Nerfing?

[Darkness]

Re: Re: Re: Nerfing?

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!

No problem; I just felt that, in light of what my quote is now used for, it might be a good idea to clarify this.

 

[GuardianLurker]

In general, I've found that those panicked, knee-jerk reactions (especially in response to my players) is almost always WRONG. As much as possible, I try to stay ahead of my players - at least in their basic capabilities; players being who an what they are, they always come up with something new.

First rule of GMing : Don't Panic!
Second rule of GMing : What's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs, and vice versa.
Third rule of GMing : If you give it to an NPC, it will end up (somehow) in the PCs' hands.

Having said all of that, if you're going to err, erring on the Nerf side is better; it's much easier to increase/restore power if you're wrong than to take it away.

 

[reapersaurus]

Ok, I'll go there.

I don't agree that most DM's have the "balance" or "fairness" of the rules in mind when they willfully nerf rules to deny a player something he has planned out.

Of primary concern to him (most likely) is that he will have less power to control every little aspect of his precious little world, and we all know that that's the primary motivation of most DM's : control and power over the scene(s) and players.

DM's are not saints - they're people, and thus are bound my base motivations.
They don't always hold gaming sessions for the glory and splendor of the gaming gods.
They like controlling players, admit it.
The less the players can do, the more they can control them (even if it's explicitly written in the rulebooks that they can do something).
It only makes sense that they will more often than not nerf something on the side of watering it down every time they encounter it, than actually let the PC be good at something.

And now you may feel free to ignore my points and attack me personally for daring to hold DM's up to a higher standard, and not buying into the DM bias of these boards.

 

[demon_jr]

I think everyone feels that way at one point or another Reapersaurus.

You are just stating feelings that most people would not say aloud or just keep to themselves.

However, regardless of what I feel or how the game may actually be ran, noone really knows what goes on in the DM's mind but the DM. I try to give the DM the benefit of the doubt, since this is a game after all and I would hope the overall purpose is to have fun. I know the DM is a person, but he is also my friend, and has stated many times that overall goal of our particular campaign is to have fun.



But do not fear Reapersaurus, I can see the validity of your points.

 

[Dingleberry]

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but as both a player and a DM, I've found the easiest way to avoid these kinds of situations is for the player to talk to the DM ahead of time. When a player is selecting spells or wants to purchase/craft a magic item or intends to try a spell combination or anything else that hasn't come up in the campaign before, the player should ask the DM about it before it becomes an issue, rather than in the middle of a session. This helps to alleviate the player frustration of "but I wouldn't have done that if I'd known that's how you'd rule on it," as well as the DM frustrations of (a) being blindsided with something into which the player obviously has already put a lot of thought and for which the player obviously has specific expectations, and (b) having a planned encounter completely derailed by (a).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

First rule of GMing : Don't Panic!
Second rule of GMing : What's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs, and vice versa.
Third rule of GMing : If you give it to an NPC, it will end up (somehow) in the PCs' hands.

I can agree with rule #1 and rule #3. I can't agree with rule #2 however, for a few reasons.

1) NPC advantage. If the problem is a spell (eg Harm, Haste) then the NPCs can do it better than the PCs.

2) Cold war, or "If you abuse it, so will I". This means that the DM has effectively nerfed the item/tactic/combo in question.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The main problem with rule #2, as I see it, is that it can be carried to certain illogical extremes. If meteor swarm were to be made a 1st-level wizard spell, it's true that NPCs would gain just as easy access to it as PCs, but would this be a good idea?

I nerf things IMC all the time. However, I have some basic rules about nerfing a spell or item that is in play:

1. No rules changes can be enforced until the beginning of the next game session.

2. If the spell or item is in possession of a PC, the player has the right to choose a spell of equal level, or an item of equal gp value, in place of the "nerfed" spell or item. In addition, each player gets an XP bonus of 50 x level, in order to compensate them for being inconvenienced by my lack of foresight.

If I ever nerf something that's not a spell or item (a PrC ability or somesuch), I'll probably have to figure out a different means of compensating players for the inconvenience. We'll see.

I do have to say that DMs who nerf spells, items, or abilities just because they're used effectively by the PCs are just taking the PCs' success a bit personally. The only real reason to nerf a spell or item is if that spell or item is consistently superior to all other comparable spells or items, or if the spell or item just doesn't work with the rules as written. (For example, there's no way to deal with unerrata'd speed armor or spelldancing infinite recursion loops using the rules.)

 

[GuardianLurker]

I can agree with rule #1 and rule #3. I can't agree with rule #2 however, for a few reasons.

1) NPC advantage. If the problem is a spell (eg Harm, Haste) then the NPCs can do it better than the PCs.

Not in my experience. Actually, it's generally the other way around - as a GM I've got so many ways to get the PCs that I often forget some subtle points (in favor of bigger hammers), while my players tend to optimize their use of every single spell.

2) Cold war, or "If you abuse it, so will I". This means that the DM has effectively nerfed the item/tactic/combo in question.

Yep. Of course, there is a big difference between "use" and "abuse". The main use of this (in my experience) is actually for when players want to "stretch" the rules a little, often in logical but advantageous ways. E.g. I find it's a great way to stop things like the TK dagger-throwing abuse.

 

[Wee Jas]

I see a problem when PCs try to make a spell much more powerful than originally intended. Such as the TK throwing dagger.

 

[Tzarevitch]

The main problem with rule #2, as I see it, is that it can be carried to certain illogical extremes. If meteor swarm were to be made a 1st-level wizard spell, it's true that NPCs would gain just as easy access to it as PCs, but would this be a good idea?

I nerf things IMC all the time. However, I have some basic rules about nerfing a spell or item that is in play:

1. No rules changes can be enforced until the beginning of the next game session.

2. If the spell or item is in possession of a PC, the player has the right to choose a spell of equal level, or an item of equal gp value, in place of the "nerfed" spell or item. In addition, each player gets an XP bonus of 50 x level, in order to compensate them for being inconvenienced by my lack of foresight.

If I ever nerf something that's not a spell or item (a PrC ability or somesuch), I'll probably have to figure out a different means of compensating players for the inconvenience. We'll see.

I do have to say that DMs who nerf spells, items, or abilities just because they're used effectively by the PCs are just taking the PCs' success a bit personally. The only real reason to nerf a spell or item is if that spell or item is consistently superior to all other comparable spells or items, or if the spell or item just doesn't work with the rules as written. (For example, there's no way to deal with unerrata'd speed armor or spelldancing infinite recursion loops using the rules.)

Drat. You beat me to the flaw in the "It is balanced because the NPCs can do it too," argument.

With regard so nerfing something, I do the same thing in my campaign. I will usually grant the PCs some compensation for the capability I took away. Usually I will give my PCs two weeks notice of changes and give them written documentation about what the change is and why I feel it is necessary. I have a list of things that I always nerf so I usually let the PCs know what won't be allowed in the game before the campaign starts.

Tzarevitch