Source of power creep

[AeroDm]

Looking for feedback on another article. If interest is piqued, please respond in this thread.
-----------------------------------------
Power creep is perhaps the greatest threat to modern RPG game design.

That comment is not made lightly. RPGs have to continuously develop (and sell) new content in order to remain financially profitable. Now, the folks that publish this power creep love the game at least as much as you do and see little, if any, of that pecuniary gain. Power creep is not a corporate plan to leach away money but rather a natural outgrowth of basic game design decisions interacting with basic human motivations.

There are three reasons power creep enters a system, none of which carry any maliciousness. The first source is unforeseen combinations, the second is ambitious game design, and the third is self-selection. Each is discussed in turn.

Unforeseen combinations
Most power creep sneaks into the game via creative combinations that game designers did not foresee at the time of publication. We want some player creativity and we want to reward that creativity with incremental power. We do not, however, want to reward it with as much incremental power as we often do. This excessive allocation shall be known as “Type I power creep.”

Type one power creep was most prevalent in 3e. This is because 3e strived so hard to ensure that all powers were available to all characters at all levels. In other words, at any moment, any character could multi-class into (almost) any other class and gain access to a myriad of powers. Simultaneously, feats carried a great deal of 3e power which were sufficiently decoupled from classes that every character was eligible for most feats at most levels. The result was an incredible combination of unforeseen consequences that routinely resulted in an overabundance of power.

Ambitious game design
Game designers are human beings and human beings desire their creations to be desired. Similarly, employers desire their employee’s creations to be desired, bought, and paid for. Hence, new content must be attractive. Now, content can be attractive because it is genuinely ingenious, brilliant, and fun or else because it ups the power level. It is far easier to introduce “powerful” content than “brilliant” content. Naturally, then, most new content is more powerful than old content. This is Type II power creep.

This is most evident in 4e. Fourth edition brilliantly compartmentalized powers and abilities so that they could be linked to character level. This way, you players could always be presented with a range of powers and they could select from them freely forcing interesting tradeoffs. This is distinct from the 3e methodology described above that allowed most powers to be available to most characters at most levels.

The downside of this strategy is that it is easy to compare new powers to the entire domain set of other possibilities. When a new power is introduced, it is compared against 5-10 other powers total. Whereas 3e had millions of combinations, the balance of 4e made gauging balance easy. As a result, to make new content attractive, it had to be more attractive than the other options. Since there was so little comparable content, this meant that every new entry was another step in a steady march towards power creep.

Self-selection
The final tributary to power creep is self-selection. Game design often presumes that a +1 bonus in Category A is adequately offset by a -1 penalty in Category B. This simply is not true. Consider a simple thought experiment: A player in a 4e campaign approaches the DM and asks to introduce a new human subrace. They are identical to humans, except instead of +2 to any stat they are +2 to Con only because they are “a hearty people.” The player wants to know what the DM would be willing to add to the subrace for this loss of power. The DM is intrigued but offhand asks which stat the player intended to assign his +2 to any stat towards. “Constitution,” the player responds.

“So you actually lose nothing?” the DM inquires.

“No, I lose the ability to assign my +2 to Constitution. Now I have to assign it there.”

Clearly, the player didn’t actually lose anything since he intended to assign the ability to Constitution all along and therefore doesn’t deserve to be compensated. This is self-selection. In the same way, a -1 penalty to melee attacks doesn’t justify a +1 bonus to range attacks since the character will just focus on the areas where he excels. Since players control the character’s actions, they are able to focus actions towards areas of excellence and away from areas of ineptitude. As a result, bonuses are worth more than commensurate penalties. This is Type III power creep. Unlike the other type of power creep, Type III is entirely the consequence of poor game design.

Games have historically ignored this fact, assuming that GMs would present a range of challenges sufficient to ensure penalties were appropriately penalizing. But this is unrealistic and actually goes against the modern trend of empowering players to partake in cooperative story telling. As a result, penalties must be more penalizing than benefits are beneficial or else you’ve, once again, introduced another source of power creep.

So what are other sources of power creep? Do you agree? Disagree? Think some nuanced was overlooked? Feedback and push back are appreciated.

