D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Older Beholder]

If level drain was fine because the players just had to trust the DM, then power creep is fine because the DM just needs to trust the players.

 

[James Gasik]

If level drain was fine because the players just had to trust the DM, then power creep is fine because the DM just needs to trust the players.

But those dirty, dirty players are always trying to ruin the game for the poor, downtrodden DM!

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with level drain wasn't that it was a consequence. It was that, as consequences go, it was boring. It essentially undid your progress with effects that were numerical and only changed how you interacted with the world if they took away spells. And it didn't even make your character look more interesting.

Compare to losing either an eye or a hand. Rather than losing numbers and progress you lose a specific capability. It changes how you interact with the world. You then get to use a hook, an eyepatch, a glass eye, or even gnarly magical cybernetics. Your character and how they interact with the world is changed.

Now that comment is more than fair.

While the game has leaned into stat loss at various points, it has rarely done much with actual limb loss (the Staff of Withering and vorpal weapons notwithstanding); and you're quite right that limb loss has a more obvious clear-and-present effect on both roleplaying AND mechanics, where level loss really only affects the mechanics side.

I guess it's an outgrowth of the no-called-shots system D&D has always employed: you can't cut it off if you can't specifically target it.

This opens two other cans of worms, both of which are best illustrated by 3.X:

• A whole lot of the broken stuff in 3.0 or 3.5 was in the PHB. A PHB only "Batman" debuff wizard with a good spell selection and a loose leaf ring binder full of scrolls is a Tier 1 character and one of the strongest characters in the game regardless of which splats you add.
• Known strategy and knowledge of the meta changes over time. Even if you stick to the PHB only and make a very mediocre fighter with the weapon specialisation feats and great cleave's contribution changes
  • In 2000 the classic party would have been a 2e style Evoker Wizard, Healing Cleric, and Trapfinding Rogue. The fighter can keep up here.
  • In 2008 it's much more likely that they get a "Batman" wizard (either conjuration or divination specialist, dropping evocation entirely), a self-buffing cleric who uses wands of cure light wounds for the party's healing needs, and an aggressively hegmonizing ursine swarm (a druid with a bear companion who turns into a bear and summons more bears) and if traps are a major thing someone has a single rogue level, taking one for the team. The fighter is fairly redundant here.

Has there been power creep? Both are PHB only, and some of the most egregious spells like haste were nerfed. As from memory was some self-buffing.

A better comparison would be 2000 to 2003, or 2004 to 2008, as the 3-to-3.5 jump made enough changes to render true comparison somewhat invalid.

But take 1e. There's no doubt that a character rolled up pre-UA and a character rolled up post-UA, using the then-current RAW, are on different playing fields: the newer one is highly likely to be significantly more powerful than the older.

 

[Lanefan]

I mistyped, apologies. I meant to say handfuls of features, not handfuls of levels.

Ah - that makes much more sense.

As for your second point, I don't particularly harken to the idea that you should be able to convert a character easily from one edition to the next. Even the way I think about my OD&D characters is different as compared to 5E. The games fundamental experience has diverged to the point (and did so long before 5E) that its like trying to convert a PbtA character to 5E, or trying to convert my CoC character to 5E.

Where, speaking as someone who is constantly converting stuff from one edition to another so I can make use of it, to me D&D is D&D as is (or IMO should be) the fundamental experience of playing it. The problem is that these silly companies keep overlaying entire new rule systems and design philosophies on to it that I have to chop through in a machete-to-thicket fashion in order to extract what I want.

I've got to about level 12 in machete proficiency, I think, when it comes to D&D rules.

 

[Lanefan]

If level drain was fine because the players just had to trust the DM, then power creep is fine because the DM just needs to trust the players.

If the power creep was strictly player-side I'd agree. However, the problem with power creep is that it goes both ways - the player-side material gets better and in response the DM has to up the ante a bit in order to compensate, effectively leading to a slow-motion arms race.

 

[James Gasik]

Sometimes the DM gets better material as well though. Usually later Monster Manuals have tougher enemies than the earlier versions. That's...about it though, since the DM has no shortage of ways to make the game nastier should they so choose, and in the old days, there were third party supplements that may or may not have catered to this (whether Grimtooth's Traps is meant to be taken seriously or is merely entertainment is up for debate).

Certainly there have been some published meat grinder adventures over the years.

