Fate Core comes to mind.Are there any other examples?
Really, any game that isn't based on a continuing stream of supplements will fit the bill.
Fate Core comes to mind.Are there any other examples?
Yes, we are in agreement. My hypothesis is that WotC wants to occlude this reality because it is very much in their interest for the term "5e" (or 5.5e, or 5e2024, etc.) to be meaningless to consumers, so that the only thing that matters to consumers is the term "D&D." Which they own and can control. Which is why they steadfastly refuse to comment on what this upcoming rules revision should be called other than "D&D" or "the 2024 D&D update."I don’t see 5e as a game but an underlying engine. D&D, Tales of the Valiant, and A5e are actual games. No one sits with just the 5.1 SRD or the A5e SRD and plays.
D&D, ToV, and A5e are all built on 5e.
It seems self evident to me that it was not the 4e ruleset that caused the lack of power creep. I have no idea how one ruleset would enforce this over any other. Are you saying it probably was due to the 4e ruleset? How would one ruleset even accomplish something like this?You have provided no proof otherwise, and I would want some if we're discussing the general D&D sphere.
I am about to find out, the second edition was just releasedI bounced off of Playing at the World. It's not that it was bad but that book was a bit of a slog for me.
It seems self evident to me that it was not the 4e ruleset that caused the lack of power creep.
That's the thing though. I want to just go on and play a character. If builds and power creep are a thing and the table is talking about how to build the biggest DPS build, I kind of have to care about it. I could deal with power creep better if it wasn't part of the build process. I've found for a guy that started tabletop with 5th edition, I prefer White Box: FMAG, B/X Derivatives, and Dungeon Crawl Classics precisely because they do so well at keeping away from Power Creep and Builds.As mainly a player...
Yes, yes I very much do like Power Creep. Or to be more exacts, that I find Power Creep an acceptable costs so that the corebook/initial design mistakes can be fixed and just generally more new stuff.
And if it causes death of an edition? Haven't you people heard of moving on?
I completely agree, it is up to the designers to enforce that discipline. The rules cannot enforce anything upon the designers, that is obviously impossible.I think I recall that the person who raised the example noted that it was the choices of what to publish as supplements was the core factor, and not the system itself. They tended to publish entirely new archetypes, rather than build on existing ones, basically.
So, 4e didn't experience it much, but could have.
fixing things and introducing new options does not necessarily require power creep. Power creep simply frequently is introduced by it due to lack of discipline by the designersAs mainly a player...
Yes, yes I very much do like Power Creep. Or to be more exacts, that I find Power Creep an acceptable costs so that the corebook/initial design mistakes can be fixed and just generally more new stuff.
I can move on when I feel like it, it does not take the death of the edition by power creep to get me there. Likewise I can just ignore the powercreep supplements and keep on playing after the edition’s death.And if it causes death of an edition? Haven't you people heard of moving on?
Ignoring the power creep supplements has been second nature for me since the 80s. I always instinctively rejected them.