D&D General Is power creep bad?

[James Gasik]

Sure but if you're in the trenches running a game and a player comes to you with a new build, and you're building encounters correctly and using monster manual critters and suddenly you realize that this guy is doing more damage, taking less damage, and seems to have no particular weaknesses, it's ok to be like "now...hold on a minute!".

If the expectations of design have changed, and you haven't been given the tools to deal with the change, or really, even a heads up, that's no good either.

And WotC is usually pretty slow to print DM-facing content because it doesn't sell as well (there's more players than DM's).

They will change design goals, and print better player-facing options and then be like "oh yeah, I guess the old monsters need an update, here's your MM3 or Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale".

Whether being able to sell a book that requires you to buy another book to deal with the options in the first book is reasonable is a whole other discussion in of itself.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

But couldn’t one also say that power creep erodes restrictions and, therefore, erodes creativity from the players?

 

[d24454_modern]

But couldn’t one also say that power creep erodes restrictions and, therefore, erodes creativity from the players?

If the players are able to teleport to a place that they need to get to because of a quest, why would you prevent them from doing so?

Instead, make teleportation just one thing the players have to do in order to solve the issue.

And put time limits as well. Too many DMs give players all the time that they want and not the amount of time they need. The world doesn’t stop moving just because the PCs aren’t looking.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If the players are able to teleport to a place that they need to get to because of a quest, why would you prevent them from doing so?

Instead, make teleportation just one thing the players have to do in order to solve the issue.

And put time limits as well. Too many DMs give players all the time that they want and not the amount of time they need. The world doesn’t stop moving just because the PCs aren’t looking.

Methinks you are responding to the wrong person here…

 

[Neonchameleon]

But couldn’t one also say that power creep erodes restrictions and, therefore, erodes creativity from the players?

One could - but given that the players have an infinitessimal range of options compared to the DM I don't consider this much of a problem unless we get full 3.5 wizards back.

Sure but if you're in the trenches running a game and a player comes to you with a new build, and you're building encounters correctly and using monster manual critters and suddenly you realize that this guy is doing more damage, taking less damage, and seems to have no particular weaknesses, it's ok to be like "now...hold on a minute!".

If the expectations of design have changed, and you haven't been given the tools to deal with the change, or really, even a heads up, that's no good either.

The problem with this statement is that even if it's true it's in my experience largely irrelevant. The majority of the most broken options in any edition are in the PHB when the material is understood least well by the designers. Yes, they can be broken slightly further with additional options but the reason the 3.5 Incantatrix prestige class was broken wasn't that it could play games with metamagic - it was that it took what was already the most powerful class in the game (wizard) and then made it even more powerful. And yes, the Incantatrix in both 3.0 and 3.5 was an actual example of power creep that took the most powerful options in the original game and made them even more powerful.

Meanwhile a lot of DMs complained about the Tome of Battle/Book of 9 Swords. And it really did lead to many fighter players "doing more damage, taking less damage, and seems to have no particular weaknesses" compared to the baseline PHB fighter. Of course there was a reason for that - the baseline PHB fighter was an awful class in 3.5, especially when not put together with obnoxious and spammy gimmicks like the spiked chain trip cheese (which still wasn't in the league of a wizard). The normal agreement is that the PHB Fighter is Tier 5 (i.e. awful and at best a one trick pony with major counters) and the Warblade Tier 3 (i.e. decent at their job and with some flexibility). Meanwhile it wasn't either a wizard or CoDzilla.

The expectations of design had not changed. What changed was that WotC were now trying to put something in there that was in line with the expectations - and people were comparing it to something that fell massively short.

And WotC is usually pretty slow to print DM-facing content because it doesn't sell as well (there's more players than DM's).

They will change design goals, and print better player-facing options and then be like "oh yeah, I guess the old monsters need an update, here's your MM3 or Monster Vault: Threats to Nentir Vale".

WotC really messed up monster scaling - and skilled players using the PHB alone had demonstrated that pretty much since launch. 4e was really rushed out of the door. It was given a 2 year development cycle and they went back to the drawing board ten months in; it really needed another year of playtesting and polishing.

Whether being able to sell a book that requires you to buy another book to deal with the options in the first book is reasonable is a whole other discussion in of itself.

How about selling a book that tries to fix the flaws in the original book?

 

[Reynard]

If the players are able to teleport to a place that they need to get to because of a quest, why would you prevent them from doing so?

Instead, make teleportation just one thing the players have to do in order to solve the issue.

And put time limits as well. Too many DMs give players all the time that they want and not the amount of time they need. The world doesn’t stop moving just because the PCs aren’t looking.

