When you played D&D before
Couldn't look you in the eye
You just like to roleplay
Your champion fighter makes me cry
You just like the fluff
And the lore of the campaign world
I wish I was special
Gonna make my character so special
But I'm a creep
I'm a powergamer
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here
I don't care if pun-pun is lame
I wanna have control
I’m gonna play the perfect game
It won’t matter what I roll
I want the DM to notice
When my PC is not around
So friggin' special
My multiclassed optimized PC is special…
But I'm a creep
I'm a powergamer
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here
To quote Thom Yorke, "Snarf, you should never do karaoke again." But that's neither here nor there. Today I'd like to address a different issue- power creep. It's an issue that we often talk about here, but we rarely dive deeply into. So, in the spirit of the Olympics, I going to go Greg Louganis on the subject. Power Creep- not just the name of my Egg Punk band, but also the inevitable cause of edition churn.
As a public service for those who are already getting the angry blood and need to comment before reading the words (so... many... words....) here is the handy guide to what follows:
First, a discussion of what power creep is.
Second, analogizing power creep to inflation.
Third, looking at why power creep is inevitable and causes edition churn.
A. Defining Terms
Any one who says they like a little power creep is misspeaking. What they mean is that they are a little creep that likes a lot of power.
Before diving into the issue of power creep, I think it's important to understand what we are, and aren't talking about. Mostly because a lot of different things are incorrectly lumped into the term. Let's start with the most basic concept-
Options available on the initial release (the core rules, not later additions, supplements, etc.) cannot, by definition, be power creep. You can certainly have bad balancing, or bad design, but that's not power creep. To illustrate- imagine a version of D&D with four classes. Three classes are roughly equal in power, and one class is woefully underpowered. That's just the design- there is no power creep. Or, if you don't want to imagine that, just think about Gary Gygax, taking the poor thief to the woodshed every chance he got.
Power creep is also not just synonymous with versatility, errata, or adding options. Think back to the example I just used (three classes are equal, one is underpowered). If there was a release that only had a revision of the fourth class that matched the power of the other three classes, that's not power creep. That's a change, but it's not power creep.
With that in mind, what is power creep? Here's a definition from wiktionary which is helpful:
The situation where successive updates or expansions to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered.
Bingo! So let's use an illustrative example. TCOE (Tasha's) introduced options for some classes in 5e. One of the features that they added was steady aim, which allows you to use your bonus action to create advantage. I hadn't thought about it much before, but I have been playing a Rogue in a PbP game here ... and it is very useful- essentially, it allows you to generate a sneak attack at will at the cost of a bonus action. A TCOE Rogue is more powerful than a 2014 Rogue, and the 2014 Rogue is now underpowered. That's power creep. If you have the TCOE option, you shouldn't use the 2014 Rogue.
B. The Rent is Too Dang High!
The worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades.
I have found it useful to compare power creep to high inflation. Please note that this is an analogy, and if it doesn't work for you ... cool cool, but I'd rather not have the thread devolve into people arguing about economics.
With high inflation, you have the situation where a given object is suddenly "worth" more (not really, but it costs more). If you're not familiar with the terms I am using below, T refers to Time, so T0 is the initiation time, T1 is the next time, T2 is the time after that, etc.
T0: Eggs cost $1
T1: Eggs cost $2
T2: Eggs cost $3
From one perspective, maybe this seems great? Perhaps you're the egg producer, and your eggs are "worth" more. At T2, you are getting paid $2 more for your eggs than you were at T0! WOOT! Sell those eggs, buy a Bugatti! Suck it, Elon.
Of course, the eggs are the same at all times. The consumer is just paying more for them. In order to pay more for them, consumers are going to have to get paid more, so ideally consumers' wages in T1 are twice as much, and in T2 they are three times as much. In the real world, there is a lot of stickiness that makes high inflation much more painful, not to mention issues regarding the distortion of consumption and savings etc.- that's why this is an analogy, which is imperfect.
In effect, you're on a treadmill. There is no value being created.
Now, think about one way to "power creep." Imagine a campaign where, instead of every character starting at 1st level, they start at 4th level. That's more power, right? But the obstacles they face are also more difficult. What about 10th level? Same thing. More power, but more difficult obstacles. You can keep upping the "power" in your game, but in order to get the challenge right, you have to keep upping the difficulty you are facing.
Because if you simply upped the power to 10th level, and kept the challenge the same as it was at 1st level, it would likely be an unsatisfying experience.
This loop, the leveling loop, is part of the normal D&D experience. The DM dynamically is adjusting difficulty (or choosing adventures) to make the game appropriately challenging (aka, "fun") for players.
Now repeat the same experience, but substitute "power creep" expansions. There, the problems become greater. Moving back to the inflation/treadmill example-
Player A is using the core rules (wages at T0).
Player B is using fancy supplement with more powerful rules (wages at T1).
Player C is using super fancy supplement plus all optimization guides (wages at T2).
Given these issues, where does the DM set the price of the eggs that the party is buying? T0, T1, or T2? Just as importantly, what type of pressure is there going to be on Players A and B to move to T2? If Players A & B see what Player C is doing, aren't they going to eventually want to be at T2?
But wait, why not just have everyone move to T2? No problem, right? Okay, but then that's the nature of power creep. If everyone is at T2, then there's going to be a T3. And a T4. And a T5.
You get to the point (either slowly or quickly) where the materials at T0 are unusable for many people, because you have so many using T3, T5, T8, etc. More importantly, the whole system begins to buckle, because ...
Power creep is always a player-side option (by definition). Do you know who is not getting power creeped? Mr. Monster. So in this example, the wages go up, but the price of eggs stays the same. Which makes the DM's life harder and harder, because not only are they dynamically adjusting things to the intra-party differences, but they also have to account for the fact that the prior encounters are no longer working as expected.
And just like with high inflation, eventually you need a shock to the system.
C. I'm Shocked! Shocked To Find Power Creep Going On In This Edition!
I think it's interesting that 'cologne' rhymes with 'alone.'
In the case of TTRPGs, the shock to the system is a new edition. You need to start over. The power creep is no longer manageable, and you need to start over.
In essence it's just a treadmill. Unless you're just playing so you can be a 20th level character smiting kobolds, power creep (as most people understand the term) is not the same thing as options, instead it's an escalation that doesn't improve the game experience and inevitably leads to more difficulties for DMs, and eventually tossing the edition and starting from scratch again. Don't get me wrong- in a certain sense, power creep is fun! You have more options, and the DM's ability to adjust is often "sticky" (goes more slowly than the power advances) so it can be intoxicating for some people to run roughshod over a game, unchallenged in their power fantasy. But eventually, it all comes crashing down. This has happened with prior editions, and will continue to happen.
OD&D- Accumulated numerous OP options through supplements and Dragon / The Strategic Review. Eventually was replaced by ...
1e- Chugged along, but the release of Unearthed Arcana with its massive OP options led to ...
2e- Simplified 1e back to the core, but then began releasing various supplements. The Player's Options were both awesome, and the end of the line, leading to ...
3e- Rolled it back again. But I don't think I need to talk too much about options in 3e. The accumulation of cruft, along with the desire to move away from the OGL, led to ...
4e- This is the only edition that didn't die or get reset due to power creep. In order to (hopefully) forestall arguments about it, I will put in an explainer in spoilers...
With 5e, despite it being an "evergreen" edition, we are seeing a major update. Personally, I think they did a good job keeping the crunch releases and power creep low, which led to it lasting ten years! Because that's the trade-off, isn't it? The more crunch you release, the more likely you are to have power creep. The more power creep you have, the more likely you are to have to start fresh. But with TCOE, the writing was on the wall.
