D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Azuresun]

May I remind you that they tried a similar approach with with the so called course correction in 4ed which I loved and we all know where it got them?
As it is, the game can support many playstyle, though clumsily when the DM and Players do not adjust their playstyle a wee bit toward the 6-8 encounters per day. Using alternate rest rule helps a lot with that. Now the encounters are spread over a week. Which helps the narrative side a lot for some tables.

Regular reminder that the DMG does not mandate 6-8 encoutners per day, just gives it as an example of how an adventuring day might go.

 

[TheSword]

While these resources are quite helpful, let's not pretend they reach even a small fraction of the 5E player base. We are a minority of a minority (that is, people who care about the games enough to discuss heavy theory on pretend elves), and most people who play D&D are not only not active here, they probably don't even know these exist. Actual DM-facing content from WotC, due to it being official material, could reach a much wider audience and allow a lot more DMing guidance to hesitant people. The way things currently are, you don't have access to the material you mentioned unless you're already really invested in the game, or an invested person suggests these resources to you.

Well they reach anybody who types ‘running Curse of Strahd’ into google. I think you underestimate how easy it is to find instruction now on google. The problem with expecting official material is that there is no official way to DM. Not to mention that advice for how you DM will probably change depending on how much you do it and who you’re DMing for. I think expecting an official position is urinating in the wind.

Incidentally there are many orders of magnitude more people read these forums than post in them, as has been confirmed by Morris in the past.

Well, given I also weighed in on this:

I find the 5e DMG to be poorly constructed for the purpose of actually helping people who don't know how to run the game learn to do so. It is instead written for people who already know more or less how D&D works and who just want alternative options (that they can then, in most cases, ignore...but that's a separate issue).

Like, to give an example of something spread across both the PHB and the DMG, the way the game handles deities and races (and to a lesser extent classes). Instead of presenting these things as tools for campaign construction, traditionalism is put on a pedestal and brief lip service (at best) is given to the ways these things could be used to do creative work. E.g., it makes prescriptive statements about what things exist in fantasy worlds, rather than discussing the ways that each DM can set a tone and a theme by curating lists with intent. E.g., "A setting that evokes ancient Greek and Roman myth can be reinforced by careful selection of races. Perhaps there are no elves or tieflings or dwarves, but dragonborn (based on myths like Erichthonius, the Spartoi, and the drakaina), thri-kreen (Myrmidons, the ant-warriors), satyrs, and minotaurs are common. Likewise, there might be no Wizards nor Paladins, but Storm Sorcerers are common because of Zeus, and Warlocks who make pacts with the Chthonic gods are known (and somewhat feared). Clerics might worship a specific deity which grants one of two domains, e.g. Athena grants War or Knowledge, Zeus Storm or Light, Demeter Life or Nature, and Hermes Trickery or Life. Bards might be focused much more on philosophy and oratory than on history and music." Similarly, giving advice for how to be effective with things like "build the setting around what the players choose" or "organically expand the setting as you go, deciding limits through play rather than in advance."

I think is a really good example of the point I’ve just made. This kind of level of DMing would be completely inappropriate for a new DM. They could get seriously into the long grass on this one. You can type “building a pantheon” or “selecting gods for a rpg” into google and you will get a dozen quality blogs on how to select gods to suit your homebrew. All with small variations. But how can someone who is grappling with the fact that there are god… with names and portfolios and powers, constructively make long term design decisions like that.

It’s a bit like writing a book on how to invest in the stock market. They are basic principles but you could easily get in trouble by claiming one way was particularly good.

As for your example of Critical Role, those things can be as much a problem as they are a boon. It's the "out of my league" problem: in being really good at what he does and making it a very professional production, Mr. Mercer may actually increase the reluctance to try. That's because no DM is going to be as good as Mercer is on their first try (and likely not their fiftieth try, if we go by individual sessions!) I know I dealt with feelings of that nature which made me reluctant to DM. It was, in fact, a friend having a HORRIBLE ROTTEN GARBAGE experience with a DM that let a player walk all over him that inspired me to run my game. Because I knew that no matter how bad I might be, no matter how many mistakes I might make, I could not possibly be worse than that.

I don’t like CR and don’t watch CR. I pointed out that other live stream games that are far more like a regular experience of D&D than Critical Role is. In Dice Camera Action you actually get to watch the writer (Chris Perkins) DM their own campaign. I can’t think of a better way to learn something than see someone else attempt it, without actually attempting it yourself. I’m an experienced DM but in that series I got to see the DM completely go off their own writing in order to cater to events the players choose, while maintaining the integrity of the campaign. Bringing cool things the PCs missed back later, rather than forcing them into it at a time that wasn’t right, just because it was in that part of the book. It was a great learning too. Brilliant demo lesson.

