Help Me Be a Consistent DM

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

I find myself in a pickle and would appreciate any assistance you guys can give.

Background
In the current campaign that I DM (into the 13th twelve-hour session now), I have set down the following base for people to work off:
- Using Core and Complete Series as a ruleset - No House Rules.
- Additional Material may be added from other sources as rewards rather than XP bonuses. (This is mainly adding spells to spell lists, feats and items).

All agreed to this. Playing in a campaign with zero house rules was seen as an interesting novelty and one that I have to say has been extraordinarily successful so far. I have seven players currently (started campaign with five) and there are a wide variety of playstyles amongst the group. I have a couple of power-gamers, one or two rule-lawywers, a couple of actor-types and a bit in between these. Six of the seven are DMs, they all look for something different in a campaign but on the whole from feedback I have received, everyone's enjoying the campaign.

My Problem
The player playing the wizard has expressed interest in creating some spells from scratch. The guidelines I have given him are to aim at the upper end power-wise of the spell level's spectrum, but don't cross some of the unwritten boundaries set down. By this I mean leaving curing to the divine classes, if a spell has a range of personal, think twice before changing it to touch and other such things. He has played since 1st Ed. and has a comprehensive grasp of the rules.

He really wants to create a "silence" like spell. I said that this is more the province of the cleric and bard and at this point I don't want to upset the balance in the ruleset. Dissatisfied, he let it drop.

Now in game, one of the Clerics did particularly well and so when he levelled, I gave him the option of adding a spell from the Spell Compendium to his list. (This is something all casters have had liberal access to. I have found it a nice way of differentiating between the abilities of different characters, particularly charcters of the same/similar class). Anyway, he chose Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (which has been significantly revamped from its Complete Divine incarnation). It effectively gives Allies in a 30 ft. bonus a +3 bonus to attack and damage as well as an extra attack at one's highest bonus (similar to haste).

And in fact it's this similarity that has caused issue with the wizard player. He's not impressed that his haste spell has been given a "demotion" by the party, and as well, he's not impressed that an ability normally the province of the wizard (haste's extra attack) has been given to a Cleric. Now he does not want me to cancel the spell from the Cleric's list, but he does want me to give in on the Silence spell saying that if not, I'm being inconsistent. My initial reaction to the player was, "if you can find something in the Spell Compendium similar, then I'm happy to go with it, otherwise I'd prefer to stick to the guidelines I originally set down". The player was not impressed at all and so I finished saying I'd think about it, maybe throw up a thread and get some feedback.

Anyway I thought I'd throw this open to the forum here for good or ill.
What do you think I should do? Would it be that unbalancing to allow a wizard to develop a silence-like spell or should I just stick with the guidelines I have set down for everyone?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Mark]

Give it to him. Be gracious but let him know that the next close call is going to tip against the players. Also, be sure that at some point later in the campaign, they go up against an opponent with both spells, or more likely a rogue with both spells cast upon him, perhaps from scrolls.

 

[frankthedm]

Admit you let in the cleric spell without realizing how much it stepped on Haste's toes. Remove the cleric spell. Compensate the cleric the resources spent on it.

If the wizard player was privy to the cleric asking for that spell, he should have spoken up at that point, not try and use it as leverage. If not, he should have been requesting it's removal sicne he recognized it was out of bounds of what clerics should be doing, not try and use it as leverage.

 

[Steverooo]

I think Retro-conning the Cleric's new spell is a bad idea, especially since your reason isn't dissatisfaction with the spell, but the other player's reaction. Let the Wizzer develop a Bard-like silence spell. I really don't see what it would hurt.

 

[Bagpuss]

Should see the fuss it caused when I used "Knight's Move" the wizard in the party is like....

"Hey Cleric's can't teleport!" Then everyone starts claiming the spell is unbalanced at 3rd level. "It's like Dimension Door, but swift, it should be 5th level or 6th level at least"; I sometimes wonder if I'll ever be able to use a spell from somewhere other than the PHB.

I'll have to use "Wrath of the Faithful" next to see what fuss that causes.

 

[MarkB]

I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to recall that Suspended Silence from the Spell Compendium is Sor/Wiz. If so, you could let him take that spell.

Confirmed: It's Sor/Wiz 3, and even with the expensive material component, the on-command usage makes it a good spell. Since this arcane silence spell exists, there's no need for the character to research a new one.

 

[Whisper72]

Well... not to be harping on you, but the moment you allow all manner of non-core stuff (i.e. from the spell compendium and the complete series), the issue of holding on tightly to the 'domains' of the various classes (such as silence belongs to bards) is kinda silly and has become a moot point as I see it.

Simply allow the wizard to have this spell.

Personally, I do not see how this can unbalance things, especially considering you indeed essentially already allowd such crossing of lines with the cleric's spell.

As for the advice to 'threaten' the players that the next call is against them, I advise against that. This leads to a -for-tat atmosphere and an adversarial style of gaming, which in my experience seriously detracts from the fun had by all sooner or later (naturally, personal experiences of others may be different).

