D&D General Is power creep bad?

[Reynard]

Why not make the rules actually communicate "the way it is meant to be played," so that confusions like this don't happen? A corollary of "rules cannot protect you from a bad DM" is "rules cannot hamper a good DM." If the former is true, so is the latter.


So, again, why not have the rules actually tell both the GM and the player this information? Why not be clear and direct, so everyone can be on the same page with minimal effort, rather than stumbling blindly into problems and having to learn simple lessons through totally preventable mistakes?

This leans toward "what do you want rules to cover?" and for lots of people that enjoy the kind of game I am describing, they don't want rules for this stuff. Some of them reject the whole idea of a thief and skills in general. Skills, they will tell you, are what the player brings to the table. So that lack of rules in this situation IS the rules telling you how the game is meant to be played.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This leans toward "what do you want rules to cover?" and for lots of people that enjoy the kind of game I am describing, they don't want rules for this stuff. Some of them reject the whole idea of a thief and skills in general. Skills, they will tell you, are what the player brings to the table. So that lack of rules in this situation IS the rules telling you how the game is meant to be played.

So...silence is now information. That's a new one.

 

[TheSword]

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.

As someone who posted one of the recent threads about killing a PC… I think this is the least charitable interpretation you could take of that thread.

I certainly wasn’t trumpeting the death or asking for praise. I was trying to discuss and understand the feeling of guilt, what impact it could have on the party dynamic and understand if how I reacted to the death was typical of other DMs and the 5e system.

There are players I trust, and there are players who would sell their own grandmothers for an extra +1. Sweeping statements about all players or all DMs probably aren’t helpful.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This...basically reads as saying "well yes, but actually no." Like, you seem to be saying that these reactions are often wrong...and then immediately pivoting to "except usually they're right."

Frankly, I find most DMs who discuss this stuff online to have a fundamentally self-contradictory perspective. Balance sucks and no one should care about balance...except all the times where they rail against something for being too powerful. Then balance is extremely important. It's "rules for thee but not for me" and it's really, really annoying.

LOL then re-read it? I never said "usually they're right". I said in some instances they are, typically when a feature is so far out of bounds to a table it is obvious it needs to be nerfed or banned.

And personally, I am ALWAYS in the camp of keeping things in balance (I'm a Libra--it comes naturally to me ) and have NEVER said or implied balance sucks. Others might have, I cannot recall any instances but I can accept that you have on good faith.

 

[billd91]

What defines "playing fair"?

Because it seems to me that one is "playing fair" when one abides by known rules.

Doesn't really cover shamelessly exploiting known rules and their limitations, the realm of the rules lawyer. The number of times you may encounter someone who does something technically legal but really crappy to other people will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that it's a question of abiding by known rules.
There has to be an element of good faith, of addressing situations with equability, whether the situation is covered by known rules or not.

 

[Reynard]

So...silence is now information. That's a new one.

Silence has always been information. It is weird to me that someone would think otherwise, in fact.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, I don't find [REDACTED] very informative, but to each their own.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It isn't that players have "intent to ruin the game". The players get new shiny toys provided by WotC and want to use them, as expected, especially when they suddenly realize the new toy is just plain better than their current toy.

So, again, in what way are you trusting them? To not use the new toy? Because if that is the case you might as well not include it if you don't want them to use it.

Trusting that they aren't out to ruin the game by exploiting the power creep toy? If you have players that you think have "intent to ruin the game" then my advice it kick them out the door...

If the players want to use the new toy it is because it is new but often because it is better in whatever manner (and perhaps in a way, more powerful?). Again, the DM either has to decide to: 1) allow it and deal with the new power the toy brings, 2) house-rule it so it isn't "better" but is still new, or 3) just ban it entirely.

If the new toy "breaks" the style of game you want to run as DM through its intended use, you can't blame the players for using it if you allow it. I mean, are you really going to say, "Here, use this new power/feature/whatever which I recognize as too strong (or whatever), but don't use it so I have to adjust my style of game to compensate. I trust you to do that."???

Replace the word "toys" with "spells" and now you can apply this to any conversation about 3E spellcasting!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Doesn't really cover shamelessly exploiting known rules and their limitations, the realm of the rules lawyer. The number of times you may encounter someone who does something technically legal but really crappy to other people will rapidly disabuse you of the notion that it's a question of abiding by known rules.
There has to be an element of good faith, of addressing situations with equability, whether the situation is covered by known rules or not.

And how does one identify a rules-lawyer DM if the rules are invisible? As before, the pendulum swings both ways. When the rules are in the open, it is almost always (damn near actually always, IMO) easier to spot rules-lawyering so it can be dealt with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It isn't that players have "intent to ruin the game". The players get new shiny toys provided by WotC and want to use them, as expected, especially when they suddenly realize the new toy is just plain better than their current toy.

So, again, in what way are you trusting them? To not use the new toy? Because if that is the case you might as well not include it if you don't want them to use it.

Trusting that they aren't out to ruin the game by exploiting the power creep toy? If you have players that you think have "intent to ruin the game" then my advice it kick them out the door...

If the players want to use the new toy it is because it is new but often because it is better in whatever manner (and perhaps in a way, more powerful?). Again, the DM either has to decide to: 1) allow it and deal with the new power the toy brings, 2) house-rule it so it isn't "better" but is still new, or 3) just ban it entirely.

If the new toy "breaks" the style of game you want to run as DM through its intended use, you can't blame the players for using it if you allow it. I mean, are you really going to say, "Here, use this new power/feature/whatever which I recognize as too strong (or whatever), but don't use it so I have to adjust my style of game to compensate. I trust you to do that."???

Do you not see the irony of advocating for "just trust me, it's for your own good/the good of the game" coming from DMs, y'know, the ones who have enormous amounts of power and the ability to massively manipulate things in their favor, while simultaneously treating players as inherently incapable of being trustworthy with the few tools actually afforded to them?