Power Creep

I was reading about the level cap increasing from 60 to 70 in an online game, with many new possibilities/abilities. "How do people keep track of so many abilities at such high levels?" I thought. Then I realized yet another reason why I prefer simple games: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Another version, about Japanese gardening, is "Your garden is not complete until there is nothing else that you can remove."

I was reading about the level cap increasing from 60 to 70 in an online game, with many new possibilities/abilities. "How do people keep track of so many abilities at such high levels?" I thought. Then I realized yet another reason why I prefer simple games: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Another version, about Japanese gardening, is "Your garden is not complete until there is nothing else that you can remove."


Games are sets of artificial (separated from the real world) constraints, even games as "loosey-goosey" in rules as RPGs. Players agree to use and abide by these constraints. The best players are usually those who cope best with those constraints.

"Power Creep virtually always leads to a Broken Base, with the most ‘conservative’ players stating that the new unbalanced content is an insult to the original game (which might be true or not, depending on the case)." --TV Tropes

Good play comes not from having lots of things you can do, many of them really “OP” (overpowered), but from making good use of what you've got. Another case of creativity benefitting from constraints.

Power creep is a common online (video) game problem that we can see in tabletop RPGs. The cause isn't online play, it's the frequent changes and additions to rules and to "content". New "stuff" is more attractive when it's better than the old stuff (duh!), so that's what the makers produce, and over time the entire game sees an increase in power, in what the players can do. (See “The Dilemma of the Simple RPG.”) This must be matched by an increase in the power of the opposition (more dangerous monsters) or the game becomes too easy. Some games handle the escalation better than others, but if the game was well-designed to begin with, power creep is likely to hurt the design.

Make no mistake, I like blowing things up with tac nukes - well, fireballs anyway - and megawatt lasers (lightning bolts). But when you get up into Timestops and other Immense Godlike Powers, I think the GAME suffers in favor of the POWER TRIP. And at the same time it becomes less skillful, less clever, and harder to GM.

I’ve often said, about 1e D&D, that the “sweet spot” for play was 3rd-9th level. Early on players were too fragile (not a problem in recent editions), and later on the game couldn’t cope well with double-figure levels. It got to the point that (as in WW II armored battles) whoever fired first usually won, because the attack capabilities were so strong. This is especially obvious where surprise is involved. If a game then “power creeps” to where 9th levels are as strong as 11th used to be, the situation worsens.

Of course, many players and GMs don't care about skill or cleverness, they care about other things (among them, power trips). What I’ve said is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't care how you run or play your game (unless I'm involved!).

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
Well, this is generally an issue in many RPG's, and particularly in any level based one. As you level your PC, you get more powerful at what you do, but, you don't, generally, do anything new. It's all height and no breadth.

It would be nice to see a system where you branch out further and further "sideways" rather than upwards. Imagine a D&D level system where you only gain HD every three levels (forex) and attack bonuses and damage don't really change very much. Small, incremental increases once in a while.

But, instead, you gain all sorts of "first level" powers

The only problem with that is, everyone's character winds up being pretty much identical after enough time. Everyone has the same stuff, even if they started from different points.

It's a very hard thing to design around.

An interesting idea, but I think this would also undermine the feeling of a power curve, which many players are fond of in RPG's. Then again, it would be interesting if the power curve is represented by skill, rather than just raw numbers. Guild Wars 1 achieved this to some degree, where the players were only as strong as the skill combinations they made with their limited bar of 8 skills, and the way they used those skills. The sideways progression in this case, is all about obtaining more powers that you can mix and match.

It would be interesting for a game like D&D to not have certain level spells become completely useless after a particular level this way. Just an increasing pool of options to mix and match, and the players are only as strong as they are resourceful.

You're pretty much describing the Apocalypse World family of games and Dungeon World specifically.

There is very slight, but relevant enough, y-axis growth (+1 stat per level very slightly perturbs the neat Bell Curve of results in favor of the PC). However, the overwhelming majority of growth is x-axis (each level grants new archetypal/thematic moves and discovered treasure does the same).

HP don't grow after 1st level unless you increase Con (1 to 1) at level gain (which may happen once or twice in 10 levels of play).

Each race/class playbook is extremely distinct at a glance and certainly in play.

Wizards (and spellcasters generally) have considerably less apex spell power and considerably less number of spells. Meanwhile, Fighters have much more "player fiat" than in standard D&D. That formula manages to yield balanced, engaging play from beginning obstacles to those of mythical proportions (shocker!).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting what people see as a feature is IMO one of the giant glaring weaknesses of 5E, the lack of prices or crafting rules. Combined with attunement, lots of times I find that I hand out items as DM that seem cool but the PCs have no use for and can't even sell... because there are no prices. Well they can sell them, but I have to do a lot of hemming and hawing and winging it, and looking in my 1E DMG for some guidance.
That's just a case of personal preference. The magic item economy, similar to multi-classing and the feat system, is a game mechanic that shifts the focus of the game away from being purely class-based and toward being a point-based game. Purchasing equipment for a character in 3E is a lot like building a character in HERO or GURPS, with many of the benefits and drawbacks that go along with it.