If people want a book from WotC. Then I say good luck to them. My strong suspicion is that those that want it most don’t need it, and would never agree what the advice should be anyway.

 

[Helldritch]

Regular reminder that the DMG does not mandate 6-8 encoutners per day, just gives it as an example of how an adventuring day might go.

Read again my friend.
The threshold for one level 1 character 300 xp per day. An easy encounter is 25 xp or 12 encounters. A deadly encounter is a 100xp or 3 encounters. 12 + 3 = 15. Divide by two and you get 7. Exactly the middle ground for the 6-8 encounters per day. Not every thing/day should be deadly. Not every thing should be easy. Thus the 6-8. Just following the table gives you exactly that. Multiply those numbers by the number of people in the group and you're set.

Or maybe you want the one in XGtE? It amounts to exactly the same, easier to follow. You only care about the CR of the creature.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? Tacit assumptions. Reliance on social contracts without calling that out. The expectation that every tool will always be used exclusively in good faith, so no tool is off limits. Some people like to say "good men don't need rules." That's sort of missing the point; rules help imperfect people trend closer to the ideal of good.

Hence why I like rigorous, transparent design. If the system itself is rigorously designed, then genuine innocent intent is, at worst, merely unlikely to lead to unintended "screwing" the players; in the best case, innocent intent cannot lead to "screwing" the players. As a result, rigorous and transparent systems, despite seeming to be "more" limited, can actually be less limited. You can use all the tools given to you without having to intentionally hold back for fear of "screwing over" the players. Ditching the "freedom" to set your house on fire for the ability to confidently flame-broil your meals and launch crazy fireworks displays.

I've just seen, whether in-person, vicariously via friends, or vicariously via online discussions, too many situations where the "freedom" to set one's house on fire actually led to setting the house on fire.

Why are you playing at a table where you don't trust the GM to be at least fair?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why are you playing at a table where you don't trust the GM to be at least fair?

One where I'm the DM and would like a little more guidance.

More to the point what is fair? There are families where it is considered fair that the wife does all the cooking, there are families where it's shared, there are (admittedly fewer) families where the husband does the cooking, and there are families rich enough for a housekeeper to do the cooking.

The D&D equivalent would be to look at the six cultures of play. And for preference I run either OSR style or Storygame style. To take two of the clearer games in those genres as a GM I will absolutely and unapologetically naughty word over PCs in both a Dungeon Crawl Classics funnel, and in a game of Monsterhearts and the players will love it - but if I were to naughty word over DCC PCs Monsterhearts style with all the consequences and trauma seen in the teen horror genre, if I were to naughty word over Monsterhearts PCs DCC funnel style with an over 50% permadeath rate in a single session, or if I were to do either to an average casual D&D group I would expect a riot or a walk out and deservedly so because that's not what they signed up for.

Edit: to add to that I do not have to hold myself back or second guess myself much in Monsterhearts; the game itself gives me the tools, sets the limits, and shows me what the expectations are on both sides. I also don't have to hold myself back when running an OSR game for the same reason. When running something like 5e? The game doesn't do that and I have most of the tools of a good OSR DM and a good PbtA MC. One of my strengths is I can and do delve into both toyboxes. But as far as 5e goes for a new DM it barely seems to acknowledge either toolbox even exists so doesn't teach much other than by trial and error - and for a flexible one like me it doesn't give me much to go on or new players to go on to expect anything like that. At the very basic level death is on the table in D&D so there should be more guidance on dealing with it.

 

[Reynard]

One where I'm the DM and would like a little more guidance.

If you are the GM, you are responsible to "call out" the social contract and be fair in that circumstance. So if there is a room full of wraith spiders behind the door and the PCs approach the door to investigate danger, it is your responsibility to be their eyes and ears. This is doubly true of "OSR style" games where you don't rely on skill checks for everything. Of course, stuff happens and no one is perfect, so if you screw up and cause the PCs to blunder into the death trap because you failed to give them enough information, you are allowed to stop the game and say "Oops, my bad, I should have told you X. Do you guys want to rewind or just push ahead and see what happens?" and then learn from that experience.

