D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Maxperson]

So...silence is now information. That's a new one.

Yeah. That one was a headscratcher for me as well.

 

[Maxperson]

And how does one identify a rules-lawyer DM if the rules are invisible? As before, the pendulum swings both ways. When the rules are in the open, it is almost always (damn near actually always, IMO) easier to spot rules-lawyering so it can be dealt with.

What the heck is a rule-lawyer DM? I've only ever seen that one used in connection with players.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Do you not see the irony of advocating for "just trust me, it's for your own good/the good of the game" coming from DMs, y'know, the ones who have enormous amounts of power and the ability to massively manipulate things in their favor, while simultaneously treating players as inherently incapable of being trustworthy with the few tools actually afforded to them?

Please stop trying to put words into my posts that I did not write. Frankly, it is annoying and insulting. Thank you.

Anyway...

For the last time, this is not about trust. Trust is not the issue and never is.

The DM isn't saying "just trust me...", the DM is saying "I don't want this as it was written as it is not good for the game I want to run." The DM does have that enormous power--they can veto anything they want for any reason.

If you don't like that, find a DM who IS willing to allow power creep and happy to do it.

And honestly, "the few tools actually afforded to them"??? Really? The players have tons of tools at their disposal-- I mean look at all the features 5E has and keeps throwing more onto the pile. If as a DM, I find some of the new tools unfit for my game, I don't see any issue with either discussing a possible nerf or just outright banning it if the concept is unsound IMO.

Finally, yes, I refer to it as MY GAME when I am the DM. I set the rules, and when others DM they do. DMs typically put in a lot more time and effort in the game compared to players. I will listen to reason, discuss and debate, but ultimately the power in MY game is MINE. I respect that other DMs have that power in their games when I join them. So, please do not bother engaging me about "but D&D in 5E is the group's game, not the DM's" because I will not respond. Thank you.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. That one was a headscratcher for me as well.

I think it is important to remember the completely open ended nature of tabletop RPG play when looking at the issue of "silence as information." Because you can literally do anything in an RPG, what the rules do and do not cover gives you significant information about not only the intent of the design and the designers' preferences, but also what the participants are expected to do in the spaces that are and are not explicitly covered by the rules.

First, it is important to make a distinction between "not in the rules because it isn't supposed to be part of the game" and "not in the rules because the participants are expected to be able to handle it without rules." An example of the former is the lack of rules for Jet Fighters in OD&D. Given the context of the game those rules are not there because PCs aren't supposed to hop in the cockpit and shoot Hellfire missiles at the peasants. By contrast, the lack of the thief class in OD&D is NOT an indication that PCs aren't supposed to sneak around and steal things. They absolutely are expected to do that, it's just assumed that the DM and players will figure out how to make that happen without a long skill list and dedicated class for it.

5E is full of these blank spaces that are still completely viable things to do in the game. The fact that the rules are missing from those places means it is up to the participants to figure out how those things should get done.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What the heck is a rule-lawyer DM? I've only ever seen that one used in connection with players.

...exactly what it says on the tin? A DM who adjudicates the rules without good faith, or who exploits unexpected rules combinations to try to force ridiculous or unjustified results. Y'know...exactly as a rules-lawyer player would.

Please stop trying to put words into my posts that I did not write. Frankly, it is annoying and insulting. Thank you.

Anyway...

For the last time, this is not about trust. Trust is not the issue and never is.

Erm...

So, again, in what way are you trusting them? To not use the new toy? Because if that is the case you might as well not include it if you don't want them to use it.

Trusting that they aren't out to ruin the game by exploiting the power creep toy? If you have players that you think have "intent to ruin the game" then my advice it kick them out the door...

If the players want to use the new toy it is because it is new but often because it is better in whatever manner (and perhaps in a way, more powerful?). Again, the DM either has to decide to: 1) allow it and deal with the new power the toy brings, 2) house-rule it so it isn't "better" but is still new, or 3) just ban it entirely.

If the new toy "breaks" the style of game you want to run as DM through its intended use, you can't blame the players for using it if you allow it. I mean, are you really going to say, "Here, use this new power/feature/whatever which I recognize as too strong (or whatever), but don't use it so I have to adjust my style of game to compensate. I trust you to do that."???

If it's not about trust, you really shouldn't use the word three times.

The DM isn't saying "just trust me...", the DM is saying "I don't want this as it was written as it is not good for the game I want to run." The DM does have that enormous power--they can veto anything they want for any reason.

I do not understand the difference between those phrases. If you don't explain why, how is that not exactly the same? And if you do explain why, and actually talk it out, and actually build common ground, you aren't "veto[ing] anything [you] want for any reason." You are, in fact, actively limiting your power and choosing to treat the game as the group's collectively, not yours individually.

If you don't like that, find a DM who IS willing to allow power creep and happy to do it.

Which is why I keep asking people whether absolutely all change is "power creep," or if it is possible for something to be--as you put it--a "better" toy and yet still good for the game.

And honestly, "the few tools actually afforded to them"??? Really?

Absolutely. Any amount of player-facing tools will always pale in comparison before the DM's ability to literally rewrite the world and to actively conceal this from their players.

Finally, yes, I refer to it as MY GAME when I am the DM. I set the rules, and when others DM they do. DMs typically put in a lot more time and effort in the game compared to players. I will listen to reason, discuss and debate, but ultimately the power in MY game is MINE. I respect that other DMs have that power in their games when I join them. So, please do not bother engaging me about "but D&D in 5E is the group's game, not the DM's" because I will not respond. Thank you.

I think you'd have a lot more fun if you were less possessive about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think it is important to remember the completely open ended nature of tabletop RPG play when looking at the issue of "silence as information." Because you can literally do anything in an RPG, what the rules do and do not cover gives you significant information about not only the intent of the design and the designers' preferences, but also what the participants are expected to do in the spaces that are and are not explicitly covered by the rules.

First, it is important to make a distinction between "not in the rules because it isn't supposed to be part of the game" and "not in the rules because the participants are expected to be able to handle it without rules." An example of the former is the lack of rules for Jet Fighters in OD&D. Given the context of the game those rules are not there because PCs aren't supposed to hop in the cockpit and shoot Hellfire missiles at the peasants. By contrast, the lack of the thief class in OD&D is NOT an indication that PCs aren't supposed to sneak around and steal things. They absolutely are expected to do that, it's just assumed that the DM and players will figure out how to make that happen without a long skill list and dedicated class for it.

5E is full of these blank spaces that are still completely viable things to do in the game. The fact that the rules are missing from those places means it is up to the participants to figure out how those things should get done.

I think you misunderstand.

I do not mean "silence" in the sense of "we didn't write rules for this, because you are better judges for that sort of thing than we are." I am perfectly happy with such things, when the intent of that silence is communicated.

I'm talking about silence on the front of what we were talking about at the time: telling people what the game is for.

 

[Reynard]

I'm talking about silence on the front of what we were talking about at the time: telling people what the game is for.

I'm not sure I see the difference but I'm happy to let the matter rest.

 

[DND_Reborn]

..exactly what it says on the tin? A DM who adjudicates the rules without good faith, or who exploits unexpected rules combinations to try to force ridiculous or unjustified results. Y'know...exactly as a rules-lawyer player would.

Any this has anything to do with what???

If it's not about trust, you really shouldn't use the word three times.

I didn't make it about trust, others did, and I was explaining to them how it isn't about trust. You would know that if you actually read my posts instead of making your own inferences about what I am saying.

I do not understand the difference between those phrases.

I can't help you, then.

Which is why I keep asking people whether absolutely all change is "power creep," or if it is possible for something to be--as you put it--a "better" toy and yet still good for the game.

No, not all change is "power creep" and I don't know of anyone claiming that, but I could have missed a post on it. It happens.

Changes that correct imbalance and/or poor design are good and not power creep provided the changes are balanced to the current game and do not escalate the power level of the game. THAT is power creep.

Absolutely. Any amount of player-facing tools will always pale in comparison before the DM's ability to literally rewrite the world and to actively conceal this from their players.

Oh, pla-eeze!

Now you are just getting silly.

I think you'd have a lot more fun if you were less possessive about it.

Well, I think this is the end of our discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure I see the difference but I'm happy to let the matter rest.

Alright. I'd still like to take one last crack at it, though I understand not seeing the point of continuing.

To whit, taking the post that started this line of thinking:

I would say that if you are trying to engage in a stand up fight with a level draining monster in AD&D, you are either very unlucky (got surprised by wights) or not really approaching them game the way it is meant to be played. I think folks often misinterpret why we have "weaker" monsters in 5E in regards to save or die, level drain and so on. it isn't because "5E is kids stuff or for dirty casuals" or any of that. it's because 5E is the MCU of D&D editions, designed to be full of bombastic action set pieces and peopled by larger than life heroes. Of course you don't want level drain in that game -- it's counter to the goal. But that doesn't mean it's "bad design" as people often accuse. It is just intended for a very different style of play.

Here you used phrases like "intended for a very different style of play" and "the way [the game] is meant to be played." These things are statements, not about things like "skills do X, but old-school fans think 'skill' should be something players have," but things like what the game IS for, how it IS meant to be played, what style it actually DOES pursue. That is, they are not statements about "the rules permit you to <action>" or "the rules are silent about <action>, because they want people to decide for themselves," but rather statements about the purpose or meaning or intent of the rules collectively.

Why not have rules that make this clear, so that there won't be such misinterpretation or confusion? Just be really forthright about it. Then, if people aren't into that style/purpose/way-it's-meant-to-be-played, they're either better equipped to address it (because they'll know why X works the way it does, and can thus reason more effectively about how X could work differently), or better able to decide, "Ah, that's not what I'm looking for, I'll look elsewhere."

 

[Reynard]

Alright. I'd still like to take one last crack at it, though I understand not seeing the point of continuing.

To whit, taking the post that started this line of thinking:

Here you used phrases like "intended for a very different style of play" and "the way [the game] is meant to be played." These things are statements, not about things like "skills do X, but old-school fans think 'skill' should be something players have," but things like what the game IS for, how it IS meant to be played, what style it actually DOES pursue. That is, they are not statements about "the rules permit you to <action>" or "the rules are silent about <action>, because they want people to decide for themselves," but rather statements about the purpose or meaning or intent of the rules collectively.

Why not have rules that make this clear, so that there won't be such misinterpretation or confusion? Just be really forthright about it. Then, if people aren't into that style/purpose/way-it's-meant-to-be-played, they're either better equipped to address it (because they'll know why X works the way it does, and can thus reason more effectively about how X could work differently), or better able to decide, "Ah, that's not what I'm looking for, I'll look elsewhere."

I don't have AD&D in front of me right now, but I am pretty sure it does tell you what it is for. I know for sure its example of play in the DMG makes it very clear what it is for and how it is meant to be played.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is important to remember the completely open ended nature of tabletop RPG play when looking at the issue of "silence as information." Because you can literally do anything in an RPG, what the rules do and do not cover gives you significant information about not only the intent of the design and the designers' preferences, but also what the participants are expected to do in the spaces that are and are not explicitly covered by the rules.

We know the design preferences, and those are rulings over rules. To that end, they made 5e to be full of holes and vaguely written rules that require DM interpretation and house rules. The silence isn't informing us about how they want the game to be played, but rather the opposite. It's deliberately open and flexible so that we can run it how we want.

First, it is important to make a distinction between "not in the rules because it isn't supposed to be part of the game" and "not in the rules because the participants are expected to be able to handle it without rules." An example of the former is the lack of rules for Jet Fighters in OD&D. Given the context of the game those rules are not there because PCs aren't supposed to hop in the cockpit and shoot Hellfire missiles at the peasants.

And yet spaceships, robots and lasers have been in the game. It's not even a small stretch to include jet fighters. The DMG even lists technology as something to discover or dig up, mentioning the Barrier Peaks and Elminster coming to our Earth. Then going on to mention including science fiction as part of your game. Later we get rules for figuring out alien technology.

Fighter jets are not in the rules, but this is very clearly not because they aren't supposed to be part of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Yes. IMO that's what a player should be doing in any game, not just D&D - looking for advantages and using them when found.

with the express intent to ruin the game.

No. They're not trying to ruin the game. Any game-ruination is just a very avoidable side effect, avoidable in that the DM always has the power to close any egregious game-wrecking loopholes the players happen to discover.

 

[Lanefan]

Here you used phrases like "intended for a very different style of play" and "the way [the game] is meant to be played." These things are statements, not about things like "skills do X, but old-school fans think 'skill' should be something players have," but things like what the game IS for, how it IS meant to be played, what style it actually DOES pursue. That is, they are not statements about "the rules permit you to <action>" or "the rules are silent about <action>, because they want people to decide for themselves," but rather statements about the purpose or meaning or intent of the rules collectively.

Part of the reason might be that each different rule might require a different statement, or a variance on another statement, resulting in the rulebooks each becoming the size of those massive Oxford dictionaries still found in some libraries.

Why not have rules that make this clear, so that there won't be such misinterpretation or confusion? Just be really forthright about it.

3e tried that approach - a rule for everything - and it didn't end up working very well. 5e specifically backed away from this approach and so far, if the sales stats and player numbers are any indication, it seems to be doing well enough...

 

[niklinna]

So...silence is now information. That's a new one.

Refusal to choose is itself a choice....

 

[EzekielRaiden]

3e tried that approach - a rule for everything - and it didn't end up working very well. 5e specifically backed away from this approach and so far, if the sales stats and player numbers are any indication, it seems to be doing well enough...

Again, you are conflating the rules themselves with what the rules tell you they're for. The two are not the same thing.

If the rules are transparent--you can clearly see the functions they serve--and the advice and descriptions surrounding the rules are similarly clear and straightforward about the "style of play" the rules support and telling people "the way it is meant to be played."

Early D&D is somewhat infamous for being bad at communicating the experience it was intended to support--the whole distinction from those who learned from Gygax or Arneson or a player-teaching-chain leading back to their tables, and those who just read the books. We can, and IMO should, expect an improvement after forty years on this front. Again, I don't see this as a "you MUST play THIS ONE AND ONLY WAY," but rather as, "This is what we made this to do. If you use it for something else, be ready for wrinkles and side-effects." That empowers people, whether by preparing them for making changes, or by making it easier to see that they want something else.

Refusal to choose is itself a choice....

While that is true, choosing not to give any information is clearly different from choosing to give information, I hope you would agree?

 

[Lanefan]

Again, you are conflating the rules themselves with what the rules tell you they're for. The two are not the same thing.

The very existence (or lack thereof) a rule often tells me something about what it is there for.

If the rules are transparent--you can clearly see the functions they serve--and the advice and descriptions surrounding the rules are similarly clear and straightforward about the "style of play" the rules support and telling people "the way it is meant to be played."

Thing is, while the designers can wax eloquent about the function any given rule is intended to serve in their eyes, their words don't mean jack to me-the-DM trying to use said rules to run the game I want to run in the style I want to run it.

And yes, this means sometimes I might end up fighting the rules system without realizing it, but so what? That's what my rules machete is for; it's the item in my kitbasher's toolbox that I use to chop down rules that get in my way.

Just give us the rules, preferably in a modular manner with discrete and disconnected subsystems that by their nature are easy to kitbash to suit our own tastes and-or tables, and let us each figure it all out on our own. Editions 1e and earlier did this well, probably without intending to.

Early D&D is somewhat infamous for being bad at communicating the experience it was intended to support--the whole distinction from those who learned from Gygax or Arneson or a player-teaching-chain leading back to their tables, and those who just read the books. We can, and IMO should, expect an improvement after forty years on this front. Again, I don't see this as a "you MUST play THIS ONE AND ONLY WAY," but rather as, "This is what we made this to do. If you use it for something else, be ready for wrinkles and side-effects." That empowers people, whether by preparing them for making changes, or by making it easier to see that they want something else.

The example of play on 1e DMG pages 96-99 (-ish) gives about as clear an idea of the intended experience as you're ever likely to find anywhere. What more do you need?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Refusal to choose is itself a choice....

All hail the power of Rush!

 

[Scott Christian]

The only thing that makes power creep bad is when it severely limits the DM's ability to help construct a story.

 

[d24454_modern]

The only thing that makes power creep bad is when it severely limits the DM's ability to help construct a story.

Not really.

“Restrictions breed creativity” applies to the DM as well as the players. How they react to the players’ power lets them decide how their plot actually functions in their game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The only thing that makes power creep bad is when it severely limits the DM's ability to help construct a story.

That seems to me to be a strongly stated argument in favour of power creep. The DM shouldn't be writing the story - the story should be about the PCs and their actions and choices.