best to be a holy man. He does not want to hurt anyone, not even Galen, whom was his best friend in his younger years. Thomas wants the political change but he wishes to be a holy man nonetheless. The build reflects this. Temporarily suspending a person's free will is perferable to killing or even injuring them. Even the weapon that he weilds has the merciful property.

In all there has not been any abuse of the build, and indeed there cannot be a gross abuse of it, since I can only use Dominate Person 1/day. Thomas is able to contribute to the rest of the party in a number of other ways, but he is by no means able to carry encounters or the campaign by himself. To further restrict an already limited spell is unwise and harmful to the campaign and player contentment and I beg you to reconsider.

[Vladislav]

I didn't actually make a decision, so there's nothing to reconsider. The current situation is unmanageable, however, and that's a statement of fact.

All you have right now is generic statements such as "Enchantment is widely consider the weakest school of magic", etc. I am visiting the same website as you, reading the same theory discussions, so rest assured I am well aware of the generics. It's the specific realities on the ground I have to worry about.

In fact, trusting into the generic over the specific was my mistake to begin with.

[moritheil]

I appreciate your answers. I couldn't really see where you were coming from at the time.

Originally Posted by Vladislav

Herein lies the entire problem. You have already accepted as a given that Dominate Person is the best, no, the only weapon in your arsenal. You have become worse than a one-trick pony. You are a one-trick party.

Well, for the specific tasks I listed, meaning get people to sit down, shut up, and tell us information, yes. (Clairvoyance counts for information gathering, too, of course. But it doesn't get people to concisely give us what we want.)

This is all because we have no social "face" characters. I built Rurithel under the assumption that the party would want a mage and that, focused on learning spell and blade, she would be one of the least social rather than one of the most social. I gave her the spells to pick up what other people couldn't (seeing as only mages get Clairvoyance) and to be of some use in social situations by giving her an angle on info that other people didn't have. However, this was a very bad assumption to make. Nobody built a bard or social rogue. So we have some gaping holes in ability here - holes that at this point we can only hope to patch with dominate and charm. Our last resort or extra option has become our first resort. I think I mentioned I was really hoping that the new Kallen would be a bard or skill character to provide that "face."

We're not a one-trick party in combat, or for getting supplies somewhere, or for infiltrating a place (Alter Self, Bluff vs Hide/Move Silently and Poul's swordsage teleport), or any of a number of other specific tasks. But we are a one-trick party for cracking the Toldurian plot open. We are one-trick for social interaction. Assuming that's what you meant, it's absolutely right in the sense that you meant it. And it's due to our collective failure to include skill monkeys, because everyone picked what is fun for them to play - which I don't know I can really blame anyone for.

You are doing everything right. Whether by genius or by accident, you have stumbled on the weak spot of this campaign concept, and you are planning to hammer it again and again. It's not about you, it's about me. I made the mistake originally, I now need to think how to resolve it.

Okay. If Toldur actually does declare war (or has undeclared skirmishes) or if the Gang of Four want us dead, it's possible we'll see more combat. But I guess from your other words that you don't want to turn this into a combat-heavy campaign despite the preponderance of combat-built characters. So I'm afraid I don't know what to say about that. It appears there's a mismatch.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by Eonas

... and this is why I hate mind-affecting spells both as player and DM. They wreak havoc in a campaign, any campaign.

Might I suggest simply throwing lots of high will-save NPCs at the party, or even NPCs that are completely immune to mind-affecting effects? To me, it seems unfair to completely invalidate a player's entire character. At least give VestigeArcanist the opportunity for a partial re-build.

I think the issue with regard to saves is his divine metamagic: heighten, which allows him to get his save DCs about 4-6 points higher than they would normally be at this level. It's an unremarkable CharOp trick, something I would generally allow in my campaigns, but this isn't really a high optimization campaign; it's a simulated world and there are lots of low level people around. We can't be giving everyone levels in Knight or Paladin, or Diamond Mind maneuvers, in reaction to one PC.

There are lots of ways around it, just that not many are appropriate at this level. At level 14+ the DM could just say all the major NPCs might run around with mind blank up, for example. We had this talk way earlier in OOC about how the use of mind control all depends on how many people run around with Protection from Evil and such, as that makes them immune to it. Another way to deal with it is to reverse the ruling on Iron Heart Surge; though I don't want to argue against a character's power working, it's not like IHS is very common. If you want to preserve continuity you could even say that Ignat didn't have his IHS maneuver readied this one time, so he was caught off guard.