With that in mind, I know there are many people that absolutely LOVE the addition of more powerful options, and don't much care if it will lead to a new edition (they probably like that as well). But that's my take on it. Been the same ever since I saw 1e UA and knew that AD&D was effectively dead.
In summation, someone once told me that my inability to remember other people's names was an indication that I didn't care about other people. I replied, "Eff you .... um .... buddy."
Couldn't look you in the eye
You just like to roleplay
Your champion fighter makes me cry
You just like the fluff
And the lore of the campaign world
I wish I was special
Gonna make my character so special
But I'm a creep
I'm a powergamer
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here
I don't care if pun-pun is lame
I wanna have control
I’m gonna play the perfect game
It won’t matter what I roll
I want the DM to notice
When my PC is not around
So friggin' special
My multiclassed optimized PC is special…
But I'm a creep
I'm a powergamer
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here
To quote Thom Yorke, "Snarf, you should never do karaoke again." But that's neither here nor there. Today I'd like to address a different issue- power creep. It's an issue that we often talk about here, but we rarely dive deeply into. So, in the spirit of the Olympics, I going to go Greg Louganis on the subject. Power Creep- not just the name of my Egg Punk band, but also the inevitable cause of edition churn.
As a public service for those who are already getting the angry blood and need to comment before reading the words (so... many... words....) here is the handy guide to what follows:
First, a discussion of what power creep is.
Second, analogizing power creep to inflation.
Third, looking at why power creep is inevitable and causes edition churn.
A. Defining Terms
Any one who says they like a little power creep is misspeaking. What they mean is that they are a little creep that likes a lot of power.
Before diving into the issue of power creep, I think it's important to understand what we are, and aren't talking about. Mostly because a lot of different things are incorrectly lumped into the term. Let's start with the most basic concept-
Options available on the initial release (the core rules, not later additions, supplements, etc.) cannot, by definition, be power creep. You can certainly have bad balancing, or bad design, but that's not power creep. To illustrate- imagine a version of D&D with four classes. Three classes are roughly equal in power, and one class is woefully underpowered. That's just the design- there is no power creep. Or, if you don't want to imagine that, just think about Gary Gygax, taking the poor thief to the woodshed every chance he got.
Power creep is also not just synonymous with versatility, errata, or adding options. Think back to the example I just used (three classes are equal, one is underpowered). If there was a release that only had a revision of the fourth class that matched the power of the other three classes, that's not power creep. That's a change, but it's not power creep.
With that in mind, what is power creep? Here's a definition from wiktionary which is helpful:
The situation where successive updates or expansions to a game introduce more powerful units or abilities, leaving the older ones underpowered.
Bingo! So let's use an illustrative example. TCOE (Tasha's) introduced options for some classes in 5e. One of the features that they added was steady aim, which allows you to use your bonus action to create advantage. I hadn't thought about it much before, but I have been playing a Rogue in a PbP game here ... and it is very useful- essentially, it allows you to generate a sneak attack at will at the cost of a bonus action. A TCOE Rogue is more powerful than a 2014 Rogue, and the 2014 Rogue is now underpowered. That's power creep. If you have the TCOE option, you shouldn't use the 2014 Rogue.
B. The Rent is Too Dang High!
The worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades.
I have found it useful to compare power creep to high inflation. Please note that this is an analogy, and if it doesn't work for you ... cool cool, but I'd rather not have the thread devolve into people arguing about economics.
Something I’ve noticed in recent years … is that readers desire precision in metaphors and analogies, even though metaphor is — by definition! — not supposed to be taken literally. People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor.
With high inflation, you have the situation where a given object is suddenly "worth" more (not really, but it costs more). If you're not familiar with the terms I am using below, T refers to Time, so T0 is the initiation time, T1 is the next time, T2 is the time after that, etc.
