Siloing: Good or Bad?

[Dausuul]

Siloing is fine for players and GM's who are looking to play a combat-centric game. 4E is a great example of that type of system where siloing works well.

Those who are looking for more from their RPG will probably want to find a system that is designed to support and enhance more than combat. There are plenty of games on the market (both new and old) that can work for this type of gamer.

What?

This makes no sense.

If a game is focused exclusively on combat (or social encounters, or exploration, or any other single area of play), then siloing is a waste of time. Siloing is designed to support different types of activities, by ensuring that all PCs can participate at a minimum level; the fighter always has some noncombat skills, the bard always has some combat powers.

 

[Victim]

I think that siloing is generally a good idea, since it can help prevent characters from having roles with essentially no overlap. So you end up with a team activity that actually involves teamwork, as opposed to simply taking turns doing your specialist thing (ie, baseball). If the game is going to involve a lot of X, all the characters should be able to contribute meaningfully in that field.

However, I think that the siloing in 4e is poorly implemented. Some utility powers are purely combat effects - healing, extra saves, movement, combat advantage, etc. Others offer skill rerolls or bonuses, make successes count for extra on a skill challenge, etc. So you have a lot of powerful combat effects (especially emergency save yourself powers) stuck in the same silo as those skill bonuses.

 

[Derren]

If the game is going to involve a lot of X, all the characters should be able to contribute meaningfully in that field.

And you don't think that it is the players responsibility, or better, choice to add X to their character or not? Why should a system force you to play a certain way? Because that is what Siloing ultimately does.

Only when you know that X is always part of the game does Siloing make sense, to make sure that every character can do X. But imo thats not a very good approach for a role playing game.

 

[Dausuul]

I think that siloing is generally a good idea, since it can help prevent characters from having roles with essentially no overlap. So you end up with a team activity that actually involves teamwork, as opposed to simply taking turns doing your specialist thing (ie, baseball). If the game is going to involve a lot of X, all the characters should be able to contribute meaningfully in that field.

However, I think that the siloing in 4e is poorly implemented. Some utility powers are purely combat effects - healing, extra saves, movement, combat advantage, etc. Others offer skill rerolls or bonuses, make successes count for extra on a skill challenge, etc. So you have a lot of powerful combat effects (especially emergency save yourself powers) stuck in the same silo as those skill bonuses.

Agreed. Siloing is a good idea, but 4E doesn't take it far enough.

 

[Garmorn]

And you don't think that it is the players responsibility, or better, choice to add X to their character or not? Why should a system force you to play a certain way? Because that is what Siloing ultimately does.

Only when you know that X is always part of the game does Siloing make sense, to make sure that every character can do X. But imo thats not a very good approach for a role playing game.

Why not? Explain Please.

 

[malraux]

Agreed. Siloing is a good idea, but 4E doesn't take it far enough.

I do wish that some of the more combat focused utility power had an out of combat usage as well.

 

[Derren]

Why not? Explain Please.

Because a RPG should not have X required.
For example when X = combat, then I would call the game a wargame and not an RPG.

 

[Sadrik]

If siloing produces things like all combat effects being forced into a at-will/encounter/daily power system and all non-combat being forced into a ritual system. I don't like it. Call me one of the ones that likes the option to build your character with more or less emphasis on the non-combat stuff. I suppose you could look at the classes as being a siloing of powers and I do like those divisions because they don't segregate between combat and non-combat. So perhaps, I don't like the implementation.

Perhaps if all 4e characters emphasized more out of combat effects I would be more impressed. I am not bothered by a power selection system that gives the player the option to get more out of combat ability at the expense of combat ability. 4e seems to try and mitigate that and address it as a problem. It greatly emphasizes access to a wide array of attack powers and a small number of "rituals" and small list of utility powers that are mostly meant to be used in combat but are put here because they don't roll an attack die.

Martial "powers" and warriors are restrictive as written and have psuedo mystical overtones. "Kachop powers", disarming and other once per day martial effects are kneecapping the potential of the warrior-type. Color me unimpressed and actually would rather see more imaginative play where anyone could push or disarm someone without having selected a power.

Bottom line is siloing is great, to a point. 4e siloing allows characters who kick ass all the same.

 

[keterys]

Silo-ing is just flat out good. Whether you're a 'powergamer' or 'roleplayer' or 'casual'.

It's a sacrifice of realism, certainly.
But otherwise it:
1) Makes it so you can get RP abilities without spending combat abilities for them
2) Makes characters less likely to be designed in such a way that they are dysfunctional at certain game elements
3) Limits the ability to remove skill at one facet of the game (eg, social interaction*) to pay for another considered more important (eg, combat*)

* - or vice versa

I'd like to see a _lot_ more silo-ing - whether it's in dnd 5e, gurps, or whatever.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I, too, am a fan of siloing, but not too fond of the monker.

Soliing is importnat in a gmae to get a sense of balance. Too many point-buy systems make a balanced character weaker than one who is not in many ways, expecially in combat, a place most games tend to shine and devote mroe than half of the playing to.

The more than half in anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure it is basically accurate, and probably a underestimation.

In 4E, there is some siloing, but in my opinion not enough, as utilities are msotly combat, and dailies, encounters and at wills are pure combat, with a fewy very few exceptions.

RPGs need more rules for handing social encounters, using some kind of social abilities. If I were a designer I could do it, but I jsut know I ahve been dissatisfied iwth every game I've played (including every edition of D&D) in the socail department.