Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8768938" data-attributes="member: 7006">I find that just by varying up every game session and adventuring day between all the different things players and characters can do in all three pillars... there's more than enough stuff to keep everyone engaged and contributing and not inspiring anyone to waste their time comparing themselves to anyone else.In a white room would the rogue tend to lose out to the paladin in a fight?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But once they are both on the battlefield and the rogue is able to quickly skitter across the ledges in the cavern to get to the archers raining arrows down upon the paladin while the paladin in stuck in hand-to-hand with a single creature on the ground... the &quot;lessened DPR&quot; of the rogue is never even considered.&nbsp; The rogue is imperative to the scene for the things he can do that other characters can't, so needing to compare apples to apples in something like damage per round/fight is rarely ever a thing.Or when in a social situation with the local baron... the player of the fighter can and does talk just as much as the bard player does, even though the bard character has higher CHA and proficiency in Persuasion.&nbsp; Because the ability score and skill don't matter nearly as much when the players and DM are speaking to each other in character and I give out info based on the questions I'm asked. The player with less game mechanics at their disposal can still contribute just as much in the scene as another, if I just don't use the game mechanics to be the determining factor of what's going on.I have always found that uneven mechanical distribution just becomes less of a thing when you just don't focus on the mechanics in every scene.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8768938, member: 7006"] I find that just by varying up every game session and adventuring day between all the different things players and characters can do in all three pillars... there's more than enough stuff to keep everyone engaged and contributing and not inspiring anyone to waste their time comparing themselves to anyone else. In a white room would the rogue tend to lose out to the paladin in a fight? Sure. But once they are both on the battlefield and the rogue is able to quickly skitter across the ledges in the cavern to get to the archers raining arrows down upon the paladin while the paladin in stuck in hand-to-hand with a single creature on the ground... the "lessened DPR" of the rogue is never even considered. The rogue is imperative to the scene for the things he can do that other characters can't, so needing to compare apples to apples in something like damage per round/fight is rarely ever a thing. Or when in a social situation with the local baron... the player of the fighter can and does talk just as much as the bard player does, even though the bard character has higher CHA and proficiency in Persuasion. Because the ability score and skill don't matter nearly as much when the players and DM are speaking to each other in character and I give out info based on the questions I'm asked. The player with less game mechanics at their disposal can still contribute just as much in the scene as another, if I just don't use the game mechanics to be the determining factor of what's going on. I have always found that uneven mechanical distribution just becomes less of a thing when you just don't focus on the mechanics in every scene. [/QUOTE]

Verification