T0: Eggs cost $1
T1: Eggs cost $2
T2: Eggs cost $3
From one perspective, maybe this seems great? Perhaps you're the egg producer, and your eggs are "worth" more. At T2, you are getting paid $2 more for your eggs than you were at T0! WOOT! Sell those eggs, buy a Bugatti! Suck it, Elon.
Of course, the eggs are the same at all times. The consumer is just paying more for them. In order to pay more for them, consumers are going to have to get paid more, so ideally consumers' wages in T1 are twice as much, and in T2 they are three times as much. In the real world, there is a lot of stickiness that makes high inflation much more painful, not to mention issues regarding the distortion of consumption and savings etc.- that's why this is an analogy, which is imperfect.
In effect, you're on a treadmill. There is no value being created.
Now, think about one way to "power creep." Imagine a campaign where, instead of every character starting at 1st level, they start at 4th level. That's more power, right? But the obstacles they face are also more difficult. What about 10th level? Same thing. More power, but more difficult obstacles. You can keep upping the "power" in your game, but in order to get the challenge right, you have to keep upping the difficulty you are facing.
Because if you simply upped the power to 10th level, and kept the challenge the same as it was at 1st level, it would likely be an unsatisfying experience.
This loop, the leveling loop, is part of the normal D&D experience. The DM dynamically is adjusting difficulty (or choosing adventures) to make the game appropriately challenging (aka, "fun") for players.
Now repeat the same experience, but substitute "power creep" expansions. There, the problems become greater. Moving back to the inflation/treadmill example-
Player A is using the core rules (wages at T0).
Player B is using fancy supplement with more powerful rules (wages at T1).
Player C is using super fancy supplement plus all optimization guides (wages at T2).
Given these issues, where does the DM set the price of the eggs that the party is buying? T0, T1, or T2? Just as importantly, what type of pressure is there going to be on Players A and B to move to T2? If Players A & B see what Player C is doing, aren't they going to eventually want to be at T2?
But wait, why not just have everyone move to T2? No problem, right? Okay, but then that's the nature of power creep. If everyone is at T2, then there's going to be a T3. And a T4. And a T5.
You get to the point (either slowly or quickly) where the materials at T0 are unusable for many people, because you have so many using T3, T5, T8, etc. More importantly, the whole system begins to buckle, because ...
Power creep is always a player-side option (by definition). Do you know who is not getting power creeped? Mr. Monster. So in this example, the wages go up, but the price of eggs stays the same. Which makes the DM's life harder and harder, because not only are they dynamically adjusting things to the intra-party differences, but they also have to account for the fact that the prior encounters are no longer working as expected.
And just like with high inflation, eventually you need a shock to the system.
C. I'm Shocked! Shocked To Find Power Creep Going On In This Edition!
I think it's interesting that 'cologne' rhymes with 'alone.'
In the case of TTRPGs, the shock to the system is a new edition. You need to start over. The power creep is no longer manageable, and you need to start over.
In essence it's just a treadmill. Unless you're just playing so you can be a 20th level character smiting kobolds, power creep (as most people understand the term) is not the same thing as options, instead it's an escalation that doesn't improve the game experience and inevitably leads to more difficulties for DMs, and eventually tossing the edition and starting from scratch again. Don't get me wrong- in a certain sense, power creep is fun! You have more options, and the DM's ability to adjust is often "sticky" (goes more slowly than the power advances) so it can be intoxicating for some people to run roughshod over a game, unchallenged in their power fantasy. But eventually, it all comes crashing down. This has happened with prior editions, and will continue to happen.
OD&D- Accumulated numerous OP options through supplements and Dragon / The Strategic Review. Eventually was replaced by ...
1e- Chugged along, but the release of Unearthed Arcana with its massive OP options led to ...
2e- Simplified 1e back to the core, but then began releasing various supplements. The Player's Options were both awesome, and the end of the line, leading to ...
3e- Rolled it back again. But I don't think I need to talk too much about options in 3e. The accumulation of cruft, along with the desire to move away from the OGL, led to ...