Your post does hit on the other issue here, which is that it's hard to build a character fairly if what you pick (spells etc.) is going to be changed after you pick. Ideally all the nerfs are known before the campaign starts, but that gets into some meta-issues of player vs. DM agency.

[Vladislav]

This is funny. This is just too funny, what's going on right now. How can I best explain it ...

A plane is flying to New York. Halfway there, a pilot receives a message that New York is snowed out, and he has to rerout to Boston. A que of angry passengers forms by the cockpit door. One shows off his rental car receits. You see, he already rented a car in New York, and can't go to Boston. A second explains how much he loves museums, and how the museums in New York are much better than in Boston, and how unfair it is to deny him this artistic pleasure. Another says, "It's just snow, what do you care, let's go to New York anyway.". Yet another is a bit miffed, "and what if Boston is snowed out too? What are you going to do then, huh? Are you going to go to some third place?". A fifth tries to explain that, ideally, they should have been notified they are going to Boston and not New York, so they can properly prepare.

People, none of the arguments that you bring have any weight or relevance. New York is snowed out, that's the only argument that matters.

I acknowledge there is going to be inconvenience with the rental car, the museums, and whatnot. It is still snowed out.

[VestigeArcanist]

Yes, however in this case the pilot knew that there was a storm was happening in New York, then says, "Oh, you are in Boston now! And no, we will not bring you in to New York after it is not snowed out anymore. And no refund. Sucks to be you. Enoy your stay!" And then they get upset at the passengers, and use analogies which infuriate them more.

But frankly, the analogy itself is insulting, as is the dismissal of our concerns.

[Vladislav]

And then the passengers became so frustrated that they preferred to grab the wheel and crash the plane rather than give Boston a chance.

[VestigeArcanist]

Fine. If you are going to ignore our concerns and stick to your analogy, I say that New York is not snowed out. There might be minor turbulence coming into the landing strip, but nothing to justify bringing people to Boston. A singular, single target save-or-lose spell with a high will-save DC that may only be used once per day, that only affects humanoids, that can be blocked by a 1st level spell, that must roll against spell resistance, that is useless in a social setting because they sound like a mind-controlled drone, that requires a hefty opportunity cost to make viable... is not game breaking, it won't ruin the game for everyone, the plot will still be there, and it does requisite comparison to an act of God.

Does that argument carry any ‘weight or relevance’ as you would put it?

[moritheil]

Let's all calm down a bit. I think Vlad is just saying that he needs to seriously rethink how he's going to run this campaign, because at the present pace we'll solve the overarching plot in a couple of weeks. Until he figures it out to his satisfaction, there is no campaign.

The issue isn't even domination at this point, but rather that magic wreaks havoc with planned storylines. Heal or Limited Wish could have fixed Joanna's ability to bear children and thereby altered history. Teleport could put us in a totally different place in the world, where he hasn't statted anything out. That kind of thing.

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't want to try to tell him what to do for such a fundamental problem, because it's his campaign world; his baby.

[Vladislav]

No weight whatsoever.

You don't have radio contact with the tower, you don't have the weather radar, you are not to declare what is snowed out and what is a turbulence. This game will not continue if I can't be allowed to run it. And I mean really run it, and not have every decision decried with "I respect your right to make decisions, but ..."

[that was for VA, not for moritheil who crossposted while I was typing]

[Vladislav]

Originally Posted by moritheil

Let's all calm down a bit. I think Vlad is just saying that he needs to seriously rethink how he's going to run this campaign, because at the present pace we'll solve the overarching plot in a couple of weeks. Until he figures it out to his satisfaction, there is no campaign.

The issue isn't even domination at this point, but rather that magic wreaks havoc with planned storylines. Heal or Limited Wish could have fixed Joanna's ability to bear children and thereby altered history. Teleport could put us in a totally different place in the world, where he hasn't statted anything out. That kind of thing.

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't want to try to tell him what to do for such a fundamental problem, because it's his campaign world; his baby.

For the record, I have no problem with Heal or Teleport. (although Heal will not fix Joanna, because "crippled" is an aquired or inherited template, not a condition; anyway, that's beside the point. Limited Wish would fix her.)

What there is a problem with, was I believe clearly stated. Let's not add more problems to the mix than actually exist.

