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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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"

Boring? Of course not. We all know what good is.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'll have to look that up. Worse comes to worse, though, you can go with the Gygax version of LG and justify just about anything.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Oh, we build for themes as well and often use things that are labelled suboptimal. I just want options and power creep comes with those, so I am okay with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Boring? Of course not. We all know what good is.

View attachment 374960

And I've always loved how he says that while working for this evil guy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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...

This is true but the one factor you didn't mention here* is that 4E's "rapid patching"/"live service" approach to the rules, which admittedly did not endear it to everyone actually meant it was capable of dealing with power creep, unlike literally any other edition of D&D historically.

Tons and tons and tons of OP stuff in 4E got nerfed, often nerfed extremely hard, reversing massive power creep, destroying OP builds, and so on. Also notable that later classes/books for 4E was lower-powered than the early-middle ones were. Most of the most OP stuff relied on things released in the first year or two. Which is generally the opposite of the pattern for other editions.

So if 4E had been more successful, it might have been one of the most power-creep-resistant editions, because the fundamental approach was different to all others, in that the designers were 100% willing to completely revise/re-write/change/nerf buff things on a regular basis.

(I would be unsurprised if, if Project Sigil is a success, 5E starts going a bit more in that direction. The inherent "bounded accuracy" and limited action economy of 5E means it's a less vulnerable to power creep - er though 2024 introduces some interesting potential issues - but if WotC do have a "live service" version of D&D making a lot of money, I strongly suspect that'll become their primary focus, which will likely mean more frequent revisions, which would be easy to send out via the live service elements, and optional for TT players.)

* = Unless you did and I just ADHD'd it out of existence.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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."

In other words, they want to basically make the engine synonymous with their particular game. So that, for example, the words "5e compatible" no longer have much currency.

I further speculate that this strategy was essentially laid out by them in their original announcement of OneD&D, and is why they have recently expanded DnDBeyond to include selected 3PP.

I think Hanlon’s Razor is a more likely situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That's a great article! +1 on the recommendation.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Heh. I only ever saw two things used out of that book.

Interesting. For my money, the updated race/class level limits were the most often used content, followed by weapon specialization.

 

[Mannahnin]

Interesting. For my money, the updated race/class level limits were the most often used content, followed by weapon specialization.

Same. Plus the new races, spells, and magic items. And stupid comeliness, since it was official and on the official character sheets.

 

[bmfrosty]

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."

In other words, they want to basically make the engine synonymous with their particular game. So that, for example, the words "5e compatible" no longer have much currency.

I further speculate that this strategy was essentially laid out by them in their original announcement of OneD&D, and is why they have recently expanded DnDBeyond to include selected 3PP.

This makes sense. It frustrates the hell out of me, but it makes sense from a strategy perspective for them. They want things to lean into the idea that there's just one D&D and not 17 of them. And a bunch of retro clones. And Pathfinder. And Tunnels & Trolls (from a historical perspective). It's all D&D. When I go play Labyrinth Lord with my group, I don't say I'm playing LL to other people. I don't put LL on the calendar I share with my wife. I put D&D. Ryan Dancey's strategy was good. The execution and other corporate decisions were flawed.