D&D General Is power creep bad?

[TerraDave]

In the D&D 30th Anniversary Book, staff working on 2e admitted that power creep was intentional and used to sell splats.

I don't think that approach has entirely stopped.

 

[Stormonu]

It depends.

Life improvements to get more out of the game and opening up new avenues don't bother me. But when the new things are just outright superior, it bothers me. A lot of times this happens because if the new stuff isn't good enough to be adopted into the game, no one is going to buy it. Few people want sidegrades, they want upgrades.

GW is, frankly, the worst in this regard with its "games".

 

[Oofta]

There will always be options that some people think is more powerful than others. I see less of it in 5E than in some previous editions.

But so much depends on the group and options used. What kind of obstacles does the group face? How many encounters between rests? What kind of items do they have and what do typical encounters look like. It can all matter. Throw in just general player competence on top of it all.

So I don't see a huge issue. There's always going to be variance, there would be even if everyone was playing the same classes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm all for bringing up the weaker options, whether that means classes, races, or class/race combinations, up to the level of the "best" ones. I'd rather avoid raising the upper limit, especially if that leaves the weaker options even further behind.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Let me ask you a question….

How do you like inflation?

Now, the same reason we don’t like high inflation is the same reason we don’t like powercreep. It’s a treadmill you don’t want to get on.

I just don't think that's a good analogy, even for the point you're making. There is almost always at least some inflation, and the absence of any is a worrisome indicator.

On the other hand, signs that a game company is intentionally embracing power creep (perhaps to push sales of new supplements) would be worrisome. But, even then, really only because it renders older content to be relatively inferior.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Striving for brevity: "Power creep" is a loaded phrase.

Raising the power of weak options is good. Raising the power of already very powerful options is generally not. Likewise, adding more versatility to a narrow option is good. Adding more versatility to an already pluripotent option is generally not.

"Power creep" is a pejorative: "I don't like this increase, because it does things I disapprove of." But what things? How, and why? Is it justified to call it "power creep," or is that just someone being salty that the superiority of their favorite option is being eroded by improved game balance?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I just don't think that's a good analogy, even for the point you're making. There is almost always at least some inflation, and the absence of any is a worrisome indicator.

On the other hand, signs that a game company is intentionally embracing power creep (perhaps to push sales of new supplements) would be worrisome. But, even then, really only because it renders older content to be relatively inferior.

Correct.

Deflation, outside of very very intentional and rare circumstances (e.g. as a correction to previous incredibly extreme inflation), is a very bad thing for a market economy. When deflation occurs, deposits naturally gain value purely from sitting still, doing nothing at all. This means that the usual incentive to invest—the fact that your money doesn't just hold its value forever but will slowly shrink in purchasing power over time—disappears, and many potential investors will choose the absolutely 100% risk free option of hoarding their money rather than investing it. This causes the economy to grind to a halt, as credit and investment become unnecessary risks. Likewise, debts become more onerous with time, not less, even without interest, making credit unattractive even to those who might otherwise seek it, further dampening economic activity.

This is at least one reason why the Fed focuses on having low, but positive, inflation. Low but positive inflation keeps up the incentive to invest and offer/seek credit, keeping the wheels of the economy turning.

The analogy is flawed even in its premise, without even touching on its applicability.

 

[beancounter]

Power creep of the PCs is fine as long as the monsters increase in power as well.

However, I don't see that happening. - You can't go from zero to hero if the monsters have an even chance.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Also, I'm way too heavy in real estate at the moment, so bring on the inflation!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I just don't think that's a good analogy, even for the point you're making. .

Something I’ve noticed in recent years … is that readers desire precision in metaphors and analogies, even though metaphor is — by definition! — not supposed to be taken literally. People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor.