Siloing: Good or Bad?

[Gort]

Rules don't prevent you from doing nothing, of course.

However, I frequently want to make an NPC who has never been in a fight, yet is competent at something else, and I want my rules to support that. If anything, I would like a more unified point-based system where base attack is treated as a skill (of course, many rpgs are this way). That way, my 10th-level wizard who lives at a library can be appropriately focused in his useful statistics as well as in how I play him. Similarly, I want my 9th-level rogue ship captain to be great at running a ship, but inferior at melee combat as compared to a 9th-level dungeon-crawling rogue. I want my stock NPC fighters to be berserkers who aren't good at anything else. And so on. Flaws and deficiencies define people (and fictional characters) just as much as aptitudes and skills.

Siloing doesn't apply to NPCs. Problem does not exist. Monsters are monsters with pretty much nothing but combat, NPCs are ungoverned by generation rules unless you want them to be. Give your ship captain a +900 in "running a ship" skill, nobody will care. Give him a 2000 point penalty to melee attacks. Don't have him make melee attacks. Have him stand in place screaming if combat takes place.

You seem to be making up problems that would not exist, purely to be contrary.

 

[Dausuul]

Rules don't prevent you from doing nothing, of course.

However, I frequently want to make an NPC who has never been in a fight, yet is competent at something else, and I want my rules to support that. If anything, I would like a more unified point-based system where base attack is treated as a skill (of course, many rpgs are this way). That way, my 10th-level wizard who lives at a library can be appropriately focused in his useful statistics as well as in how I play him. Similarly, I want my 9th-level rogue ship captain to be great at running a ship, but inferior at melee combat as compared to a 9th-level dungeon-crawling rogue. I want my stock NPC fighters to be berserkers who aren't good at anything else. And so on. Flaws and deficiencies define people (and fictional characters) just as much as aptitudes and skills.

Siloing is irrelevant to NPCs - at least, the 4E version is. It's strictly a player character concept. NPCs have whatever stats and abilities the DM needs them to have. If you want an NPC wizard who can work 25th-level ritual magic, but whose mightiest combat spell is magic missile (or who doesn't even have combat spells), you just declare it so.

You can build your NPCs with PC rules, of course, but in that case I don't see what you're complaining about; it's like refusing to use anything but grey paint when decorating your house, and then complaining that the place looks drab.

(Edit: Siloing is also irrelevant to ninjas.)

 

[lutecius]

Are you freaking kidding me? Can not one good discussion go a page without someone coming along and dumping their threadcrapping edition-warring hate all over it? Okay, so you don't like 4e? FINE. Don't post in a thread about it's mechanics and how you hate them! For the love of GOD! I usually just read these design/rules threads because heaven knows I am no game designer, and as a casual player I enjoy the insights of others into how the game functions, but just once I'd like to read an intelligent discussion about something, *anything* regarding 4e without someone with nothing better to do dropping in to say that I have the intelligence level of a 4 year old because I play it.

wow. a little sensitive aren't we?

the question was "siloing: good or bad"? my answer was basically "good intention / horrible implementation".

I didn't think this thread was 4e-lovers-only (it's not even in the 4e rules forum).
my bad

Interesting. What is it about the rituals system you think is unbalanced? I must say, I've never had any issues with them as written - I haven't seen them used that often either, though my latest character is going to try and do as many as possible.

I don't mean unbalanced as in too powerful. I like the concept but I think the costs and casting times are off. Depending on the dm, rituals can be a "win button" or a waste of resources.

 

[Turtlejay]

- anemic non-combat rules, unbalanced rituals, "martial action" chopped into pseudo-vancian powers? ...BAD! bleah!!!

You mean this comment wasn't you trolling? It has *nothing to do* with the subject. The OP mentioned 4e as his starting point for this thread. Much of the discussion has trended this way.

Being passive-agressive about it does nothing when your sig outs you as a hater, and your posts out you as a troll.

Of course, here I am feeding said troll. It's the holidays though, I'll consider this lapse in judgement my present to me.