4e- This is the only edition that didn't die or get reset due to power creep. In order to (hopefully) forestall arguments about it, I will put in an explainer in spoilers...
A not-very-brief history of 4e's issues and why it wasn't a success and was killed off:
A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.
B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).
C. It was hoped that 4e would have MMO licensing, computer games, and more. But the timeframe was not favorable. Moreover, we can forget how ambitious this was for the time; the idea of "always on" internet was still novel, and services such as Roll20, twitch, and so on weren't around yet. Heck, the original (very slow!) iPhone had just been released. Yes, the D&D audience was more tech-savvy than regular consumers, but the rosy projections did not match the reality.
D. Building on (C), there exist players who view D&D as a mostly tech-free time. A respite from screens and technology. Sure, they might be luddites, and they might be a very small part of the market now, but they exist. Which also goes back to B, and the botched rollout- computers weren't required, but WoTC chose to emphasize it.
E. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Yeah, sure, the announcement was botched, and the timing was horrible, but they also had terrible, terrible luck! The 4e designers acknowledged that the final push was rushed by directives from the top, which caused them to make the classes too "samey" and left further differentiation on the cutting-room floor. So many parts that could go wrong, did go wrong- key parts of the computer component that was supposed to be rolled out were entrusted to a developer, and that person was unstable and it ended in a horrific tragedy (and also meant no product). The projections for the product, which were too optimistic, combined with the lack of immediate success, resulted in Hasbro immediately slashing funding. But the time Essentials was rolled out in 2010, 4e was already dead internally and they were debating what to do.
F. Within the 4e community, there has been some debate about whether Essentials was a necessary correction that would have appealed to the mass market, or a betrayal of the essential ethos of 4e.
G. Going back to (B), the concept of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was, at best, ahead of its time- we are all about subscriptions now, but it wasn't that common then. At that time, it came off as more of a cash grab, especially given the economy.
H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Buhlman of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.
I. Building on (H), we now know that there were issues flagged by members of the design team, but were ignored. In addition, there were some inexplicable errors (such as the monster hit points).
J. One more thing- while the internet wasn't "always on" enough for the ambitions of some aspects of 4e, this was the first edition launch that had many D&D players (I assume, I don't have stats for this) have easy access to some form of the internet, which enabled extreme and intense opinions to both form, spread, and become much more noticeable and toxic.
K. Finally, this history has to be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product. It's not enough for a D&D product to be "good" or "better" than other editions or other products, it's not sufficient that it has great design. It has to be broadly and widely popular so that it continues to dominate the TTRPG marketplace. That is the raison d'être for D&D. People can, and do, argue endlessly about what makes D&D better or worse or good or not, but in terms of a product, D&D must always be #1. Starbucks coffee might not taste the best, but they have to careful changing it ... if you know what I mean.
Now, why write this history? Certainly not to rubbish 4e. I think it's an interesting, but essentially unanswerable, question as to whether or not it would have succeeded if the stars had not been aligned against it. The product was already essentially dead internally two years after the launch, yet aspects of the system itself were incorporated into 5e, and it was never as unpopular as its detractors say - just not popular enough given expectations and the brand.
Please remember that people have very strong opinions about the transitions in D&D that occurred from 3e to 4e to 5e, and you are unlikely to change those opinions. You are, however, likely to anger the blood of other people on all sides. No matter how good or clever your point is, it has definitely been said before and it will not change any opinions. But what you choose to write is up to you, your God(s) (or lack thereof), and the forum rules and the moderators that enforce those rules. But this isn't a thread about 4e, and I am only including this to avoid the "4e wasn't killed by power creep." 4e is, in many ways, sui generis as a D&D edition.
A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.
B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).
C. It was hoped that 4e would have MMO licensing, computer games, and more. But the timeframe was not favorable. Moreover, we can forget how ambitious this was for the time; the idea of "always on" internet was still novel, and services such as Roll20, twitch, and so on weren't around yet. Heck, the original (very slow!) iPhone had just been released. Yes, the D&D audience was more tech-savvy than regular consumers, but the rosy projections did not match the reality.