[Vladislav]

Also, I must say I was left befuddled at this.

Originally Posted by moritheil

The issue isn't even domination at this point, but rather that magic wreaks havoc with planned storylines.

The whole point of the game was to change planned storylines, presumably by placing Kallen on the throne... most likely killing many named NPCs... possibly inciting a war or two.... laying waste to countries, if required... or am I misunderstanding?

[Eonas]

Okay, I see where you're coming from, Vlad. It still seems unfair to me to penalize another player for a mistake on your own end, but campaign balance is campaign balance, I guess. Still, though, I don't see why you don't just allow Vestige the opportunity for a rebuild.

[Vladislav]

I would gladly. He doesn't seem to want to.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by Vladislav

For the record, I have no problem with Heal or Teleport. (although Heal will not fix Joanna, because "crippled" is an aquired or inherited template, not a condition; anyway, that's beside the point. Limited Wish would fix her.)

What there is a problem with, was I believe clearly stated. Let's not add more problems to the mix than actually exist.

Sorry, that was my reading of this:

Originally Posted by Vladislav

Upon further deliberation, there is no purpose to this limitation. It's a drop in a bucket. It doesn't solve any problems. I need to rethink this. Far more drastic solutions may be required.

I'm sorry if I took that the wrong way and read too much into it.

So I guess the issue is that the campaign world relies on specific actions and attitudes being taken by specific people, and Vlad doesn't wish to get into what happens if those people don't take those actions or have those attitudes, due to being Dominated. That's not a magic-related problem, because if those people were to suddenly die, similar questions could be raised. Also, I guess we need to know certain things and/or not know certain things, which is also totally upended by Dominate (and to a lesser extent by various divinations, many of which we can't actually cast yet.) Or more simply, maybe the issue is that with Dominate Person and a really high DC, most of the challenges he has prepared become trivial.

So we have players and DM talking past each other. Vlad is telling everyone to stop telling him how his world should operate, when in fact they are arguing about how a game should operate, in the abstract, vis-a-vis the social contract between DM and players.

This is interesting because the usual player approach to 3.5 is "you gave me X points to buy stuff, and told me what I could buy, so I bought stuff, and now I'll use it however I please." This appears to run right up against the DM's assertion, "I have a perfect right to control my world." Which is why I said (3 posts ago?) it becomes a player agency vs. DM agency thing. That's the social contract of a game, without which the game doesn't really exist (or isn't 3.5 as many of us understand it.) To what extent are the players willing to give up control of characters and the rules of the game, and to what extent is the DM willing to say that there are rules that he cannot break, that the players can absolutely rely on?

Vlad's contention is that this is a nonissue, because without him there is no campaign. It's true. It's also true that without the players there is no campaign. So there has to be an agreement on where certain lines should be drawn, a social contract, or the game doesn't exist. In 1e, the DM is probably not going to get looked at funny for arbitrarily saying "No, a spell doesn't work that way." Most of the game was originally ad hoc. In 3.5, which forces players to have meticulously planned out character builds and feat trees and such, something not working precisely as spelled out in RAW is a kind of calamity. Panic is the most natural reaction to being told that the rules themselves are not certain, because if the rules aren't certain the players no longer know what they can and cannot reliably do, much like when someone's mouse or controller stops working midway through a computer game.

When I run campaigns, I get around the issue of high save DC spells by throwing out a preponderance of monsters and/or characters. If you can kill or turn one boss reliably in the first round of combat, then I'm going to say there are four creatures there challenging you. Maybe all four are worthy opponents. Maybe you don't know which one of the four is really the boss. You still get to blow your powerful nuke and take down an enemy in a crucial situation, making a huge difference, but that doesn't end the challenge by itself. I'm guessing there is no easy social campaign equivalent to this target multiplication without making the nobles, officers, etc. that have to be tracked number in the hundreds, and that's what has Vlad stumped.

[TechnoScrabble]

Should I just put on Three Little Birds or something?

[Vladislav]

Do you know how many posts an average PbP game lasts on this forum? Look it up, it will soon become relevant. Then come back to this post.

Vlad's contention is that this is a nonissue, because without him there is no campaign. It's true. It's also true that without the players there is no campaign.

To clarify, I don't want to get involved in an arm-wrestling contest, or argue who is stronger, the Whale or the Elephant DM or players. It is given that I need to provide a good game for the players to keep their interest. Which I am currently trying to do.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by Vladislav

Do you know how many posts an average PbP game lasts on this forum? Look it up, it will soon become relevant. Then come back to this post.