 

[Crothian]

How is power Creep a threat to modern game design? Power Creep exists, I'm not arguing that point. It's been around for over 30 years so it is nothing new. I know some people hate it, some players abuse it, and some GM's get anally restrictive for fear of it. But I don't see how it how it threatens modern game design and I'm not sure what that means. A threat is something easily ignored if there is not some action that will come behind the threat. So, what is power creep threatening to do?

 

[AeroDm]

I know some people hate it, some players abuse it, and some GM's get anally restrictive for fear of it. But I don't see how it how it threatens modern game design and I'm not sure what that means.

Fair enough. Articles have a "hook" which is intended to draw the reader in and the hook was that statement. Maybe you feel it is overly ambitious, but I'd argue that the points you conceded are evidence enough that power creep is damaging. Add to that the fact that power creep makes older game content obsolete (an argument presented in the article) and that it feels like there is a general trend to expect more for your gaming dollar and you have power creep as a real issue *if* it is inherent in game design.

 

[Ulrick]

Power creep happens when players want more options and specialization to a given game (an RPG or nearly any other game), and the publisher of the game caters to these players tastes to stay in business. No RPG is ever complete, most players will always want more. Power creep, however, is not a threat to modern game design. Companies rely on it.

D&D in the last 35 years is a great example of this.

In the original 1974 rules and the Holmes edition, characters only got +1 to their die rolls for abilities 13 and above. It didn't matter if the character had an 18. Well, somebody along the way thought that this wasn't right, so changes where made accordingly. By 3.0, abilty scores 12 and above gave bonuses.

The 1974 rules only had 3 classes: Fighting-man, magic-user, and cleric. Well, somewhere along the way rangers, paladins, and thieves were added. And suddenly clerics could cast spells at first level (gasp!) in AD&D. Abilities for the classes varied somewhat from AD&D to D&D, but the specialized classes (I'm looking at you Ranger and Paladin), required that players had to role high ability scores. Suddenly, the fighter became the "punishment" class for Rangers and Paladin forsaking their vows.

Then, in 3.0, to "balance" things out, all classes were given special abilities and "schticks." Feats and skill points were added. 3.0/3.5e is all about character building and customization.

4e is the great "balancer" of all the previous editions. Finally, everything would be streamlined so that balance would be felt at all levels of play. However, players want more for their character. WotC produced splatbooks and then "Essentials." The cycle continues. Pathfinder came into its own as a continuation of 3.5e by "fixing some problems" but not revamping the game.

A few non-D&D examples include: World of Darkness and Star Wars (d6 or D20). Where would Games Workshop be if both Warhammer Fantasy Battles and 40k suddenly became fair and balanced for all their armies, instead being full of wonky rules that need revision with a codex every three to four years?

All of this came about because of player demand. Sure, not everybody gave in, I still know people who only play AD&D, or even Basic D&D. There will always be a need for new rules and supplements to "fix" things while at the same time giving players "more." Power creep keeps the hobby going.

 

[Crothian]

Fair enough. Articles have a "hook" which is intended to draw the reader in and the hook was that statement. Maybe you feel it is overly ambitious, but I'd argue that the points you conceded are evidence enough that power creep is damaging. Add to that the fact that power creep makes older game content obsolete (an argument presented in the article) and that it feels like there is a general trend to expect more for your gaming dollar and you have power creep as a real issue *if* it is inherent in game design.

Power Creep only makes what it is better then obsolete. And in many cases power creep can take something that people ignored and make it better but synergy. If you want to argue that those points prove that power creep is dangerous then do so.

Power Creep has two main adversaries that can negate it: the GM and the players. As most experienced gamers know in a struggle of power the GM will always win as the GM can do everything the player can and more. Players can choose to not be min maxer and optimizers (two player types that I think take the biggest advantage from power creep). Just because there is something powerful in the game does not mean one has to use it especially if it ruins the fun for everyone involved.

I played Rifts for over a decade and I'm not sure there is a game more then that one that had a greater amount of power creep. But despite that with sensible players and communication from everyone on what we wanted out the game the power creep was never an issue.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I played Rifts for over a decade and I'm not sure there is a game more then that one that had a greater amount of power creep. But despite that with sensible players and communication from everyone on what we wanted out the game the power creep was never an issue.

To draw a comparison, weapons treated responsibly are relatively safe. That does not make them any less dangerous inherently.