D. Building on (C), there exist players who view D&D as a mostly tech-free time. A respite from screens and technology. Sure, they might be luddites, and they might be a very small part of the market now, but they exist. Which also goes back to B, and the botched rollout- computers weren't required, but WoTC chose to emphasize it.
E. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Yeah, sure, the announcement was botched, and the timing was horrible, but they also had terrible, terrible luck! The 4e designers acknowledged that the final push was rushed by directives from the top, which caused them to make the classes too "samey" and left further differentiation on the cutting-room floor. So many parts that could go wrong, did go wrong- key parts of the computer component that was supposed to be rolled out were entrusted to a developer, and that person was unstable and it ended in a horrific tragedy (and also meant no product). The projections for the product, which were too optimistic, combined with the lack of immediate success, resulted in Hasbro immediately slashing funding. But the time Essentials was rolled out in 2010, 4e was already dead internally and they were debating what to do.
F. Within the 4e community, there has been some debate about whether Essentials was a necessary correction that would have appealed to the mass market, or a betrayal of the essential ethos of 4e.
G. Going back to (B), the concept of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was, at best, ahead of its time- we are all about subscriptions now, but it wasn't that common then. At that time, it came off as more of a cash grab, especially given the economy.
H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Buhlman of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.
I. Building on (H), we now know that there were issues flagged by members of the design team, but were ignored. In addition, there were some inexplicable errors (such as the monster hit points).
J. One more thing- while the internet wasn't "always on" enough for the ambitions of some aspects of 4e, this was the first edition launch that had many D&D players (I assume, I don't have stats for this) have easy access to some form of the internet, which enabled extreme and intense opinions to both form, spread, and become much more noticeable and toxic.
K. Finally, this history has to be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product. It's not enough for a D&D product to be "good" or "better" than other editions or other products, it's not sufficient that it has great design. It has to be broadly and widely popular so that it continues to dominate the TTRPG marketplace. That is the raison d'être for D&D. People can, and do, argue endlessly about what makes D&D better or worse or good or not, but in terms of a product, D&D must always be #1. Starbucks coffee might not taste the best, but they have to careful changing it ... if you know what I mean.
Now, why write this history? Certainly not to rubbish 4e. I think it's an interesting, but essentially unanswerable, question as to whether or not it would have succeeded if the stars had not been aligned against it. The product was already essentially dead internally two years after the launch, yet aspects of the system itself were incorporated into 5e, and it was never as unpopular as its detractors say - just not popular enough given expectations and the brand.
Please remember that people have very strong opinions about the transitions in D&D that occurred from 3e to 4e to 5e, and you are unlikely to change those opinions. You are, however, likely to anger the blood of other people on all sides. No matter how good or clever your point is, it has definitely been said before and it will not change any opinions. But what you choose to write is up to you, your God(s) (or lack thereof), and the forum rules and the moderators that enforce those rules. But this isn't a thread about 4e, and I am only including this to avoid the "4e wasn't killed by power creep." 4e is, in many ways, sui generis as a D&D edition.
With 5e, despite it being an "evergreen" edition, we are seeing a major update. Personally, I think they did a good job keeping the crunch releases and power creep low, which led to it lasting ten years! Because that's the trade-off, isn't it? The more crunch you release, the more likely you are to have power creep. The more power creep you have, the more likely you are to have to start fresh. But with TCOE, the writing was on the wall.
With that in mind, I know there are many people that absolutely LOVE the addition of more powerful options, and don't much care if it will lead to a new edition (they probably like that as well). But that's my take on it. Been the same ever since I saw 1e UA and knew that AD&D was effectively dead.
In summation, someone once told me that my inability to remember other people's names was an indication that I didn't care about other people. I replied, "Eff you .... um .... buddy."