Not that there's anything wrong with HERO or GURPS, mind, but it's a vastly different experience from AD&D. I'm glad that they didn't take the game in that direction.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
That's just a case of personal preference. The magic item economy, similar to multi-classing and the feat system, is a game mechanic that shifts the focus of the game away from being purely class-based and toward being a point-based game. Purchasing equipment for a character in 3E is a lot like building a character in HERO or GURPS, with many of the benefits and drawbacks that go along with it. Not that there's anything wrong with HERO or GURPS, mind, but it's a vastly different experience from AD&D. I'm glad that they didn't take the game in that direction.

I agree that there's a personal preference issue but for my money (literally!) I'd think that having options would be worthwhile, because there are players who do like that kind of detail. They got nothing. I'm with you about feeling that the 3.5 system was too detailed, but what happened was it went from way too detailed to essentially nothing. Even 1E and 2E had more information on how to build, buy, and sell items than is in 5E.
 


pemerton

Legend
4E was filled with lots and lots of marginally useful to crappy items. A guy I used to play with put it well when he said that "4E simultaneously made magic items both utterly necessary and amazingly boring."
I've found that the main solution to this is to do what the 4e DMG suggests, and ask players what items they would like and then arrange for their PCs to get them (whether by finding them, as gifts from allies or from the gods, etc).

4e tried to get away from 'overpowered' items and put more 'build' customization in the character rather than the items, it worked, but the items stopped being exciting. Though, to be fair, they weren't necessary, at all, either - you could flip on Inherent bonuses to cover their contribution to expected scaling with level and dispense with them entirely.
Inherent bonuses didn't come around for a while, though... I think in the Dark Sun book.
Inherent bonuses are set out in the DMG 2.

And the maths is quite straightforward. I saw people posting the idea well before it was published.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Interesting what people see as a feature is IMO one of the giant glaring weaknesses of 5E, the lack of prices or crafting rules. Combined with attunement, lots of times I find that I hand out items as DM that seem cool but the PCs have no use for and can't even sell... because there are no prices. Well they can sell them, but I have to do a lot of hemming and hawing and winging it, and looking in my 1E DMG for some guidance.

I get that they were trying to avoid Ye Olde Magic Shoppe, but no system at all isn't really a solution, it's just pretending there isn't a problem. Of course, that's a common one for the current 5E design team, who just do a lot of things by fiat without providing any kind of in game reasoning for them. Just sticking to magic items: Why only 3 items for attunement? Why does this never change? Why are some items attunement and others not?
I hear you, brother.

Don't listen to those saying that for their personal enjoyment they need our want to go unfulfilled. It's just egotistical bullcrap.

WotC could have updated the d20 magic item creation and pricing economy and if they didn't want it to be core, published it in the first supplement for the game, years ago.

The truth is that the DMG gives you heaps of gold you can't use without downtime, and then all the official adventure modules don't give you any downtime.

But they do give you heaps of magic items.

I really loathe the insane amounts of self-deception going on here.

The game absolutely needs an "uptime" outlet for gold (something to spend gold on that doesn't involve downtime), it absolutely needs a magic item economy, and it absolutely needs to take all this into account for balance.

The notion "if you care about balance, don't hand out magic items, and don't play with feats or multiclassing either" is an absolute joke.

These are things that make the game fun! It is perfectly reasonable to expect the design team to assume balancing responsibility for them!



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

CapnZapp

Legend
That's just a case of personal preference. The magic item economy, similar to multi-classing and the feat system, is a game mechanic that shifts the focus of the game away from being purely class-based and toward being a point-based game. Purchasing equipment for a character in 3E is a lot like building a character in HERO or GURPS, with many of the benefits and drawbacks that go along with it.

Not that there's anything wrong with HERO or GURPS, mind, but it's a vastly different experience from AD&D. I'm glad that they didn't take the game in that direction.
Are you seriously trying to argue magic items aren't part of Dungeons & Dragons? Don't make me laugh.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I agree that there's a personal preference issue but for my money (literally!) I'd think that having options would be worthwhile, because there are players who do like that kind of detail. They got nothing. I'm with you about feeling that the 3.5 system was too detailed, but what happened was it went from way too detailed to essentially nothing. Even 1E and 2E had more information on how to build, buy, and sell items than is in 5E.
Yes but you see he isn't talking about keeping such a system optional.

He needs it denied to us entirely.

One of the shirtiest sentiments I've seen, and unfortunately it's not that uncommon around here.

It's absolutely preposterous, as if you can't stop yourself from buying a supplement you don't like.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 


Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Couldn't you just use the AD&D system, then? Right down to using its prices for potions?

To some degree I could, but it would require a good bit of calibrating to get right. I won't say that the 1E system was perfect, just that it's there. I shouldn't have to. That's what I pay game designers to do. It's not some kind of weird monster that only appeared in 2E, it's fairly core functionality.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top