If you DO want to 'penalize' the wizard in some way, have there be some relatively rare or expensive ingredient be part of the spell's components (if you use those), or somehow have the cost of the research be a bit higher then usual, because it is a spell that is 'off the beaten track' as far as most wizards' spells are concerned.

 

[Mark]

As for the advice to 'threaten' the players that the next call is against them, I advise against that. This leads to a -for-tat atmosphere and an adversarial style of gaming, which in my experience seriously detracts from the fun had by all sooner or later (naturally, personal experiences of others may be different).

Well, if the players might believe that there is an adversarial motive, definitely don't go that route. I suppose I might have put a caveat to that effect but I wasn't thinking along those lines when I posted.

From my own experience, though, it's a good way to let players know that all things are going to have some balance when they ask for extras beyond the established rules. If they know that you won't just throw anything into the game without provisos, it gets the players to self-govern their requests for expansion of the game past the limits you've set on source material. I believe it helps to keep the players thinking of terms of game balance and, hopefully, gets them to focus more on what they can do within the established rules rather than trying to look for advantage by adding things. I like to be flexible but there are some players who will spend a great deal of time testing and pushing the limits of what is allowed and this tends to detract from the game for the other players and myself.

I had one player that I had to let go from a game because of all the time demands he put on me between game nights, constantly calling or stopping by with a new book from which he wanted to upgrade his character. With him, though, I think it was a matter of his trying to justify his runaway spending. He simply couldn't *not* buy each and every book that ever came out.

Here's some additional food for thought. It happens sometimes, though perhaps not in this case, that an adversarial mindset already exists with a player in a game but is unspoken and shrouded to avoid a direct confrontation. This can happen when a player is primarily used to other (perhaps non-RPG) games where direct competition is the norm or when they come from other RPG experiences that include adversarial DMs. In this case, a player might simply believe that an edge can be found by gaining an addition to the rules that the DM won't factor into the world through the NPCs.

Anyway, once the door has been open that additions can be made to the source material you always run the risk that one or more players, for whatever reasons, are going to focus more on what they can do outside of the established rules. IMO, it's best to find a way to get the players to curtail this activity themselves.

 

[Gold Roger]

Let the guy research his spell.

If a wizard goes and researches a spell it's a significant event and will eventualy be something of his signature, it's unique. Then it's clear that it may be a spell effect rare for wizards, just as it's clear that a spell uniquely granted to a cleric by his god may be a bit out of line for usual cleric spells.

A certain distingtion between clerics and wizards must be kept, but where not talking about fireball and cure here, we are talking about two very minor niches. In that case an exeption can be made.

I'm always for not only accomodating players wishes, but also involving them in the very process of world definition, that way they are more convinced that it's their game as well as the DM and are not only happier but also more involved with the game.


The only real problem I see is a game with 6 DM's as players, all with different but strong oppinions and expectations to the game. You may very well miff somebody to the point of group conflict no matter what you do. In that case it isn't a DMing failure, but a simple matter of incompability in the group.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Thanks everyone for your considered wisdom.

Here's some additional food for thought. It happens sometimes, though perhaps not in this case, that an adversarial mindset already exists with a player in a game but is unspoken and shrouded to avoid a direct confrontation.

Funnily enough, I think you have hit the nail quite accurately with this one. The player concerned is one of the power gamers in the group and does look to optimise. When I have the DM hat on, I try to be as neutral as possible (thus why I wanted a R.A.W. game with a minumum of "interpretation"). However when you have someone who regularly wants to test the boundaries, I suppose you get used to telling them either "no", or "I think this is where the limit is on that". As such and quite unintentionally from my side, an adversarial relationship is created with the player. It is unspoken but there; created in an attempt not to be run over or dictated to by a particular player.

Anyway I was concerned that whichever way I went, I would have to tread on somebodies toes somewhere. In particular I did not want to take a spell off of someone when the spell seemed perfectly in line with their character: a party-buffing battle cleric. Thanks to the astute MarkB (do you guys ever get confused; I'm sure there's another Mark??? on here somewhere too ) I can maintain the consistency I was after in the first place allowing players selctions out of the spell compendium with the 3rd level spell suspended silence. I can point this out either as an option when levelling (and gaining two spells) or if he wishes to scout around for a possible trade with another wizard (rare as this spell would be), it could open some very interesting roleplaying doors.

I'm always for not only accomodating players wishes, but also involving them in the very process of world definition, that way they are more convinced that it's their game as well as the DM and are not only happier but also more involved with the game.

This is some really sweet advice. The player concerned is already researching another spell: Galandor's Ectoplasmic Eruption (think a 5th level spell releasing a small blast of force energy with ectoplasmic grease flying everywhere and covering just about everything in it's area of effect). I'll make sure to make this quite a big deal (nobody else has seen this spell, no chance of enemies knowing about it). As for the 6 DM's part, this is simply our group (and perhaps the primary reason for going to a no house rule game). The rules are there for everyone to know and follow with a minimum of interpretation.

Anyway, thanks everyone for your input. If you can give me any further advice how to diffuse this player's need to constantly test the boundaries (or perhaps even my constant need to enforce them?), that would be good too.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise