Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kustenjaeger" data-source="post: 5838889" data-attributes="member: 6690368">I'm all for equivalence.   A lot of how the equivalence of characters can work is down to the campaign style - for example a campaign that has a lot of combat in each session needs all the characters to be able to contribute pretty well in combat.  A campaign that focuses primarily on social interaction needs everyone to be able to contribute decently in some form or other.  Where you get a mix of encounters across a campaign you can either have everyone being pretty good at everything or allow some diversity.  As an example if one had 3 hour games with one hour each of combat, exploration and social you could have a very social character who could contribute a bit in combat or a combat specialist who could play a limited social role and they would probably keep the players happy provided that the rough balance of the campaign remained.  A shift in emphasis of the campaign or of a number of sessions would however make it tricky for one player to feel as involved.Another good point is the problem of long player turns which tend to reduce involvement by others for chunks of time.  In the old days (running a hybrid 1e/Chivalry & Sorcery) I'd push the players into fast decision making to get the 6-8 people active as much of the time as possible.  We didn't have multiple actions to cater for so there was limited time taken by any one person.  With 3.5/PF more recently we've had far fewer players but I can feel it being slower to resolve things in combat.RegardsEdward</blockquote>

Verification