Or not allow teleportation because it is boring and boring is by definition the antithesis of fun.

 

[James Gasik]

Overland travel can also be boring. I think this is really the issue. If you're a DM that can make travel exciting...I envy you, because I can't. At best I can have the party run into a few cool things, but the rest is a slog. In my games, anything the players can do to shorten travel times is aces.

And if your travel and wilderness exploration is fun and exciting, then yeah, I understand why all the various options players have to shortcut it might be frustrating- but I think it points to the fact that more DM's suck at making travel interesting than otherwise.

And I have a lot of books on my shelf, from the Wilderness Survival Guide to Sandstorm that just never helped make travel interesting, so I'm not sure what most of us can do about it other than let the players decide if they want to explore the unknown or just teleport from place to place on their adventures.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or not allow teleportation because it is boring and boring is by definition the antithesis of fun.

Makework is boring and the antithesis of fun. The point about teleportation is that it only takes a few seconds. And in a few seconds most people don't have time to be bored. Meaning that I question how it can be actively boring.

You might use it to skip the fun parts (if someone can make travel fun) - but at least you're using it to skip to something.

 

[Reynard]

Overland travel can also be boring. I think this is really the issue. If you're a DM that can make travel exciting...I envy you, because I can't. At best I can have the party run into a few cool things, but the rest is a slog. In my games, anything the players can do to shorten travel times is aces.

And if your travel and wilderness exploration is fun and exciting, then yeah, I understand why all the various options players have to shortcut it might be frustrating- but I think it points to the fact that more DM's suck at making travel interesting than otherwise.

And I have a lot of books on my shelf, from the Wilderness Survival Guide to Sandstorm that just never helped make travel interesting, so I'm not sure what most of us can do about it other than let the players decide if they want to explore the unknown or just teleport from place to place on their adventures.

Part of the disconnect might be that I do not think it is necessary to make the travel "exciting" necessarily. I want it to be interesting and evocative and immersive and fun. Seeing the ruins of the lost empires, passing through lands devistated by war and plague, camping with pilgrims and caravaners, and rushing off the road when the shadow of the wyrm passed over you are all things that help build the world and the sense of place within it the PCs occupy. Things don't always have to be "exciting" for them to matter, and travel is one of the best aspects of play to show that off.

 

[Reynard]

Makework is boring and the antithesis of fun. The point about teleportation is that it only takes a few seconds. And in a few seconds most people don't have time to be bored. Meaning that I question how it can be actively boring.

You might use it to skip the fun parts (if someone can make travel fun) - but at least you're using it to skip to something.

I don't agree that travel is make work. It certainly can be, but it isn't necessarily so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Again, that is a personal value judgement, not an absolute as you imply.

 

[James Gasik]

Part of the disconnect might be that I do not think it is necessary to make the travel "exciting" necessarily. I want it to be interesting and evocative and immersive and fun. Seeing the ruins of the lost empires, passing through lands devistated by war and plague, camping with pilgrims and caravaners, and rushing off the road when the shadow of the wyrm passed over you are all things that help build the world and the sense of place within it the PCs occupy. Things don't always have to be "exciting" for them to matter, and travel is one of the best aspects of play to show that off.

My players typically start to get this glazed look in their eyes if I lapse into Tolkienian flavor text describing the landscape. I'm willing to accept that as my fault (though it could be theirs), but either way...faster travel seems like a better fit for our games.

I wouldn't mind being in games where travel opens up lore or even interesting roleplay (I watched a session of Critical Role where the characters engage in heartfelt rp while taking watch while camping, and I was like, why doesn't that happen when I play?) but I rarely have that experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One could - but given that the players have an infinitessimal range of options compared to the DM I don't consider this much of a problem unless we get full 3.5 wizards back.

The problem with this statement is that even if it's true it's in my experience largely irrelevant. The majority of the most broken options in any edition are in the PHB when the material is understood least well by the designers. Yes, they can be broken slightly further with additional options but the reason the 3.5 Incantatrix prestige class was broken wasn't that it could play games with metamagic - it was that it took what was already the most powerful class in the game (wizard) and then made it even more powerful. And yes, the Incantatrix in both 3.0 and 3.5 was an actual example of power creep that took the most powerful options in the original game and made them even more powerful.