To clarify, I don't want to get involved in an arm-wrestling contest, or argue who is stronger, the Whale or the Elephant DM or players. It is given that I need to provide a good game for the players to keep their interest. Which I am currently trying to do.

I have no problem with your intentions. I am stating that OMG and Vestige are expressing their frustration with your approach to the problem because they are talking about a different problem than what you are talking about.

It's not about who is stronger. I just think you should speak directly to their concerns that they will be unable to play the game they wanted to play.

If my attempts to point out the specific manner in which you are talking past each other are not helpful or wanted, then I shall stop talking about it. I am not trying to antagonize you.

[Vladislav]

Originally Posted by moritheil

I have no problem with your intentions. I am stating that OMG and Vestige are expressing their frustration with your approach to the problem because they are talking about a different problem than what you are talking about.

It's not about who is stronger. I just think you should speak directly to their concerns that they will be unable to play the game they wanted to play.

If my attempts to point out the specific manner in which you are talking past each other are not helpful or wanted, then I shall stop talking about it. I am not trying to antagonize you.

Well, firstly, funny story. I showed this:

Originally Posted by VestigeArcanist

Thomas's backstory has him trying his very best to be a holy man. He does not want to hurt anyone, not even Galen, whom was his best friend in his younger years. Thomas wants the political change but he wishes to be a holy man nonetheless.

to my wife, who has also been playing D&D for years, and usually plays Clerics. And I asked her what she thinks the build is.

She said he probably has Protection Devotion. I said no. She said, maxed out Diplomacy for sure. I said no. She said, well, then maybe maxed out Bluff via Trickery domain. I said no. She said, something with healing ...Touch of Healing perhaps? I said no. She suggested Law Devotion. I said no. She asked if he has Vow of Nonviolence or something else from BoED. I said no. This went on for a few more minutes, as she named a few more feats and domains, and I said no to each one. Eventually she said she gives up. I said it's a Domination domain, with a focus on high DCs of mind control spells. She shrugged and said something to the effect of "I guess it could be made to fit the flavor, but seems a bit tenuous".

She couldn't even guess the alignment of his deity from the blub, eventhough I gave her three tries (she first went for LG, then NG, and the third try almost succeeded as she named LN, but then immediately ruined it by adding "good tendencies, of course").

When I told her it's Wee Jas, LN with evil tendencies, she just chuckled.

Vestige seems to believe that any change to the mechanics of his character is almost equivalent to completely invalidating its flavor, while I see no such thing. I genuinely don't see how the ability to cast Dominate Person is necessary connected to the above flavor blurb. To me, it's obviously a mechanical thing, with ties to flavor being tenuous at best.

Given that a potential rebuild can still be made to fit the flavor to a 't', and continuing 'as we were' wreaks havoc with everything I had planned, I think the former is the lesser evil.

Once again, I acknowledge the frustration and apologize for it.

[VestigeArcanist]

Vlad, you gave no indications that I would be permitted a rebuild.

As for what your wife said, I thought about the many different avenues that I wanted to take my cleric. I started off wanting to play a lawful cleric. I decided Wee Jas for various reasons, but number one is that it jived with my character concept, which obviously was based on the real life St. Thomas Becket, and I wanted the church he led to be Catholic church-esque. I wanted to take Vow of Nonviolence, but BoED was not on the allowed books. I thought of going a more dark route with Wee Jas, but that would have conflicted with my fellow players I am sure. So I am a LG Cleric of the God of the Dead.

I also thought of the several domains that Thomas could of had, and I went with the Mind and Domination domains (after being denied the Pride Domain), since they, practically speaking, had quality domain powers and the highest number of spells that were not offered by the standard cleric list. These spells were generally enchantment, and all offered will-saves. With the Vow of Nonviolence path cut off from me, I decided to use an Illumian, and gave him Heighten Spell and Extra Turning. I gave him Glamered armor so he could fulfill his ideal as an ascetic, and had the practical benefit of allowing him a quick disguise when it hits the fan. The Hat of Disguise synergized with this. I gave him a Merciful Weapon and levels in the Inquisitor PrC.

Each one of these decisions were taken and weighed and created the character that I did. Taking my backstory, and desiring a strong character, these decisions are well thought out and logical. I do enjoy my character immensely, and I have played him according to his character, goals and methods. We only found ourselves in combat a single time thus far, and even when the squire was aiming to kill me, Thomas still tried to solve it non-violently.

