D&D General Is power creep bad?

[EzekielRaiden]

as long as everyone is playing "fair" it can be fun.

What defines "playing fair"?

Because it seems to me that one is "playing fair" when one abides by known rules.

And yet when the rules make the effort to be clear and open, so that it is easy for both sides to "play fair"...how was it described earlier? "Handcuffing"?

 

[Reynard]

What defines "playing fair"?

Because it seems to me that one is "playing fair" when one abides by known rules.

And yet when the rules make the effort to be clear and open, so that it is easy for both sides to "play fair"...how was it described earlier? "Handcuffing"?

I don't know why you are hitting me with that strawman. I didn't mention handcuffs.

"playing fair" when we are talking about the GM going for blood includes things like using the CR rules in good faith (even if they don't always work great) and having the NPCs/monsters act in a way consistent with their characterization. One assumes everyone is following the rules of the game, however they have been agreed upon by the group in question. The GM has so much authority over the scenario, playing fair basically means not being a jerk.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The fear of power creep has everything to do with trusting the players. There's this weird pervasive paranoia I keep seeing that any advantage the plyers find will be exploited with the express intent to ruin the game.

It isn't that players have "intent to ruin the game". The players get new shiny toys provided by WotC and want to use them, as expected, especially when they suddenly realize the new toy is just plain better than their current toy.

So, again, in what way are you trusting them? To not use the new toy? Because if that is the case you might as well not include it if you don't want them to use it.

Trusting that they aren't out to ruin the game by exploiting the power creep toy? If you have players that you think have "intent to ruin the game" then my advice it kick them out the door...

If the players want to use the new toy it is because it is new but often because it is better in whatever manner (and perhaps in a way, more powerful?). Again, the DM either has to decide to: 1) allow it and deal with the new power the toy brings, 2) house-rule it so it isn't "better" but is still new, or 3) just ban it entirely.

If the new toy "breaks" the style of game you want to run as DM through its intended use, you can't blame the players for using it if you allow it. I mean, are you really going to say, "Here, use this new power/feature/whatever which I recognize as too strong (or whatever), but don't use it so I have to adjust my style of game to compensate. I trust you to do that."???

 

[James Gasik]

It isn't that players have "intent to ruin the game". The players get new shiny toys provided by WotC and want to use them, as expected, especially when they suddenly realize the new toy is just plain better than their current toy.

So, again, in what way are you trusting them? To not use the new toy? Because if that is the case you might as well not include it if you don't want them to use it.

Trusting that they aren't out to ruin the game by exploiting the power creep toy? If you have players that you think have "intent to ruin the game" then my advice it kick them out the door...

If the players want to use the new toy it is because it is new but often because it is better in whatever manner (and perhaps in a way, more powerful?). Again, the DM either has to decide to: 1) allow it and deal with the new power the toy brings, 2) house-rule it so it isn't "better" but is still new, or 3) just ban it entirely.

If the new toy "breaks" the style of game you want to run as DM through its intended use, you can't blame the players for using it if you allow it. I mean, are you really going to say, "Here, use this new power/feature/whatever which I recognize as too strong (or whatever), but don't use it so I have to adjust my style of game to compensate. I trust you to do that."???

I would think "trust your players" in this instance would be to talk to them and say "these are my concerns" and give them a chance to either choose not to use these options, or convince you that it's not as bad as it seems.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would think "trust your players" in this instance would be to talk to them and say "these are my concerns" and give them a chance to either choose not to use these options, or convince you that it's not as bad as it seems.

Sure, that is how you should handle it--it is what we did when Tasha's came out--and we all agreed on what to adopt and what not to.

But I don't think that is the case (I could be wrong...?), since the post talked about trusting them not to ruin the game...

 

[James Gasik]

Sure, that is how you should handle it--it is what we did when Tasha's came out--and we all agreed on what to adopt and what not to.

But I don't think that is the case (I could be wrong...?), since the post talked about trusting them not to ruin the game...

I guess that's a fair point. Let's be fair though, many DM's have knee-jerk reactions to new options before even trying them out. Recent example: silvery barbs.

Is it as good/bad as people say? I saw a lot of hyperbole but no idea how many groups use it.

 

[Reynard]

I guess that's a fair point. Let's be fair though, many DM's have knee-jerk reactions to new options before even trying them out. Recent example: silvery barbs.

Is it as good/bad as people say? I saw a lot of hyperbole but no idea how many groups use it.

As a GM, I am not a huge fan of big shifts in assumptions built around PC capabilities happening mid game because it might throw off the internal mental balance I have going on. Of course, you don't need a new book for this to happen: that 7th level jump to 5th level spells can be a doozy and GMs should plan for it, just as an example. I am not intimately familiar with every class ability even in the PHB, let alone the whole game line, and so I have been taken aback by some new trick a player has pulled after a level up. Generally speaking, I try and roll with it, but I know fellow GMs that ban new books mid campaign for just this reason.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I guess that's a fair point. Let's be fair though, many DM's have knee-jerk reactions to new options before even trying them out. Recent example: silvery barbs.

Is it as good/bad as people say? I saw a lot of hyperbole but no idea how many groups use it.

I agree, knee-jerk reactions are often wrong, but many times new features are simply over-powering. That isn't to say the feature is bad or too strong in concept, but in execution they sometime border on the ridiculous. At that point, if the concept is ok, the best thing is to rein the feature back in so it is acceptable to the entire table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know why you are hitting me with that strawman. I didn't mention handcuffs.

"playing fair" when we are talking about the GM going for blood includes things like using the CR rules in good faith (even if they don't always work great) and having the NPCs/monsters act in a way consistent with their characterization. One assumes everyone is following the rules of the game, however they have been agreed upon by the group in question. The GM has so much authority over the scenario, playing fair basically means not being a jerk.

I mean, I didn't say you did. Just saying that people in this very thread have done so. But if you would like things building specifically off what you've said...

I would say that if you are trying to engage in a stand up fight with a level draining monster in AD&D, you are either very unlucky (got surprised by wights) or not really approaching them game the way it is meant to be played.

Why not make the rules actually communicate "the way it is meant to be played," so that confusions like this don't happen? A corollary of "rules cannot protect you from a bad DM" is "rules cannot hamper a good DM." If the former is true, so is the latter.

The third in your example should have listened and searched for signs and the GM should have told them what they found. The "gotcha" is supposed to be aimed at lazy players who thought they were playing Diablo.

So, again, why not have the rules actually tell both the GM and the player this information? Why not be clear and direct, so everyone can be on the same page with minimal effort, rather than stumbling blindly into problems and having to learn simple lessons through totally preventable mistakes?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree, knee-jerk reactions are often wrong, but many times new features are simply over-powering. That isn't to say the feature is bad or too strong in concept, but in execution they sometime border on the ridiculous. At that point, if the concept is ok, the best thing is to rein the feature back in so it is acceptable to the entire table.

This...basically reads as saying "well yes, but actually no." Like, you seem to be saying that these reactions are often wrong...and then immediately pivoting to "except usually they're right."

Frankly, I find most DMs who discuss this stuff online to have a fundamentally self-contradictory perspective. Balance sucks and no one should care about balance...except all the times where they rail against something for being too powerful. Then balance is extremely important. It's "rules for thee but not for me" and it's really, really annoying.