How do you define "power creep", and why do you think it's bad?

[Slife]

You may be right, I just personally had the impression that the number of smackdown builds decreased after 3.5...

Meh, 3.5 gave us pun-pun.

 

[FireLance]

Thanks for the replies, all. There seems to be general agreement that one key element in "power creep" is that it has to be released by the publisher of the game (or at least, another game company).

However, opinions appear to be split on the issue of whether "power creep" has occured whenever any option that adds to a character's abilities or options is released (thus making "power creep" all but unavoidable in an evolving game system) or whether "power creep" only occurs when it results in an option that is more powerful than the most powerful option in the core rules (in which case making an underpowered option more powerful is not necessarily "power creep").

As to why it's a bad thing, I've read several replies along the lines of "it makes older options obsolete". But why should we be concerned about discarding old rules for new? Assuming you accept the idea of an evolving rule set in the first place, wouldn't replacing an old rule with a new rule that works better be a good thing?

 

[DragonLancer]

Consider the following scenarios:

1. A DM wants to run a high-powered game, so he gives all PCs one feat at every odd level and an ability score increase at every even level instead of the regular progression.

Nope. This is an individual campaign choice by the DM.

2. WotC releases a high-powered campaign setting, and the rules for that setting allow PCs to gain one feat at every odd level, and an ability score increase at every even level.

Nope. It's built into a CS, so if you don't want it don't buy it. So long as this rule didn't drift down into the game proper, it's not power creep.

3. A DM thinks that a particular class or race is underpowered, so he gives it an extra mechanical benefit, e.g. fighters get a bonus feat every level.

As with #1, this is an individual campaign choice.

4. WotC releases a supplement containing feats that can only be taken as fighter bonus feats by 4th-level or higher fighters that are about twice as powerful as regular feats.

Yes, thats power creep, though not a harsh example. Depending on the feats it could make the Fighter too good. On the other hand after 10th playing a Fighter at present is almost pointless as far as feat choices go so this might not be such a bad idea.

 

[phindar]

I define Power Creep as a game designer's tendency to include mechanically superior things in new books to increase their desirability to customers. All books, systems, companies, and editions do this to some degree; its a natural and largely unavoidable trend. Even if new material isn't markedly superior in a mechanical sense, the simple fact that you have that many more options in how a character is made and what he can do generally means that character will be better. Sometimes this is even unintentional, as a game designer may include a new class, feat or rule that isn't inherently more powerful, but it can be combined with existing material in unexpected (and sometimes unbalancing) ways.

Power Creep on the low end isn't a bad thing. Generally, it just means players (GM included) have more options in how they make their characters, and systems will grow and evolve over time. That's pretty natural. I think Power Creep becomes a problem when you get to a point where the new material is invalidating what came before it, or when the new stuff is markedly better with no trade off. Kits from 2e are a pretty good example. In the late days of 2e, if you made a single-class, PHB fighter, someone might very well say, "You should take the Myrmidon kit, you get a Wpn Specialization and two free proficiencies out of it, for free!" (It wasn't precisely free, and I had a GM that at least tried to enforce some of the roleplaying restrictions of the kits, but it was still four proficiency slots that you could run off with as soon as play started.)

3e hasn't reached that point for me yet, but part of that might be that my group stays a year or two behind the curve on new books. We also tend to adopt new class and feat material, and leave alone new mechanics (like Tome of Battle), simply because we're too lazy to learn new rules. Every group will have its own "comfort zone" with Power Creep and new material. If you look at a game system like a car, once you've got one that gets you where you need to go its time to stop welding more stuff to it and just drive the thing.

 

[William drake]

none

What I consider a "power creep" as youve called it, where I've called it a "min-maxer" is a player, not a Dm, who makes their character in the sole purpose to beable to destroy anything he or she looks at. Ie. A fighter, werewolf, troll *its insain I know* players who stack templets, items, armor, or lump all of their stats into a row so they kill anything with a swing are power creeps. This is not to say that its not ok to lump all of your ability points into one pool, but for those who do, and can deal with not being as fast, smart or wise, then thats fine. But most people, who are power creeps almost want to be perfect. Example: I had a player one time playing a barbarian..he was mad that I told him that he was not as smart as the wizard, or the cleric in the group, and by no means was this an insult. However, he took it that way. So, for the rest of the game, he started putting dots into his inteligence...and I had to point out to him, that it was a waist. If your playing a barbarian, and you want to show some class in that class, then know what your getting into, and suck it up. YOu cant be the barbarian who went to college, whos well spoken and well read. Most players who are power creeps do this because they lack things in the real world, and Dms should spot this in them early to cut it off at the pass before it gets out of hand.
And for those of you, like myself, who thing barbarians are not dumb, you know what I mean. Their inteligence is not acedemic, or learned from books. Its learned from raw survival, and instinct. They dont read, cause they are out in the wilderness and dont care, the dont talk much, also for the same reason. Their smarts is more primitive, but they are still wise and great characters to get into if played right.
back to the point. Dms cant be power creeps. Dms set the story, so they have to make the foes up to the task of taking on the the party. If a Dm, on the other hand, is making foes to powerful for their own enjoyment, well...then you might have an argument that they are power creeps. But most of the time, their not. And this doesnt mean that since your character got killed, that the Dm was a power creep. Ex, later in the story, while in a town, the barbarian discovered a thing, large, and large for a barbarain, thing roaming the streets. It was looking for something. He goes to check it out, I gave him hints as to what it was, but he didnt get it, so when he saw it, he had one last chance to leave without messing with it, he chose too *and, it wasnt that he had to for the towns sake, the creature was after him, on strict orders, and all the other players were adivising him to go since they guessed that it was after him, and had no real time for anything else.* ok, so he chose not to, and got killed. yes friends, the creature was a WARDER Gray RENDER, honed out in FULL PLATE...yeah, think about that. *now, its not that he couldnt have taken it, he just, well....CHARGE..is all he does, and like so, he ran right into a grip that defelshed his leg like a drumstick* What can I say, a NAT20 Is a NAT 20 and boy was it sweet. He learned his lesson when the players were pissed that they had to duck out from the story to heal him up so that he wouldnt die.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Meh, 3.5 gave us pun-pun.

