D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Maxperson]

Power creep is bad, but unavoidable. As an edition ages, people want more and moar. It is very hard to have a good balance and still sell books. This is across all games I have seen so far (and I have seen quite a fair share in my days...)

We will have 5.5 this is a fact. How long after that will we have a 6th? Simple, when the 5.5 start to feel way too wonky for the tastes of those who play it. It happened in 1ed with UA. In 2ed, in 3.xed and in 4ed. It happened and will happen again.

The higher the Power Creep, the sooner and edition will end. It is as simple as that.

I don't think power creep ended 3e, so much as they just ran out of good ideas because of the rate that they published new stuff. Towards the end a whole lot of what they were producing was just a variation of something that came before, or something new that was just....................bad. Too many bad books turned people off more than the power creep.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Can there be changes to power that are clearly beneficial while still being increases? Does the term "power creep" presume negative impact?

If yes to both, does that not imply that it fails to consider things like redressing outright errors (the published game actually being different from what the authors knew it was supposed to be), correcting accidental faults (the published game failing to meet the goal, despite having all the intended content as it was supposed to be written), or accounting for differences between designer expectations and player realities?

If yes to the former but no to the latter, does that not automatically imply that "power creep" cannot always be a bad thing?

If no to the former, doesn't that make it impossible to publish any new rules for players?

So, in the instant example that you are replying to, notice that I explicitly compared "power creep" to "high inflation." (Not deflation, not stagflation, and not small and healthy amounts of inflation indicating a robust and growing economy)

Why did I do that?

With high inflation, you have the situation where a given object is suddenly "worth" more.
T0: Eggs cost $1
T1: Eggs cost $2
T2: Eggs cost $3

From one perspective, maybe it seems great? Maybe you're the egg producer, and your eggs are "worth" more.

Of course, the eggs are the same. 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 person 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. 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 (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? More importantly, what type of pressure is there going to be on Players A and B to move to T2?

But wait, why not just have everyone more 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 DMs 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. Or, in the case of TTRPGs, you need a new edition. You need to start over. Which ... I mean, I prefer to keep that away for as long as possible.

So no- I don't like power creep very much. I think you can try and define it away (It's not power creep, it's errata! It's not power creep, it's just realizing the true intent of the designers to give every Paladin a Holy Avenger!).

In essence, though, it's just a treadmill. Unless you're just playing so you can be a 20th level character smiting bullywugs, power creep (as most people understand) 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.


ETA- now, this doesn't mean that you have to agree with me. 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 edition was effectively dead.

 

[Reynard]

Power creep is only an issue if the table you're playing at thinks its an issue.

In practice over the decades I've found power creep to be more of a problem in the abstract than actually in play at the table.

I find complexity creep to be more of a problem than power creep. Adding new mechanics to the game bringing more complexity and eventually having the game collapse under its own weight. For example, 3e's expansions IMO suffered far more from complexity creep than power creep in my actual play experience at the table.

I think "complexity creep" is an overall good. Adding new systems inherently makes those systems optional. A book that includes a robust magic item creation system or a set of rules governing domain management, just by way of examples, definitely add potential complexity to the game overall, but they don't create a problem for any table that decides not to use those systems. Conversely, injecting new options into existing system a) makes it harder to determine if there is "creep" at all, and b) almost certain creates unintended consequences as the new and old options interact.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hmm ... for someone who claims to hate bards, this kind of ditty is exactly what a bard would write. Perhaps the Snarf doth protest too much?

I will infiltrate the bards by whatever means available and terminate them ... with extreme prejudice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Inflation is so far from power creep in a elf game that the light from one will not reach the other over the course of 100 million years.

 

[Maxperson]

And Bards... don't forget bards... These should've never existed in the first place.

Except for the one that killed Smaug.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, in the instant example that you are replying to, notice that I explicitly compared "power creep" to "high inflation." (Not deflation, not stagflation, and not small and healthy amounts of inflation indicating a robust and growing economy)

Why did I do that?

With high inflation, you have the situation where a given object is suddenly "worth" more.
T0: Eggs cost $1
T1: Eggs cost $2
T2: Eggs cost $3

From one perspective, maybe it seems great? Maybe you're the egg producer, and your eggs are "worth" more.

Of course, the eggs are the same. 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 person 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. 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 (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? More importantly, what type of pressure is there going to be on Players A and B to move to T2?

But wait, why not just have everyone more 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 DMs 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. Or, in the case of TTRPGs, you need a new edition. You need to start over. Which ... I mean, I prefer to keep that away for as long as possible.

So no- I don't like power creep very much. I think you can try and define it away (It's not power creep, it's errata! It's not power creep, it's just realizing the true intent of the designers to give every Paladin a Holy Avenger!).

In essence, though, it's just a treadmill. Unless you're just playing so you can be a 20th level character smiting bullywugs, power creep (as most people understand) 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.

All of which ignores the question I asked.

Is it possible to add things to the game, which result in an increase in power/versatility, in such a way that this addition is a good thing? If yes, then a further question: does the term "power creep" refer to these changes as well as changes where the addition is a bad thing?

 

[payn]

I will infiltrate the bards by whatever means available and terminate them ... with extreme prejudice.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Except for the one that killed Smaug.

Smaug could not defeat Smug.

 

[Willie the Duck]

While blatant power creep should not be a desired outcome, a little creep is inevitable, and irrelevant so long as it is not excessive. So long as players can run their PCs to high level without the PCs becoming 'outdated' by power creep, there is no real problem.

What I like to see is when subsequent books tend to hew to the parts of the original core that people actually end up using. Say, for 5e -- I don't mind that Xanathar's and Tasha's did not have any more subclasses akin to PHB's 4e Monk or Berserker Barbarian, but I wish they didn't overshoot the established upper bounds or raise the average above the PHB, minus those undertuned options.