Jay

 

[kigmatzomat]

On a related note: one of the comparitive weaknesses of games such as Shadowrun, early versions of Star Wars, and others, was that characters were assigned exclusive roles: you would have the Pilot who was largely useless except when doing pilot-y things, but was also the only character who could do those things, or the decker who was useless outside the Matrix, but was the only character to do Matrix-y things.
.

Ummm, what? Maybe in SW but not Shadowrun. If someone made a character with no skills outside of the matrix it was the players fault, not the system. SR doesn't have class skills or even classes. The only exception were Magical skills, that required spending build points to have Magic. But barring that, any character could have any skill and any of them could be maxed, to the limit of build points.

Yeah, most people tend to overspecialize but that's seems to be some deep psychological craving in most gamers to be the BESTEST EVAR in their self-defined role at the expense of flexibility.

Which does argue towards a silo system to ensure people don't go to extremes, but that is more to protect players from themselves than from a freeform system like Shadowrun.

I generally prefer to simply let players grow up and mature some by being bored at the table and encourage their next character to be more rounded.

 

[Turtlejay]

We had that issue in Shadowrun, just a little. I can see how many groups might run into it, and it is because there is no siloing in Shadowrun. I guess you do get a handful of free knowledge skills, but all your other skills, and your gear, comes from the same pool of points.

Jay

 

[Dausuul]

Ummm, what? Maybe in SW but not Shadowrun. If someone made a character with no skills outside of the matrix it was the players fault, not the system. SR doesn't have class skills or even classes. The only exception were Magical skills, that required spending build points to have Magic. But barring that, any character could have any skill and any of them could be maxed, to the limit of build points.

Yeah, most people tend to overspecialize but that's seems to be some deep psychological craving in most gamers to be the BESTEST EVAR in their self-defined role at the expense of flexibility.

Or, perhaps, because the system rewards specialization? In most RPGs, you do much better if you focus your character. Going the "jack-of-all-trades" route, or even "jack-of-two-trades," generally results in a character who can suck at several things at once.

The point of siloing is to remove the need to choose between "character who contributes the most to the party's chances of success" and "fun, well-rounded character."

 

[delericho]

Ummm, what? Maybe in SW but not Shadowrun. If someone made a character with no skills outside of the matrix it was the players fault, not the system.

Well, yes, fair enough. The problem I described only existed because of this:

Yeah, most people tend to overspecialize but that's seems to be some deep psychological craving in most gamers to be the BESTEST EVAR in their self-defined role at the expense of flexibility.

(And, yes, d6 Star Wars was the same - a character could be well-rounded, but I rarely found that to be the case. The system didn't require specialisation, but it definately rewarded it.)

I generally prefer to simply let players grow up and mature some by being bored at the table and encourage their next character to be more rounded.

Works in theory. However, the difference between theory and practice is this: in theory, theory and practice work the same; in practice they don't.

The vast majority of player groups I have encountered will look at a system like Shadowrun, identify the key roles (cyber, wizard, decker...) and then build a team of ultra-specialists in their fields. The result is that most of them will be bored most of the time, which sucks. Far better, IME, for the system to limit specialisation so that they can all at least contribute somewhat in every situation.

IOW: I have never seen a Shadowrun decker who did not suck outside of the Matrix. And I've certainly never seen a non-decker character who would even enter the Matrix, never mind thrive there. (It is, of course, possible that I've been 'doing it wrong'.)

 

[lutecius]

(sigh) I hadn't posted in a while, but has EW really come to this?

You mean this comment wasn't you trolling? It has *nothing to do* with the subject. The OP mentioned 4e as his starting point for this thread

precisely.
here's a clue:

rituals = non-combat spells. non-combat rules = well... non combat-rules.

martial powers = a way to balance combat manoeuvres vs offensive spells.

again... I didn't think you had to like the way siloing was implemented in 4e to comment.

 

[AllisterH]

Yes and that's why I like siloing.

It's not JUST that siloing prevents players from being incompetent in one area, it also prevents players from being ULTRA-SPECIALIZED as it gives you a maximum value.