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

Fair enough. Not really a thing for the traditional RPG model then. That explains why I don't know much about it, since I tend to ignore games designed like FATE.
Well the issue is compounding supplements.

Like someone said, a Superhero game can pump out content because there are tons of superpowers. Same for 4e, they just pumped out new build. Old stuff barely got supported later. Sidegrades in anything. PF2E just makes new classes and is strict against supporting old content with new content.

It's funny.

5e got to major power creep in a few books. And it's only the glacial publishing schedule that hides it.

And it's all because of no new classes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Having played primarily point-based systems for a number of years (in the '90s), I find the idea of them being immune to power creep amusing. I quite enjoyed breaking GURPS with creative choices of disads, and came away from my Champions experience with a sour taste when my GM told me he wouldn't allow the PC I'd created because it was OP. (To be fair, it was, but it was a legal build on the point budget, Champions just had ways to buy things that could be combined into ludicrously OP total packages.)

The premise that point-based RPGs are immune to power creep because of some inherent balancing of powers/ads/disads/etc. is an illusion. (And frankly, regarding Champions and its ilk, Mutants & Masterminds, etc., balance in a supers game is arguably undesirable. The Avengers, Justice League, X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc. are not teams of balanced characters.)

Yeah, look, what you describe is a very definite issue with character power balance in points based systems. Characters require careful adjudication, consistent application of limitations, etc.

But that's not power creep. OP defines power creep pretty clearly as something that happens over time with the publishing of new material with cooler and betterer powers that make older material obsolete.
 

Yeah, look, what you describe is a very definite issue with character power balance in points based systems. Characters require careful adjudication, consistent application of limitations, etc.

But that's not power creep. OP defines power creep pretty clearly as something that happens over time with the publishing of new material with cooler and betterer powers that make older material obsolete.
The ever-expanding set of GURPS supplements certainly made exploiting the system easier over time.
 

True. And I came close to mentioning it as an example of power creep.

The example I considered using was a power from the Psionics book that was priced differently from the exact same power in the Supers book. IIRC the actual power description was pretty much word for word the same. Might have even been a copy and paste.

GURPS differs from Hero in that Hero uses a, for want of a better term, source code to determine the cost of a power that is then applied in all supplements. GURPS supplements just pick a value that feels about right. So GURPS is much more liable to fall victim to power creep than Hero. I, and probably Real al'Hazred, was thinking about Hero when I said power creep was rare in points systems.
 

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.
I see two big issues with the theory you are presenting.

1) If all you are producing are improvements to underpowered options, eventually you will bring all of those even with the rest of the game. At that point the players are going to want more releases which will lead to power creep. You're only delaying the power creep here.

2) If all you are producing are improvements to the underpowered options, those players who enjoy playing the properly balanced classes are going to become irritated that they are not getting goodies in the new books. WotC is not going to want to make those players upset and will release stuff for them as well, which means power creep.
 

There is a player/DM side to this. I think you are right, most DMs don't want power creep in their players' characters. I think most players want it though.
I'm one of those players heathens who wants power creep. Not specifically because it's power creep, but rather because I crave new options.

It's probably my ADHD, but I quickly become bored with the options in the PHB. I don't even have to play them. After my fourth or fifth character, I've read through all the feats, skills, subclasses, etc. more than a dozen times. When I buy a new crunch book it comes with a lot of new options. I use those options for a while and when I start to become bored with them, some of the PHB stuff isn't so boring to me anymore. Some. Give me a third book and now I'm looking through three books a few times, instead of one a dozen times.

The reason 3e never, ever became old for me and never will is because of all the books it released. There are always new things and combinations to try when building my character concepts.

I would never want 5e to come anywhere close to the release rate 3e saw, though. Towards the end the designers were reaching deep and coming up with some really, really bad stuff because they already gave us the good things. I would love 5e to give us another crunch book or two(not a MM!!!) a year, though. That's significantly slower than 3e, while still allowing a decent rate of new options.
 


Okay, I have to ask since you mentioned that date.

Unearthed Arcana?

As I always say, there were two good things about that book.

First, the polearms! Appendix T. Or, as Derek said upon seeing it, "Wait, my Cleric can't use a lucern hammer.*

Second, that they used such a terrible binding that the pages fell out before most people could read and use it.


*As a side note, I've always wondered why Gygax dropped the e. It's named for Lucerne, in Switzerland.
Heh. I only ever saw two things used out of that book.

First, the barbarian class. I saw it exactly one time. The first time the player of the barbarian wanted us to give him a magic item so that he could break it and we said no, his character tried to take it. It was the last thing the character ever did. Nobody tried to play one after that.

Second, the cavalier class. That one I saw a number of times over the years. Not often, but at least a dozen. The reason for the infrequency is that the inability to run away from a fight without losing massive XP and the order of preference in charging enemies tended to cut those PC's lives short.
 

I'm one of those players heathens who wants power creep. Not specifically because it's power creep, but rather because I crave new options.

It's probably my ADHD, but I quickly become bored with the options in the PHB. I don't even have to play them. After my fourth or fifth character, I've read through all the feats, skills, subclasses, etc. more than a dozen times. When I buy a new crunch book it comes with a lot of new options. I use those options for a while and when I start to become bored with them, some of the PHB stuff isn't so boring to me anymore. Some. Give me a third book and now I'm looking through three books a few times, instead of one a dozen times.

The reason 3e never, ever became old for me and never will is because of all the books it released. There are always new things and combinations to try when building my character concepts.

I would never want 5e to come anywhere close to the release rate 3e saw, though. Towards the end the designers were reaching deep and coming up with some really, really bad stuff because they already gave us the good things. I would love 5e to give us another crunch book or two(not a MM!!!) a year, though. That's significantly slower than 3e, while still allowing a decent rate of new options.
I am with you. I like options too, although for me, it often leans towards sub-optimal builds but with a strong central theme. Our combat is not like yours though, we don't have that razor thin margin. If we did, I would definitely be all up in that heathen mentality.
And that is a great point about 3e. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
 

Second, the cavalier class. That one I saw a number of times over the years. Not often, but at least a dozen. The reason for the infrequency is that the inability to run away from a fight without losing massive XP and the order of preference in charging enemies tended to cut those PC's lives short.
The most egregious example I saw in the AD&D 1E days was a cavalier-paladin. If you're playing AD&D 1E, I highly recommend Scott Bennie's article, "'Good' Does Not Mean 'Boring': Paladins Are Far More Complicated Than You Might Think" -- Dragon #148 (August 1989) pg 24-29. It's a good rebalancing fix.
 

Remove ads

Top