D&D General Is power creep bad?

[James Gasik]

They might not die more, but do they get level drained more? Also, it's great that you're conscientious with how often you use level draining monsters, but you can run into them at levels where Restoration isn't an option as well.

And that still doesn't answer my essential question- what does permanent level drain do that makes it a worthwhile mechanic?

How does it make the game more fun? In AD&D we already have poison, disease, polymorph, curses, and magical effects and monsters that destroy your stuff, from the lowly rust monster all the way to Mordenkainen's Disjunction.

How does taking away experience points fit in here? A previous poster said it's terrifying, but so is a Beholder disintegrating you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have to ask if you're serious, because for the life of me, I never understood the upside to level drain. Ok, you're now a level weaker. Which means you are less able to contribute to whatever part you're a member of- possibly forever!

It made certain types of monsters something you just didn't want to get into melee with, forcing more creative solutions when they came up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See I cut my teeth in AD&D when it took forever to gain a level, and when you encounter a creature that could level drain, there wasn't anything you could do about it- not getting hit isn't really an option (well, I mean, it is an option, if the DM is allowing parries and such, but the first time you realize your opponent is a vampire/wight/spectre/wraith you probably weren't prepared for it).

Losing because you failed a roll is rough. Losing because the DM succeeded at a roll? Blah.

I never used level draining monsters as a DM because it just felt unnecessarily cruel- killing the PC's is usually more merciful!

DMs succeed on attack rolls all the time.

 

[Seramus]

Warhammer 40k does have some problems

Yes. Cancelling the Ynnari books.

 

[James Gasik]

DMs succeed on attack rolls all the time.

Not all the time, but "getting hit for damage" vs. "getting hit for losing 2 levels from a Ravenloft vampire" are very different things.

 

[James Gasik]

It made certain types of monsters something you just didn't want to get into melee with, forcing more creative solutions when they came up.

Again though, we have those- ghouls for example. Why is level drain better than being straight up paralyzed for a stupidly long time (and then dying, most likely).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is absolutely true that if the GM (or module writer) wants to screw you, you're dead. But, I would argue that the social contract at a AD&D table assumes the players will have the information at their disposal to make decisions that mitigate the threats. That's kind of the whole point of that style of dungeon crawl: find the treasure, and avoid combat or at least turn it to your advantage. The third in your example should have listened and searched for signs and the GM should have told them what they found. The "gotcha" is supposed to be aimed at lazy players who thought they were playing Diablo.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again though, we have those- ghouls for example. Why is level drain better than being straight up paralyzed for a stupidly long time (and then dying, most likely).

Because different ways of portraying scary monsters is good. Also, permanent vs. Temporary is a thing. You can get hit by a ghoul and still come out of the fight with no lasting effects.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'd much rather place my trust in my DM and have it occasionally blow up in my face then play a straight-jacketed game where all the terrible mechanical consequences are softened.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I must say, I find it very interesting that a clear majority (73%) have at least a semi-neutral attitude, despite the inherently pejorative nature of the phrase "power creep." And the single largest group (at only 27.6%) is a slightly-negative but still semi-neutral "I'd rather not, but I can handle it" stance (though, as usual, I find the "it's playable" standard frustrating and useless.)

Based on the votes, it would seem "power creep" is not seen as nearly so offensive, at least here on ENWorld, as one might have expected from all the handwringing over it!

I'd much rather place my trust in my DM and have it occasionally blow up in my face then play a straight-jacketed game where all the terrible mechanical consequences are softened.

Who said "all"? Who here is bringing the straightjacket besides you? I want my losses to be ones I merited, not ones that fell out of a coin flip between "everything's fine" and "you lose, good day sir."