More to the point what is fair? There are families where it is considered fair that the wife does all the cooking, there are families where it's shared, there are (admittedly fewer) families where the husband does the cooking, and there are families rich enough for a housekeeper to do the cooking.

The D&D equivalent would be to look at the six cultures of play. And for preference I run either OSR style or Storygame style. To take two of the clearer games in those genres as a GM I will absolutely and unapologetically naughty word over PCs in both a Dungeon Crawl Classics funnel, and in a game of Monsterhearts and the players will love it - but if I were to naughty word over DCC PCs Monsterhearts style with all the consequences and trauma seen in the teen horror genre, if I were to naughty word over Monsterhearts PCs DCC funnel style with an over 50% permadeath rate in a single session, or if I were to do either to an average casual D&D group I would expect a riot or a walk out and deservedly so because that's not what they signed up for.

All you have to do is tell the players the game you are running. They'll decide whether they want to play that. No riot necessary.

 

[MGibster]

Warhammer 40k does have some problems, but it's not solely due to power creep (which sells books), but horrible balance decisions. Like any time they decide to make a Guardsman's "flashlight laser" worse.

Powercreep is a problem based on horrible balance decisions though. And it's somethign you have to watch out for in any game where you come out with more material after the initial core product. You don't want some new Fighter variant making the origial obsolete. I don't own every 5E product, but so far I haven't run into any serious problems with powercreep.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are you playing at a table where you don't trust the GM to be at least fair?

Because "trust" is a process, not a toggle?

Because "just trust me, it's for your own good" is one of the least trustworthy things people can say?

Because I play online games where I don't know the DM well, due to being extremely shy?

Because "fair" is in the eye of the beholder, and there's several things I think are completely and totally unfair that others think are so acceptable they shouldn't be discussed in advance (ear seekers, or cloakers, or rust monsters, or any of dozens of other "gotcha" monsters deployed out of context specifically to dick over ignorant players who have been "doing too well")?

Because so many DMs out there reserve the right to do things that violate trust, like fudging rolls or retconning established facts or secretly changing a creature's stats mid-fight (again, "trust me, it's for your own good, that's why I won't ever let you find out I do it!")

Trust is not given. It is earned. Responding to "DMs need to earn my trust" with "why do you play at a table where you don't trust the DM?" is putting the cart before the horse. Even if I already know the DM as a person beforehand, unless I actually see them perform as a DM, I have no basis on which to trust them as a DM. They must earn that trust. You might as well say "why do you eat at a restaurant you don't trust?" in response to someone saying they want their restaurants to pass inspection before they'll eat there.

 

[Reynard]

Trust is not given. It is earned. Responding to "DMs need to earn my trust" with "why do you play at a table where you don't trust the DM?" is putting the cart before the horse. Even if I already know the DM as a person beforehand, unless I actually see them perform as a DM, I have no basis on which to trust them as a DM. They must earn that trust. You might as well say "why do you eat at a restaurant you don't trust?" in response to someone saying they want their restaurants to pass inspection before they'll eat there.

Maybe I should have couched the question this way: Why are you playing with someone you distrust?

Aside from that, though, is this simple fact: the rules are NOT going to protect you from a bad GM in any case. Tons of rules are just going to exacerbate the problem, in fact. There is no authority to appeal to for fair adjudicating of the rules besides the GM.

Also, a lot of people make this comparison of gaming and restaurants and I don't think it is apt at all. In fact, I would go so far as to say that maybe some of the reasons people have negative gaming experiences is because they go into them with an attitude similar to that they are going to pay for a meal. Maybe if folks thought of it more like a dinner party, they will recognize their own responsibility in not only theirs but everyone else's enjoyment.

 

[billd91]

Trust is not given. It is earned. Responding to "DMs need to earn my trust" with "why do you play at a table where you don't trust the DM?" is putting the cart before the horse. Even if I already know the DM as a person beforehand, unless I actually see them perform as a DM, I have no basis on which to trust them as a DM. They must earn that trust. You might as well say "why do you eat at a restaurant you don't trust?" in response to someone saying they want their restaurants to pass inspection before they'll eat there.

This sounds an awful lot like "respect" in the way that some people say "respect must be earned" (never minding the fact that people should be, at some level, automatically treated with respect just for being). Trouble is, how do you give someone a chance to earn trust without putting at least some trust in them? How do you act in a trustworthy manner yourself if you won't invest trust in them?

On the restaurant analogy - do restaurants need to earn your trust too? How do they do so without you trusting them enough to eat at them?