Meanwhile a lot of DMs complained about the Tome of Battle/Book of 9 Swords. And it really did lead to many fighter players "doing more damage, taking less damage, and seems to have no particular weaknesses" compared to the baseline PHB fighter. Of course there was a reason for that - the baseline PHB fighter was an awful class in 3.5, especially when not put together with obnoxious and spammy gimmicks like the spiked chain trip cheese (which still wasn't in the league of a wizard). The normal agreement is that the PHB Fighter is Tier 5 (i.e. awful and at best a one trick pony with major counters) and the Warblade Tier 3 (i.e. decent at their job and with some flexibility). Meanwhile it wasn't either a wizard or CoDzilla.

The expectations of design had not changed. What changed was that WotC were now trying to put something in there that was in line with the expectations - and people were comparing it to something that fell massively short.

WotC really messed up monster scaling - and skilled players using the PHB alone had demonstrated that pretty much since launch. 4e was really rushed out of the door. It was given a 2 year development cycle and they went back to the drawing board ten months in; it really needed another year of playtesting and polishing.

How about selling a book that tries to fix the flaws in the original book?

Perhaps if WotC had stated that the purpose of the Warblade et al was to iterate and improve upon the weaker than expected fighter, as opposed to just throwing it out there for people to deal with on their own, the book would have been controversial. A little transparency of design would have helped a lot here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My players typically start to get this glazed look in their eyes if I lapse into Tolkienian flavor text describing the landscape. I'm willing to accept that as my fault (though it could be theirs), but either way...faster travel seems like a better fit for our games.

I wouldn't mind being in games where travel opens up lore or even interesting roleplay (I watched a session of Critical Role where the characters engage in heartfelt rp while taking watch while camping, and I was like, why doesn't that happen when I play?) but I rarely have that experience.

What are your players looking for in D&D?

 

[James Gasik]

I can agree with that, but it wasn't exactly a new thing, they'd been pumping out "replacement" classes for awhile, testing out new ideas, side by side with "variant" classes.

That was generally WotC's big problem in 3.5, only occasionally did they say "just so you know this content is better than older content, and here's why". They just...threw it all out there and your DM just had to try and figure out if it was a problem or not.

This was especially rough when you played under DM's like some of the ones I did, who thought Monks, Rogues, and Fighters were OP ("they have like 11 bonus Feats or something!").

 

[James Gasik]

What are your players looking for in D&D?

I ask these questions, and I typically get a different answer for each player. You know that section in the DMG where they talk about the kinds of players? I think I have one of each.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Part of the disconnect might be that I do not think it is necessary to make the travel "exciting" necessarily. I want it to be interesting and evocative and immersive and fun. Seeing the ruins of the lost empires, passing through lands devistated by war and plague, camping with pilgrims and caravaners, and rushing off the road when the shadow of the wyrm passed over you are all things that help build the world and the sense of place within it the PCs occupy. Things don't always have to be "exciting" for them to matter, and travel is one of the best aspects of play to show that off.

And part of the disconnect is that if we are talking about 5e there are, so far as I am aware, precisely three long distance teleportation spells. (I'm not counting e.g. Misty Step as it's short distance).

The first long distance teleportation spell is Teleportation Circle - and the key thing about that spell is that you can only teleport to a circle you have the sigil sequence for. This means that it's great for getting home but not so good for getting to new places. Seeing the scenery on the way out may be interesting, but it's seldom as interesting the second time. And you need to be ninth level to cast it.

The second and third teleportation spells are Teleport and Plane Shift. These are both seventh level spells, and there are only nine levels of spell to worry about. By the time I've been adventuring somewhere for twelve levels I should have a bit of an idea of the local area.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I ask these questions, and I typically get a different answer for each player. You know that section in the DMG where they talk about the kinds of players? I think I have one of each.

I ask because it seems the one thing they don't want is to explore the world.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I ask because it seems the one thing they don't want is to explore the world.

That's not at all what I get from James. What they don't want to do is be largely passive participants while the world goes past their eyes. Or explore the geology if I'm reading him correctly.

 

[James Gasik]

I ask because it seems the one thing they don't want is to explore the world.

They did enjoy the sandbox hex crawl I put together...well other than the one player who felt somehow angered when they realized that hexes they had "cleared" weren't going to stay devoid of monsters forever (it was a very strange discussion).

But boy was that a lot of hard work. I also ran into the "Metroidvania" problem more than once- they'd encounter a threat they couldn't handle yet. I suggested they come back later and deal with it once they were prepared. They grumbled and never returned.

Like there were these giant larva and butterflies that could inflict electricity damage, and they got beat up, so I was like, just come back with some potions of electricity resistance (this was Pathfinder) and you should make easy work of them.

"Yeah, ok." "So what's in the next hex?"