To Nerf or not to Nerf

[cptg1481]

OK, here is something I have been wondering about for some time....

Do you nerf stuff and why? I don't, I follow the leadership rule I have always had in the service. While I don't, I do, however, respect very much your right to do as you see fit at your table.

I never ever take anything away from my, players, (I see the DM position as one of trust and leadership) if they have the right to something in a set of regulations or situations I find it unnecessary to limit or restrict them further. IMO, it just leads to resentment.

On the other hand, granting further liberty, privilege or access, within the scope of the rules is fine in my opinion.

I guess I feel that I'd would resent seeing something in the rules and being told I can't do it. I'm guessing that therefore my players would most likely resent a house rule to limit them more than the published rules require.

There is an awful lot of stuff on the boards about nerfing this and that, by my reckoning there is a lot more about limiting players than empowering them further. I go with the philosophy that, as the virtual situation author, I can come up with an appropriate challenge for the players without further limiting their access to what is allowed within the rules.

I don't want to degenerate into the harm/haste debate, because in the end we all make our own rules, its a game. Perhaps I'm too lazy to think about the mechanics, I just accept that the WOTC play tesing, while imperfect, is stull way more accurate than my attempts to correct the games issues. I'l admit that I'm lazy. I'm just fine with the stuff as written. My thoughts are that if the same rule set is applied universally for the characters and their challengers then the playing field will remain level.

I don't and never will give my players less magic, gold, or anything for that mater, than they are entitled to based upon the rewards indicated in the rules.

I guess I just wonder why those who do restrict players access to items, spells, skills, gold, whatever, more than the rules dictate do so. Why do you do it? What is achieved?

As a DM is the intent to make one's tasks easier, more manageable, or fun?

As a player, how do you feel about this issue, do the increased limitations make the game more pleasurable, harder, easier, or more realistic.

I'm not after WWIII here, (or a troll, whatever that is
?) I am just curious what people nerf and why. I've given my thoughts as best as I can present them and I want you all to feel free to weigh in. I will not argue with you so don't even try, I just want to know what others think. I'm not gona attack your ideas
I am just intrested in alternate views.

What that means is just make statements about what you do and why, don't attack each others ideas. It is a game and it's supposed to be fun, if your ideas work for you and your players/DM then fine. I'm just wondering.

 

[mmu1]

Well, if you look at the rules for DMing a game, in many RPGs you'll find something along these lines:

There are no such things as rules / These "rules" are meant to be guidelines / If these rules don't work for you, change them / Remember, the story and the fun come first, etc...

So, strictly speaking, you're breaking the rules, my friend.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Some of what I do could be called "nerfing", but I don't really consider it so.

Consider PC power on a chart going from 0 to 20 at a 45 degree angle. This, to me, isn't desirable. I prefer a lower progression of power in the earlier levels, rising upward slowly until reaching mid-levels, then arcing upwards sharply until hitting 20.

So, I guess I "nerf" lower levels, but then I bolster higher levels. To me, however, this creates a more "natural" feeling for characters. PCs and NPCs still have a mortal "feel" until about 10th-12th Level, but then begin to move "above the pack", so to speak, after that point. The number of NPCs above 12th Level also drops dramatically, further reinforcing that the PCs, through their experiences, have exceeded the limits of most people.

Of course, I can count the number of Epic NPCs in my game on one-hand, making such PCs even more amazing. I gave Epic my own special twists, of course, but that's a lengthy discussion of its own.

 

[Fenes 2]

My goal is to provide fun for both my group and myself. As a DM and as a player I prefer campaigns with low magic, and less treasure than "standard" D&D.
Playing in, or DMing for a party with all the spells and magic items the DMG assumes is absolutely no fun for me.

 

[David Argall]

nerf away

Of course you should nerf things.
a- no tactic or toy should be dominant. If the PC says "I fire magic missile/fireball/haste/whatever" before the DM is done with the monster description, the situation is too routine and dull. The player needs to be unsure what is the best tactic. That does not mean one is not normally superior, but several should be superior in different circumstances and none should be in all. So a tactic that is routinely the most effective requires nerfing.
b-the powerful tactic or toy is unfair to the monsters/party/other players. The monster or party wins too easily, or the PC with the advantage gets too much star time. Gotta nerf back to balance.
[No, it won't do to power up everybody. Not only is this too much work to start with, it is too easy to misdo, leaving you with the need to do yet more power uping, a process that is clearly game threatening.]

Of course, there are likely things you should stud as well.

 

[Quinn]

I nerf a lot of stuff...sometimes it's to limit something, other times it's to expand it. I've played to long to believe that the rules straight out of the box are going to be perfect and work well for me. In most situations, they do great. Other times, they don't. The D&D rules weren't set in stone, and Wizards states that the changes coming about in their 3.5 release is based upon gamer feedback including comments on some of the prominent messageboards. Check out Sean Reynolds or Monte Cook's websites. They have several variant rules or personal house rules that are different from the published rules. The game design process isn't necessarily one where everyone (including the designers) are going to agree on the final outcome. Some things are not play-tested as well as others. It's a big reason why DM's are encouraged to change the rules if it doesn't suit them.

 

[shilsen]

You scruffy nerf-herder! (Someone had to say it )

I avoid nerfing PC abilities as much as possible, and the only time I do so is for balance reasons. I like a high-fantasy high-magic campaign (which, IMO, is what 3e as written caters to), and the more options the PCs have the more my players enjoy themselves, and the more it keeps me on my toes as a DM.