Nerfing?

[demon_jr]

Heh. Or, to quote what our very own Piratecat said when one of his players cast mass heal for the first time (while playtesting 3e, presumably):

"You cast what and it does what?!"
Edit to clarify - he cast it on the party, not on some undead, that is. But bringing an entire PC party from nearly dead to almost completely healthy is quite a feat - and damn scary, if you didn't know that such a spell exists.

Do DMs usually try to "nerf" a rule, spell, ability, etc., if they feel it is too powerful? It doesn't happen too often, but the DM has a habit of "nerfing" things when they creep up within the campaign.

This usually happens during the game session when something is attempted that the DM was not previously aware of or does not have a full understanding of, even though it appears in the Core books. It usually starts off like the above quote and then he looks it up. After that, there is a 50/50 chance that he may "nerf". If the rules are clear then he usually allows it, but however, many of the rules are left up to interpretation. In our campaign, the DM's interpretation is usually the final word. As a result, the DM usually "nerfs" it as a result of his interpretation or if the rules are not clear.

 

[Stalker0]

Your Dm is perfectly within his rights to "nerf" any spell he wants. However, often times nerfing is the result of a knee jerk reaction, especially when you encounter the spell for the first time. Any spell your unprepared for can seem very powerful. I would suggest just telling him "sure, downgrading the power is fine DM but then kindly ask that the spell be downgrading just a tad, not outright nerfed. That way you still get a chance to use the spell, and often times may realize it was fine as it was.

 

[Destil]

My best policy: Snap judgment in 60 seconds or less. After that amount of time, DM makes a call for that session. After the game a more through balance discussion can take place and the spell / ability / fuzzy-what's-it can get a more long term ruling. Don't go back on results of the earlier snap judgment, it simply works that way from now on.

Wastes little game time and fair enough for play.

Also there's a huge difference between something the DM has issue with and simply doesn’t know about. If you didn't even know (Mass Heal works like Mass Harm on undead) then making a snap judgment is fair. But changing something you're aware of in game is bad form, particularly if you've discussed it with the players at all already. I'd wait until after a session was over or get to it before it starts and discuss it then, not bring it up at the table.

 

[kreynolds]

My policy as a DM: I keep a very open mind and simply allow the spell as written, provided it came from a source I already approved. It won't destroy my game if I leave it as is.

My policy as a player: I think as a DM would (which isn't hard, seeing as how I am the DM most of the time), and if given an unreasonable knee-jerk reaction, open a dialog with the DM and try to help him identify what it is he doesn't like about the spell and how to work with it without nerfing it.

It's worth noting that I have yet to run into a spell that needs to be reduced in power. However, its also worth noting that I avoid discussing Heal and Harm like the plague these days.

 

[dkilgo]

Also, Kreynolds, how many spellcasters do you have in your games?

You are the DM the most because you run some pretty damn good games.

Thought I should add that. Also, my campaign is just to hard to get everybody together all the time.

Now to the subhect at hand.

I try not to make too many knee-jerk reactions, but that, unfortunately is not the case all the time. My player enjoy, I would almost say love, throwing wrenches into my games, and it makes it hard to come up with a ruling on the spot when a lot of don't know the actual rule for it. So, I tend to go with the general concensus on the matter at that moment. Later on I try to make a point to talk with everybody to find out how they feel about a particular circumstance that occured in one of my games. Once everybody is of the same belief then I proceed with what we all have agreed upon. And, most of the time it is the letter and spirit of the game that prevails.

Knee-jerk reactions happen, but I am a firm believer in not nerfing any rule if there is text to support it.

 

[demon_jr]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Never really being a DM, I am usually a player, I guess I have not experienced the "knee-jerk" reaction from the DM side. That never really crossed my mind until this was brought up on the thread.

In my case, I would look over the rule/ability/spell/etc. in the core books and figure since it was in the core books, there is a text explanation and this is how it works, no problem. However, when the time comes within the game and I try out the rule/ability/spell, the DM is unaware of the use of the rule/ability/spell. This is where the "knee-jerk" reaction comes in.

This would be frustrating for me at times because, as a player, I would feel that since it is in the core books then it can be used. However that is not always this case, as I have come to find out. Usually, I read the core books interpreting things one way and then the DM would interpret things another way.

My DM has stated that whatever interpretations he makes are usually the final word, so regardless of how I would interpret a rule, it would ultimately be up to the DM to decide. I understand he has game balance and fairness in mind, but I don't like the idea of having to double-check with the DM on rules just to make sure we agree on how it works. It feels that whatever interpretation I come up with will not be valid, regardless of what I can show to support it.

However, let me restate that I understand that my DM has game balance and fairness in mind. He runs great games and is a good DM.

 

[dkilgo]

The part about being a DM that still gets to me is how no matter how careful I am in my planning my players always figure out how to screw my design. I really think that they enjoy doiing that, and just wait for the most oportune moment to do those things they do so well. Perhaps I should stop planning so much, and go by the seat of my pants?

 

[Darkness]

Just for the record, regarding my quote at the beginning of this thread: Piratecat didn't nerf anything, BTW; he just was unaware of the very existence of mass heal.

As for myself...
I usually do what feels "balanced;" intended by the author; or logical - in that order.
*shrug* Sometimes that means I "nerf" things (e.g., harm, time stop), sometimes I beef things up (e.g., Skill Focus, Rangers).

 

[dkilgo]

As far as I understand, Darkness, you are not the only one that does these things. I figure that is only to head off the trouble before it starts.

 

[demon_jr]

Re: Re: Nerfing?

Just for the record, regarding my quote at the beginning of this thread: Piratecat didn't nerf anything, BTW; he just was unaware of the very existence of mass heal.

As for myself...
I usually do what feels "balanced;" intended by the author; or logical - in that order.
*shrug* Sometimes that means I "nerf" things (e.g., harm, time stop), sometimes I beef things up (e.g., Skill Focus, Rangers).

Whoops!

Hope I didn't make it seem as if the original poster was complaining about "nerfing". It just struck me as an example to use.

Sorry!