I am glad that your group was able to handle the issue with open communication and resolution. I think that you advocating others do the same to deal with power creep is a wise addition.

Play what you like

 

[AeroDm]

Power Creep only makes what it is better then obsolete. And in many cases power creep can take something that people ignored and make it better but synergy. If you want to argue that those points prove that power creep is dangerous then do so.

I do want to do so. People only consider new material if it is attractive material. The easiest way to make it attractive is to make it more powerful than the stuff that already exists. This makes that other stuff obsolete. Over time, this obsolescence makes entire monster manuals and character classes obsolete if they are not also updated and supported. In light of people's expectation that their gaming dollar returns adequate value, this is a real problem.

Power Creep has two main adversaries that can negate it: the GM and the players. As most experienced gamers know in a struggle of power the GM will always win as the GM can do everything the player can and more. Players can choose to not be min maxer and optimizers (two player types that I think take the biggest advantage from power creep). Just because there is something powerful in the game does not mean one has to use it especially if it ruins the fun for everyone involved

There is a third adversary that you neglect and that is the game designers. I advocate that this third adversary to power creep is the most important because they really control the cards. It shouldn't need to boil down to a confrontation between the players and the GM. It shouldn't need to be a Mexican standoff to see who draws first. Proper design can mitigate (but probably not do away with) power creep and ensure that game material has a longer useful life.

Finally, part of the fun for many people is the ability to compete or trying to make an effective character. The system should be constructed to withstand and even award such competition. Chess would be a worse game if there were strategies so effective that it was considered "bad form" to pursue them. Broken combos will always emerge, but when strategy number one to dissuade them is "Hey, come on man..." that is, in my opinion, symptomatic of a larger issue.

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough. Articles have a "hook" which is intended to draw the reader in and the hook was that statement.
Maybe you feel it is overly ambitious...

You want honest criticism? I don't think it is "an overambitous hook". I think it is more sensationalist journalism - the first line is an appeal to the reader's fears. Then, like most fear-driven pieces, it fails to fully deliver on the hook's assertion.

Exactly what is the threat that is posed? What is the doom before us should power creep not be stopped? Will power creep... kick my puppy? Reformat my hard drive? Melt the ice cream in my freezer? What? What is the inevitable end result I'm supposed to fear?

You seem to lack historical perspective - you say it is a threat to modern game design. As Crothian points out, power creep is as old as the hobby, and we've successfully dealt with it for three decades or so. Is modern design somehow more vulnerable, that this is somehow a major concern now?

....but I'd argue that the points you conceded are evidence enough that power creep is damaging.

There's a bit of a gap between "damaging" and "greatest threat" in connotation. If the greatest threat of them all is no big deal, then maybe calling it a "threat" is a misnomer.

It shouldn't need to boil down to a confrontation between the players and the GM. It shouldn't need to be a Mexican standoff to see who draws first.

I don't think that's what Crothian is saying at all. He seems to be saying that all that we need to deal with power creep is already right in the hands of the players and GMs at the table. There is no confrontation involved - more cooperation, I'd say. Players and GMs can choose to not let the power of their individual games creep up. We don't need designers to hold our hands - we can make our own informed choices, thank you.

 

[Tuft]

I don't think that's what Crothian is saying at all. He seems to be saying that all that we need to deal with power creep is already right in the hands of the players and GMs at the table. There is no confrontation involved - more cooperation, I'd say. Players and GMs can choose to not let the power of their individual games creep up. We don't need designers to hold our hands - we can make our own informed choices, thank you.

"Power creep" usually refers to combat ability.

It's easy to for the DM to handle any given combat power creep, since he is in full control of the world - just compensate by increasing whatever monster property is necessary. Players hitting too well? Just add a bit to monster defense. Players doing too much damage? Increase monster HP. Repeat until satisfied. The DM is not constrained in what he can do; he can do any number of damage up to and including the classical infallible "Rocks fall, everybody dies!" annihilation.

Exploiting power creep and other min-maxing is just chasing illusions, as the DM always, always can compensate by adjusting his monster builds. As a player you cannot "win" over the DM. The only thing you can do is shut out your fellow players in your own party by being overpowering...

