D&D General I'm a Creep, I'm a Powergamer: How Power Creep Inevitably Destroys Editions

[DarkCrisis]

My biggest issue with 5E and 5.5E.

I would love for those who have never played old school B/X (and/or OSE) to try it's combat. Combat is fast and smooth.

Because its not all bloated with HP and powers and feats etc

And once you get passed level 1 (and assuming you have gained some magic armor by level 2) it's pretty survivable.

Add a few house rules to jack up survivability and its near perfect. Plays fast and its still D&D. You just dont have 40 different powers and abilities to keep track of.

And really, do you need all that to really enjoy D&D?

Edit: greatest lesson ive learned over almost 30 years of D&D is you only need the core books. Oh and simpler is better.

 

[TiQuinn]

If we’re talking about D&D (not to say this doesn’t apply elsewhere), there’s no incentive not to allow power creep in the game from a business standpoint. Power creep fuels more products, gets more sales, and when it becomes all too much, you get to reboot with a new edition and the beat goes on.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Pedantic

I'd go back to the original definition:

The situation where successive updates or expansions to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered.
Now, I have to admit that my example of releasing a revised class to match the power of the other classes ... actually does fit within that definition, because it leaves the older class underpowered. I s'pose I could argue about it, but it's there.

Anyway, I think this addresses most of what you wrote.

As for this bit-

We can imagine some sort of replacement level DM who really, really believes the encounter building guidelines and follows them precisely, but slowly replaces "older" monsters with newer ones as time goes on. Though, that really can only be power creep if the players aren't also picking more powerful options over time, which I suppose is the point. Maybe it's better understood as a countervailing force or response to power creep in optionality.

I have to admit, I laughed when I saw replacement level DM! I am trying to imagine statting up DMs... perhaps TARD?
TPKs Above Replacement DM.

Oh, wait, that's an unfortunate one. TARG! Use GM instead. Anyway, I think I addressed that with the stickiness bit- stickiness referring to the lag time it takes the DM to adjust to the new power levels. I agree that the DM (and upgrading the power, or challenge, of encounters) is a countervailing force.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

As the age of a D&D edition approaches infinity, the number of spells available approaches infinity

I think your arguments here are very cogent, I agree with the general thrust, but having read it over twice now, I don't see that you've actually substantiated the bolded point, except possibly by pointing out that it has happened historically. Can you summarize why the introduction of power creep is an inevitable process? Your analysis of what happens thereafter definitely seems to follow.

Also, I'm curious if it's possible to introduce DM side power creep. It seems to me if you've got a CR system, you absolutely could print the super kobold or goblorc at the same CR as a weaker monster.

The only way to avoid power creep in D&D is to avoid having generalised features. That is: Any feature that belongs to a class belongs to that class only, and later books cannot add new features, only add new classes.

In that case the power creep potential is restricted to a choice made at character creation: Which class do I pick.

What happens in D&D is that some classes (not all) are designed around systems, and later books will release things that expand upon these systems. Spells, for example, is a system that later books add too, meaning that the more books are released the more spells are available an the greater is the risk of power creeps.

Some classes don't have their own systems are more unlikely to suffer from power creep.

 

[Mannahnin]

Arguably, that's the design ethos behind something like Magic the Gathering. Power levels have definitely fluctuated, and I think it's absolutely reasonable to make the case power has generally increased relative to prior releases (barring the big outliers and less careful design of some particular effects in older versions), but the outcome is still a relatively balanced modern ecosystem.

This is a tangent, but...

Creatures have gotten more powerful, as a rule. Relative to other spells, creatures were notably weak early in the game. Other stuff, especially lands and artifact mana, generally has never touched the power of the stuff released in the first year or so. With Magic, because they're releasing multiple sets every year, they have to manage a fluctuating power level in Standard (the rotating format), and that trends up and down over time. There is broadly power creep in the Eternal (non-rotating) formats, for much the same reasons Snarf's elucidated for a D&D edition. New stuff creates new combinations and opportunities for optimization, even if they'll never print a new fast mana card as good as a mox, black lotus, or sol ring again, or a multiland as good as the original ten.

 

[payn]

Im a 3E/PF1 guy so I know a lot about power creep. Often, it came about as adding options so folks could do X and Y. Sometimes it was even to allow Z as an option. Though, the system is so granular the unforeseen circumstances of allowing X and Y got missed or were misunderstood. Adding Z on top just confused things further.

Now, the system mastery aspect of 3E lead to gaps in power and function that hasnt been seen since. A lot of the group inequality in power has been lessened to a point that isnt the be all end all of D&D arguments anymore. I think its safe to say a lot of lessons have been learned. 5E has absolutely no comparable power creep. That isnt to say its not present in 5E, but the levels are quite manageable. Id say we are about 30 years away from an edition change due to power creep if the OP is to be seen as sound.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Im a 3E/PF1 guy so I know a lot about power creep.

Id say we are about 30 years away from an edition change due to power creep if the OP is to be seen as sound.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. So long as the DM adjusts encounters to meet team PCs power level then encounters are balanced.

So long as the PCs mostly have different niches then the party is balanced enough without even considering power levels.

 

[MarkB]

You establish that fixing an underpowered option by producing a more powerful one can't be considered power creep, so in theory you could have additional publications that increase balance with an initially imbalanced product.

But if they're only boosting underpowered classes, that gives them an inherently limited market and appeal - they're a supplement aimed at the small subset of players who are playing what will inevitably be the least popular classes in the game (since they're the least powerful).

And then you'll get player clamouring for equivalent content for their favourite game aspects - "You released the Ranger book last year, when are we getting the Paladin book?"

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

My biggest issue with 5E and 5.5E.

I would love for those who have never played old school B/X (and/or OSE) to try it's combat. Combat is fast and smooth.

Because its not all bloated with HP and powers and feats etc

And once you get passed level 1 (and assuming you have gained some magic armor by level 2) it's pretty survivable.

Add a few house rules to jack up survivability and its near perfect. Plays fast and its still D&D. You just dont have 40 different powers and abilities to keep track of.

And really, do you need all that to really enjoy D&D?

Honestly? Yes. Otherwise I won't bother will all of the jank that comes with D&D. I'm not going to deal with all the fiddly knobs and dials when combat is just a sack of HP trading whacks with another sack of HP for d6 damage. I'd play an actual rules light game.