D&D General Is power creep bad?

[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.