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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7020136" data-attributes="member: 996">Depends on the problem. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Silo'ing abilities that are most significant in similar circumstances (the 3 pillars, are a prime example), allows them to be balanced against functionally 'like' abilities, a much more plausible task than balancing lethality with salesmanship.    I guess that depends, (again, sorry, I don't mean to be flippant), on the "spotlight time" problem.  Spotlight-'balance' (balance-of-imbalances) can be a solution, rather than a problem:  the GM manipulates situations to assure that each PC gets a time to shine, regardless of the degree of machanical imbalance among them.  Silo'ing used successfully to improve balance wouldn't 'fix the spotlight time problem' so much as 'reduce the need for the spotlight-balance work-around.' A character that's over-powered in dimension X and underpowered along dimension Y would have that problem, yes.  However, if the game is balanced in each dimension independently - competence in one dimensions isn't used to balance incompetence in another - that wouldn't be the case.   Character concepts that insist upon imbalance are problematic, yes.Ours is a small, aging, hobby.  Most of us have lots of practical ability when it comes to coping with imbalances.  Because the earliest, most enduring, games (obviously, D&D being the elephant in that room) were wildly imbalanced.  So you learned to cope or you didn't stay with the hobby very long.Game design.  A game could be designed with combat almost exclusively revolving around duels, for instance, and with each duel being resolved with a single contested check.</blockquote>

Verification