(In the same way, you cannot "lose" by making "sub-standard" builds from a min-max perspective, as the DM can just as well adjust in the other direction - as long as the entire party is in on it. )

 

[AeroDm]

You want honest criticism? I don't think it is "an overambitous hook". I think it is more sensationalist journalism - the first line is an appeal to the reader's fears. Then, like most fear-driven pieces, it fails to fully deliver on the hook's assertion.

Exactly what is the threat that is posed? What is the doom before us should power creep not be stopped? Will power creep... kick my puppy? Reformat my hard drive? Melt the ice cream in my freezer? What? What is the inevitable end result I'm supposed to fear?

You seem to lack historical perspective - you say it is a threat to modern game design. As Crothian points out, power creep is as old as the hobby, and we've successfully dealt with it for three decades or so. Is modern design somehow more vulnerable, that this is somehow a major concern now?

Yeah, I’m going to have to concede that point. In re-reading it I didn’t deliver on the hook.

But I think it is a big threat for two reasons:

(1) Modern game design *is* different than older game design because the RPG industry has become more of an industry. This isn’t to say that RPG sales weren’t substantial and that a lot of money wasn’t made back in the day, but a lot of sales were driven by it being new and unique. Today, there is substantially more competition which leads to monetization strategies being built into the game. Sometimes that strategy is just a great game that people will want to buy, sometimes it is embedding accessories like miniatures, sometimes it is transferring to a subscription model, or whatever. Any of those can be good or bad (well, I guess the “great game” one can’t be bad).

Now, not surprisingly, profitability is an important aim of the industry and profitability is linked pretty heavily to people buying your stuff. As I argued, an easy way to encourage that is by making your new stuff better than the old stuff. This leads to obsolescence and rules bloat which eventually bulk up the system until a clean slate feels required. If you look at the progression from 3e to 3.5 to 4e to Essentials (of which I enjoyed each step) I think it is fair to claim that they did just that: wiped the slate clean to bring the game back to a simpler foundation and then commenced to build upon it once again.

This isn’t necessarily bad, the game needs that from time to time, but each slate-wiping tends to leave some people behind. Since each iteration of the game is great, the chunk of folks that linger back is not insignificant. As a result, even if the hobby as a whole is growing, the installed base for any iteration of the game might not be growing as fast or may even be declining.

Simultaneous to all of this, the increase in competition has necessitated an increase in production values in order to be able to compete. Paizo is a great example of a company that has steadily increased its production values and, while I have no personal knowledge, I imagine that didn’t come cheap. Unless I’m mistaken, they’ve hired a few new people in the last couple years and I doubt they are cheap either. Higher production values equate to higher upfront costs which requires more volume for the same profitability. The easiest way to get more volume is to make sure people find the content attractive and we are back to power creep. Since most costs are fixed (rent, salaries, etc) profitability can also be achieved through more books which leads to more creep. It is a variant of the death spiral.

Quick caveat—yes, there is a tipping point at which a company is just publishing too much and they actually hurt their overall profitability, but I think the major competitors are aware of the point and are careful to ensure they don’t cross it.

(2) RPGs are a game and people are typically rewarded for excelling at games. Power creep is really only a problem because of player excellence in character creation. If players were just bad at it, we wouldn’t have to worry about creep. I’ll again concede that cooperation is a better term than confrontation with regards to gaming groups deciding what content is at the table. But I also think it is overly optimistic to believe that a group of, say, five individuals can actually reach genuine consensus on what is admitted. For sure they can agree, but someone probably still feels short changed and something else probably made it in that shouldn’t have.

Even if a group just decides to not power game, all it takes is for one person to skirt to the edge of the line before the issue comes back up. It is sort of like when you were a kid walking with a friend to get somewhere and you each walked a little bit faster and faster until you both were in a dead sprint. No one wanted to break the truce, but it inevitably got broken. Again, I’m not saying that power creep cannot be managed at the group level, I’m saying that it shouldn’t have to be managed as much as it is.

Games, in my opinion, are more fun when people are allowed to go out and do their absolute best. Power creep makes it so that we can’t let people do that without the game breaking. Now, the best reason to have a DM instead of a CPU is that a DM can handle those types of issues more dynamically than a CPU, but that isn’t a strong argument for why he or she should have to.