Probably the pinnacle of both kinds of power creep, player and DM-facing, in any edition, is the Throne of Bloodstone. If you haven't heard of it, you really should look it up, it's completely insane!

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes the DM gets better material as well though. Usually later Monster Manuals have tougher enemies than the earlier versions. That's...about it though, since the DM has no shortage of ways to make the game nastier should they so choose, and in the old days, there were third party supplements that may or may not have catered to this (whether Grimtooth's Traps is meant to be taken seriously or is merely entertainment is up for debate).

Certainly there have been some published meat grinder adventures over the years.

Probably the pinnacle of both kinds of power creep, player and DM-facing, in any edition, is the Throne of Bloodstone. If you haven't heard of it, you really should look it up, it's completely insane!

Huh. In theory I have that here somewhere - maybe I should give it another look.

 

[Seramus]

Wouldn't that be nice! Forget playing John McClane, let's have Fighters be Hercules or Cuchulainn!

The things that happen in Irish mythology are like something straight out of a modern anime, including characters with multicolor hair and multicolor eyes. And not just teen power fantasy anime, but horror anime too!

 

[James Gasik]

The things that happen in Irish mythology are like something straight out of a modern anime, including characters with multicolor hair and multicolor eyes. And not just teen power fantasy anime, but horror anime too!

Though there are a few silly elements, like Balor's death being ultimately caused by a damn cow!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess it's an outgrowth of the no-called-shots system D&D has always employed: you can't cut it off if you can't specifically target it.

I think it's more an outgrowth of the hit point mechanic plus the taking a character from group to group.

A better comparison would be 2000 to 2003, or 2004 to 2008, as the 3-to-3.5 jump made enough changes to render true comparison somewhat invalid.

I'm mostly trying to establish the principle here. Is it power creep if the change comes largely not out of new stuff but a better understanding of the game's mechanics. (From memory only the ursine swarm was 3.5 specific and the specialist wizard would be a Diviner - but the self buffing cleric works better in 3.0)

Ah - that makes much more sense.

Where, speaking as someone who is constantly converting stuff from one edition to another so I can make use of it, to me D&D is D&D as is (or IMO should be) the fundamental experience of playing it. The problem is that these silly companies keep overlaying entire new rule systems and design philosophies on to it that I have to chop through in a machete-to-thicket fashion in order to extract what I want.

I think that horse had bolted by about 1976 when groups started playing having learned from the books. The barn itself was entirely replaced in 1989 when 2e took XP for GP out of the core rules.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If level drain was fine because the players just had to trust the DM, then power creep is fine because the DM just needs to trust the players.

It isn't about trust--either issue. I fail to see how level drain has anything to do with trust (but haven't been reading all the posts so its a non-issue for me). Level drain was part of the game back then, that's all there is to it, including it was part of the balance of the game. It wasn't added later on to increase the power of the undead over the players. Removing it was the reverse of power creep really in later editions. Since the established game (5E) lacks it, adding it back in would be re-establishing the prior balance. If player's don't want it, then you could argue it would power creep against the PCs...

Power creep isn't about trusting the players. Trusting them to do what? Not use it?

Power creep is about changing the dynamic of the game in an impactful way which leads to imbalance. If the DM allows it then that means they are accepting the responsibility to adjust to the new dynamic to compensate for the imbalance OR they are just willing to keep the status quo and allow the imbalance to exist.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The fear of power creep has everything to do with trusting the players. There's this weird pervasive paranoia I keep seeing that any advantage the plyers find will be exploited with the express intent to ruin the game.

 

[Reynard]

The fear of power creep has everything to do with trusting the players. There's this weird pervasive paranoia I keep seeing that any advantage the plyers find will be exploited with the express intent to ruin the game.

That's really no different than the constant refrain that GMs are out to get players, kill their PCs and Viking hat the game into ashes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's really no different than the constant refrain that GMs are out to get players, kill their PCs and Viking hat the game into ashes.

The players don't tend to come on these boards and actually say it out loud though.

I remember a point where we have three threads on the front page trumpeting and asking for praise for killing a PC.

 

[Reynard]

The players don't tend to come on these boards and actually say it out loud though.

I suspect there might be some confirmation bias at work here.

I remember a point where we have three threads on the front page trumpeting and asking for praise for killing a PC.

Well, yeah!

