Real vs. Theoretical problems and Grudging DMs

[Forrester]

One of the key things to do as a DM and player is

PLAYTEST things before you 'nerf them.

We went through about 3-4 levels with the spell Polymorph Other for example. After my Sor kept turning everyone into a Troll thereby giving them Large size, 10' reach, +7 natural armor, 23 Str, 23 Con, 90' darkvision, and the ability to keep all of their equipment (since Giants use equipment according to the spell), the campaign became unbalanced. We all sat down with the DM and agreed the spell was completely broken and needed to be rule-zeroed.

Now that I am DM I admit that I am very reluctant to include certain feats and PrC from the splatbooks b/c I think they may mess up my campaign. But you really need to give these things a test run -- the results may surprise you.

I guess I'm a "simulationist" -- I try to run a "realistic" campaign . . . and that means that both I and my players are loathe to hit the rewind button.

If your sessions are little more than "lets go monster huntin'!" then completely changing feats and spells and such within campaign isn't a big deal. And there's nothing wrong with Monster Huntin' campaigns. But realize that that's not for everyone -- my players would get pissed off if I started changing the levels and effects of spells, and allowed/disallowed feats only after they turned out to be "broken".

And no offense, but some of us are smart enough to realize that Poly Other is too powerful for a 4th level spell before doing extensive playtesting .

 

[Forrester]

The last thread I was involved in with Psion, I actually agreed with him, and let me tell you, it caused me great pain .

Luckily, now that he's posted this, we can get back to normal. I must say that I vehemently disagree, wishy-washy though his post might be.

Okay, maybe it's not "vehement" disagreement. But I have a big problem with this:

This whole energy substitution thing got me thinking: what's the point. So most outsiders don't have resistance to sonics. Okay? So? In my game, I delight when players use their noggin' to overcome obstacles. So you mop up my demons by using your brain to find a weakness. In some venues that's sort of the point of the game. . .

It strikes me that some DMs are a little to quick to say "nay nay" to anything the players might do to give them a small advantage.

Since when did munchkinism become defensible simply because some thought is involved? Let's face it -- most people who play 3E have an IQ of at least 115, and often much higher. It's not exactly rocket science to put

"Most creatures don't have Sonic Resistance"

and

"Energy Substitution allows me to change a type of energy damage to Sonic damage"

together. This is about the level of deciding to play a Grey Elf if you're going to play a wizard, or taking Spell Prodigy if it's allowed, or becoming a Barb1/FighterX instead of a Fighter/X+1.

Psion said that he likes it when his players use their noggin's. I like it when the CHARACTERS use their noggin's. Yes, I think there's a noteworthy distinction.

To be fair to Psion (dammit), I will acknowledge that he is making a distinction between campaign-spanning problems and those that (may) affect a relatively small facet of the campaign. I would imagine that if he thought the party was regularly facing devils and demons and those with elemental resistances and/or weaknesses (as I imagine many high-level parties do), that he'd think Energy Substitution might be as big a problem as a twinky Grey Elf with Spellcasting Prodigy. No?

This raises a bigger issue, though. I don't believe it's the GM's job to assume that splatbook content should by default be acceptable, and that a reluctance to use the spells and feats therein should be looked down upon as naysaying. In fact, depending on the campaign, I think the same applies to the core rules. Monte can bite me -- it's WAY too easy to Scry in 3E, way too easy to dig up information on whatever you want dug up. Running an intrigue-based campaign is just about impossible. Saying that the GM (and the players) should be happy with other goals ("Just because you know who did it doesn't mean you don't still have to catch them") is a cop-out, and I don't see anything wrong with just changing 3E spells to make it tougher for PCs and non-PCs alike to find out everything about everyone.

 

[Umbran]

That's a large number of new people when you account for those additional venues.

It's not a small number, no. However, it wasn't a constant flow. They came in spurts (basically, each time I moved). The larp crowd really doesn't count for this discussion, because the theatre-style larps I play call for a very different preparation than any tabletop game.

So, as far as this goes, I don't think I should go and change preparation methods based upon events that happen once every four years or so. Far more efficient to deal with the new players as special cases.

Not to say that your suggested method is bad. As I noted before, I've used it in the past. I'm just noting that for a DM like myself, the influx of new players isn't a compelling reason to use it.