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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7020087" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I disagree that silos are a solution. Firstly, that doesn't fix the "spotlight time" problem, nor does simply attempting to ensure they both have equal problem-solving capacity. If dimension X (usually the social) is resolved quickly and with less mechanical finesse than the dimension Y (usually combat), then the X player is left shining for only those brief moments while playtime is consumed by dimension Y resolution. So then you are forced to balance all the dimensions for all characters, so that they can equally participate in all pillars....but then you have the converse problem of the guy who wants to be king of dimension X not being able to shine because the dimension Y guy shines just as brightly in dimension X. (I grant that may not be a problem for all players or tables.)But again, that's only a problem if you are seeking some kind of perfect balance within a traditional rpg framework. There are other (usually rather abstract) systems out there (Capes is the one I'm most familiar with.) That skip the whole issue through innovative (usually more abstract) mechanical structures. The most popular rpgs seem to simply avoid being extremely unbalanced and only seek a rather sloppy balance. I suspect that is true for a variety of historical and marketing reasons.True enough, but is that an inherent characteristic of the combat pillar, or a characteristic of the game design? I've heard good reports of the Leverage rpg making all of its aspects hit well. Capes also seems to have little issue with it, seemlessly flowing from one to the other. Considering the history of rpgs, I have difficulty believing that the traditional structure was equally concerned with all our modern pillars through game design.</blockquote>

Verification