To put it all together, I invested considerable time and effort into my character, and I have grown connected to him. Vlad, you had ample time over the past weeks to see that he is a full caster who has many possible tricks, covering his deficiencies in social skills with magic. And if you can to me with your concerns and ask if I would refrain from certain actions, or even come up with a new character concept early in the campaign, I would have. I am not a jerk, and I wouldn't want to spoil anyone's fun. But that didn't happen. You made a decision and got ticked off when many of your players (not I in the least) objected, and then ignore our complaints.

So to put it this way, I will not rebuild my character. I put too much time and effort into this character as it is, and there is no guarantee that you will not accept my next character, then nerf the key component in that build as well. If you were thinking that he will stay in the back simply buffing allies and healing their wounds after battle, tough. The historical St. Thomas Becket is nobody's heal-bot, and neither will this one.

Game on. Let's destroy Galen.

[Vladislav]

Originally Posted by VestigeArcanist

So to put it this way, I will not rebuild my character.

Game on.

Whether it's on or not is up for debate, but certainly not with your participation.

[VestigeArcanist]

You are kicking me out of the game?

[Vladislav]

Of course. What else did you think would happened after your rant about how you're going to completely and utterly ignore me and just play on as if nothing happened?

What kind of universe do you live in, in which this rant could have resulted in anything other than kicking you out?

[VestigeArcanist]

I was under the impression that the words 'I think' did not consitute an order or decree.

[Eonas]

You offered VestigeArcanist the opportunity to rebuild, he declined it, you kick him out of the game? Um, what? Nowhere did you decree that he had to change his character.

VA spent hours of his time building a character using the rules you provided, you accepted it. Then, as a result of your own mistake, you invalidate all the time he spent building that character. Can you see the issue here? The problem is yours, not his. Don't shove the consequences of your errors onto him. But that's moot, because as VA said:

Originally Posted by VestigeArcanist

Fine. If you are going to ignore our concerns and stick to your analogy, I say that New York is not snowed out. There might be minor turbulence coming into the landing strip, but nothing to justify bringing people to Boston. A singular, single target save-or-lose spell with a high will-save DC that may only be used once per day, that only affects humanoids, that can be blocked by a 1st level spell, that must roll against spell resistance, that is useless in a social setting because they sound like a mind-controlled drone, that requires a hefty opportunity cost to make viable... is not game breaking, it won't ruin the game for everyone, the plot will still be there, and it does requisite comparison to an act of God.

Does that argument carry any ‘weight or relevance’ as you would put it?

You never replied to this, conveniently. Dominate Person is another tactical option, nothing more, nothing less. What, will you also rule out Wish because it can screw up your campaign?

Honestly, I have no wish to play in a campaign with a DM who either won't act with common sense or with enough maturity to say "Whoops, you're right." It was VestigeArcanist first; who knows who'll be next? I'm not interested in playing in a campaign while under a Damocles' sword of not knowing if you'll suddenly pull the trigger on me. A campaign where mature and perfectly decent players like VestigeArcanist are banned as a result of the DM making mistakes and saddling other players with them doesn't seem like fun to me.

[Oh My God]

I'm not quite sure why the question of," Are you guys still playing?" arrived in my inbox instead of here.

As it stands? No.

Vlad, your response to the single use of a single power of a single character was and is way out of proportion to its actual scale. What's more, you couldn't show less respect for us without breaking forum rules. You don't need to 'invite' us to discuss something we think is important, nor do you get to tell us we can't speak of it. If we think something is important you probably shouldn't just chortle at us. If -you- think something is important, explain why. Don't just point at your DM hat.

To paraphrase your question to Vestige; what universe do you live in where you think you can treat us like junk, and we'll stay?

Apologize, -explain- how one enemy removed from one encounter a day will result in the ruination of your campaign, and then this thing might still have a pulse. If not? You've killed this thing.

[moritheil]

I wanted to try to broker a peace before things got to this point.

Well, thanks for playing with me, everyone. Further words are probably useless.

[Vladislav]

Well, since there are players still interested, we carry on. Whoever declined participation will be NPCed until a convenient moment will arise for their characters to walk away or be handed to another player.

[Eonas]

Nice playing with you all. It's a pity things had to end this way.