With respect, CHAR OPT boards playing silly buggers with rules gave us pun-pun. 3.5 did not suggest anything of the kind, much less GIVE it to us.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Power creep is, as has been well-noted, the system-wide increase of power over time. It is bad, not only because it renders older, BASIC, material ineffective and obsolete, but because it creates a power-spiral that is NOT NEEDED. Power level increases in D&D with time BY DESIGN. It does this by increasing character levels, which provides greater power in many different ways - hit points, more feats, more skill points, access to new class abilities, etc. Power creep plays havoc with expected, anticipated levels of power and the rates of advancement. By granting ever-greater power to ever lower-level characters it disrupts the ability of the DM to run a consistent game. Oh it's all kinds of fun for the players who then get to be ever more insanely powerful - but the game is ALREADY geared to make the PC's the most powerful mooks around so power creep becomes merely overkill. D&D is not geared to anticipate ever-increasing power OVER AND ABOVE what's already written into it.

That's what makes it undesirable. The game has a framework for increasing power. Power creep exceeds that framework in an attempt to appeal to purchasers natural, understandable, knee-jerk approval of anything that increases a characters power. But it ignores ALL larger implications of its implementation, leaving DM's to clean up the mess created over time.

 

[Slife]

With respect, CHAR OPT boards playing silly buggers with rules gave us pun-pun. 3.5 did not suggest anything of the kind, much less GIVE it to us.

This 3.5e ability essentially gives you the world on a silver platter. All the "playing silly buggers" is only to lower the level required to pull off the trick. (The monster with it in Serpent Kingdoms has a LA of +8, which is ridiculous.)

At will, a sarrukh can modify the form of any Scaled One native to Toril, except for aquatic and undead creatures. With a successful touch attack, it can cause one alteration of its choice in the target creature's body. The target falls unconcious for 2d4 rounds due to the shock of changing form. A successful DC 22 Fortitude dave negates both the change and the unconciousness. Sarrukh are immune to this effect.
A sarrukh may use this ability to change a minor aspect of the target creature, such as the shape of its head or the color of its scales. It may also choose to make a much more significant alteration, such as converting limbs into tentacles, changing the overall body shape (snake to humanoid, for example), or adding or removing an appendage. Any ability score may be decreased to a minimum of 1 or increased to a maximum equal to the sarrukh's corresponding score. A sarrukh may also grant the target an extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like ability or remove one from it.
The change bestowed takes effect immediately and is permanant. Furthermore, the alterations are automatically passed on to all the creature's offspring when it breeds with another of its unmodified kind.

 

[tzor]

None, as others have pointed out "power creep" is generally defined as "across the board." If V 1.0.0 introduces class A, and V 1.0.1 intruduces class B and in every possible level class B is vastly superior to class A to the point where no one wants to play class A anymore then you have "power creep." The same can be applied to feats, skills and spells.

 

[brehobit]

As to why it's a bad thing, I've read several replies along the lines of "it makes older options obsolete". But why should we be concerned about discarding old rules for new? Assuming you accept the idea of an evolving rule set in the first place, wouldn't replacing an old rule with a new rule that works better be a good thing?

I'll give an example from my game. I have two fighter types right now, a ranger 5 and a barb1/swordsage4. the barb/swordsage is *much* more powerful than the ranger. Much.

The ranger player has no interest in doing lots of reading to make a more effective character: he just wants to play a ranger. But combat is all about the swordsage (now nicknamed "superman"). This makes the game less fun for the player of the ranger. His character _should_ be able to keep with any fighter-type, but he doesn't come close.

True, these two are my "over optimizer vs. under optimizer" players, but a large bit of it comes from the expanded books. Extra rage (the feat) is probably as much to blame as the class from Bo9S....

Mark