 

[Vaalingrade]

I suspect there might be some confirmation bias at work here.

Not mine considering...

Well, yeah!

Well... this.

 

[Reynard]

Not mine considering...

Well... this.

Joking aside, I think that some tables benefit from a little competition between players and the GM. Obviously it is an asymmetrical contest and a jerk GM who just wants to crush PCs can do so, but as long as everyone is playing "fair" it can be fun. I know my players really enjoy stomping my bad guys because they know my bad guys are out to kill them. I might be on their side, but the villains want them to suffer.

 

[James Gasik]

There's a long-held tradition among many DM's (well many that I've encountered, I have no idea how common this is), and I believe it gets it start in the 1e DMG, where Gary would occasionally take swipes at "those dirty, dirty, player characters" (just read his section on Assassin poisonmaking, it's a hoot), that not only should DM's do their level best to halt the PC's progress, but they should only be allowed to succeed if they are down to single digit hit points, out of spells, unable to face down so much as a few kobolds...

And then they can be allowed to get their treasure. And try to defend it from whatever monsters are between them and their home base, lol.

So any time players defeat an encounter without much trouble or expenditure of resources, they gripe and complain about "overpowered PC's" and "back in the day". No matter if the result of the success was lucky die rolls or good strategy- you didn't get bloodied by what should be the "gimme encounters" on the way to the big battle? Obviously you are too powerful!

And then I've watched as we finally do get those big battles, and characters die, and they go "huh, I don't understand, how did that happen?"

And I've tried to explain it to them, and it never seems to click, lol.

 

[Reynard]

There's a long-held tradition among many DM's (well many that I've encountered, I have no idea how common this is), and I believe it gets it start in the 1e DMG, where Gary would occasionally take swipes at "those dirty, dirty, player characters" (just read his section on Assassin poisonmaking, it's a hoot), that not only should DM's do their level best to halt the PC's progress, but they should only be allowed to succeed if they are down to single digit hit points, out of spells, unable to face down so much as a few kobolds...

And then they can be allowed to get their treasure. And try to defend it from whatever monsters are between them and their home base, lol.

So any time players defeat an encounter without much trouble or expenditure of resources, they gripe and complain about "overpowered PC's" and "back in the day". No matter if the result of the success was lucky die rolls or good strategy- you didn't get bloodied by what should be the "gimme encounters" on the way to the big battle? Obviously you are too powerful!

And then I've watched as we finally do get those big battles, and characters die, and they go "huh, I don't understand, how did that happen?"

And I've tried to explain it to them, and it never seems to click, lol.

Presenting appropriate but worthwhile challenges is one of the hardest parts about GMing. 5E doesn't help much with its near useless CR system, so experience is all GMs have to fall back on. For new GMs, that is obviously an issue.

It feeds into the debate over GM fudging, too. I am a roll-in-the-open, dice-fall-where-they-may GM by and large. Once I decide it is time to start rolling dice, I accept their results and expect players to do the same. That said, it can be a problem when things go sideways because I miscalculated an encounter. Most recently it happened in Deadlands using SWADE because I did not realize just how powerful small size was in that system: plus or minus 4 in a system where 4 is the target number is huge. In those cases I pause the game, point out my error, and ask the players if they want to retcon or just play it out and see what happens.

Note that this is different than if an encounter goes sideways because of either bad luck (stuff happens) or bad choices by players (it's a dangerous world out there). That is, IMO, where it is extra important to let the dice fall where they may. I know some folks won't see a distinction, or don't like the idea of a TPK happening just because of bad die rolls, or think it is putative to let players reap the consequences of their suspect choices, but that's just how I run my games.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My point is that maybe such thought should be given; not necessarily to level drain specifically but to ways and means of making 5e just plain nastier, of which level drain is but one.

Or talk about how it should never have left and that it didn't in fact became outdated.

With this I agree.

I think where power creep rears its head is when people look at a 5e character rolled up in 2016 using then-current material and ask whether it has the same ability to contribute in tonight's game as would the same character rolled up in 2022 using what's out there today. If the answer is no, then power creep is a problem.

It happened in 1e, it happened in 2e, and dear gods did it ever happen in 3e. No reason to think 5e is any different.

Well, except the fact that it is different, because you can bring a character made using only the PHB to a game where everyone else made characters on DDB with all options turned on, and you won't notice any difference in play.