Power-creep Inevitable, But is that Bad?

[Stalker0]

No, they could release products that don't have clearly mechanically superior options. Just because you're putting out new books, does not mean that those books have to be full of crap that is just plain better than what came before.

I think there is a level of inevitable power creep that comes with new combinations of powers. Let's be honest, I don't think any editor can really keep track of all the potential combinations that every new book has with every old book.

That said, new books can definitely take strides to keep power creep to a minimum. And further, if they do want to power creep, then use it in the name of balance. Use power creep to bump up previously weak options and make them more viable in play. That way no one player dominates the group, yet at the same time the group has access to more viable options.

 

[blargney the second]

I actually kind of enjoy power creep. I like having lots of options in the game, and being able to fight powerful monsters is fun for everybody!

When I'm DMing, I use creep to my advantage to maintain equilibrium between PCs if someone falls behind. Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and my players are savvy enough to know that they don't want me to be powergaming when I'm behind the screen. Finally, banhammers are useful for any combos way beyond the pale - bye bye divine metamagic persistent spells!

Besides, if worse comes to worst, I can *always* win an arms race.
-blarg

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Can't power creep be diminished or ameliorated altogether by the DM being careful regarding which splatbooks he or she allows? I found that this policy along with, at least in 3.5e, judicious restrictions regarding which PrCs are allowed in the world makes all the difference.

It also helps if your players aren't powergamers. IMC, throughout the entire 3e era, not one of my players wanted to play a druid. They knew how powerful druids were supposed to be but no one cared.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Spatula]

I think there is a level of inevitable power creep that comes with new combinations of powers. Let's be honest, I don't think any editor can really keep track of all the potential combinations that every new book has with every old book.

Sure, but that's pretty minor compared to new books full of feats, spells, etc. that are just plain better than what's available without those books. Not in terms of "here are options you didn't have before" but "here are options that are just about the same as what you had before, only better."

 

[RFisher]

Power creep in RPGs seems kind of silly to me. You end up adding the same amount to both sides of the equation so it’s basically the same mathematically but with bigger numbers. What’s the point?

I don’t think power creep is inevitable, but then, I don’t tend to use many supplements either.

When (as DM) I do allow supplements or a homebrew expansion, I tend to: (1) Bias against it. (2) Reserve the right to change it during play. (3) Make clear that this is one-time approval, not something open to general use.

 

[Walknot]

Power creep seem like an easy marketing ploy to sell more product. And nothing wrong with that, unless it diverts from creating "real value" in other aspects of the game development.

On the other hand, who's to say that power creep is not "real value"? Maybe the invisible hand of the gaming market claps loudest at the thought of the same thing, only more maxed! More , better, faster - maybe it's just progress?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, they could release products that don't have clearly mechanically superior options. Just because you're putting out new books, does not mean that those books have to be full of crap that is just plain better than what came before.

That guards you against only one kind of "Power-creep".

For example, let's pretend there was a feat that gave you +2 damage to attack against prone targets. Not too powerful, I think.

In 4E core rules, a Fighter might take this power. How many powers does he have to knock someone prone? Maybe one or two per tier?

Now fast-forward one "Martial Power" and one PHB II. How many powers that knock targets prone does he have now? So, he can't get a benefit from this +2 damage feat most of the time. But add a Rogue with that feat, and he suddenly deals 2 points extra damage every round!


An even better example might be a Wizard with those cold-enhancing feats. How many cold based powers does a Wizard have access too now, how many powers will he have after "Arcane Power" and PHB II?

Guarding yourself against "synergistic" power-creep is nearly impossible. Maybe it would have worked if there were general design rules that say "only two knock-down powers per tier, one level 1, one level 5". Maybe the 4E designers even have such rules? Which would make the 3PP support and homebrewers guilty of power-creep.

My best guess is that the 4E designers have built the system to already account for most synergies as I described them. If they built a Wintertouched feat, they expect a Wizard or Warlock to have only ice powers. Or if they ever design a +2 to damage against prone targets feat, that they will assume that every party member will have powers that knock enemies prone.

Maybe the system itself is already set up in a way to avoid the worst, by virtue of using powers, not permanently available abilities, to do the "crazy" stuff.

 

[Runestar]

Power creep in RPGs seems kind of silly to me. You end up adding the same amount to both sides of the equation so it’s basically the same mathematically but with bigger numbers. What’s the point?

In 3e perhaps, when npcs were subject to the same creation rules as PCs.

But in 4e, they are subject to their own custom rules, which are independent of PC creation rules. This means that future supplements benefit solely PCs, while leaving monster npc in the cold. As a result, your party can only get stronger with each new splatbook, while the monsters remain statistically the same. All other things equal, they would have a comparatively easier time.

In the very least, they cannot possibly get any weaker.

 

[Goumindong]

Power creep, simply because of the efficiency gains made when playing that occur with increased options is inevitable.

It is also bad. It increases the work that the DM has to do to run a successful game. Pretty much anything that does that, if it does not have a significant advantage is about as bad as it gets.

For the most part, the efficiency power creep that you will find will be offset in two manners. The first is in the time it takes for players to select these options. The second is the increased gratitude your players have. But it is, still, on the whole, negative.

 

[RFisher]

In 3e perhaps, when npcs were subject to the same creation rules as PCs.

But in 4e, they are subject to their own custom rules, which are independent of PC creation rules. This means that future supplements benefit solely PCs, while leaving monster npc in the cold. As a result, your party can only get stronger with each new splatbook, while the monsters remain statistically the same. All other things equal, they would have a comparatively easier time.

You really believe they won’t have monster supplements?

Even if they didn’t, you really believe DMs won’t give the monsters a boost all on their own?