Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6030732" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/pemerton.html" target="_blank">pemerton</a> I agree that this type of specialty character that disengages with one pillar almost completely (combat) and fully engages with the other two (exploration and social) would be difficult to express without robust resolution mechanics for those two pillars.  Further, it would potentially be a powderkeg at the table without concrete social accord.  Further still, (as in the Shadowrun example) I can envision a game whereby you have 3 exclusively specialized characters (5/1/1 and 1/5/1 and 1/1/5) and the severe problems this would impose upon pacing, inclusion and the general “teamwork” nature of D&D without strong group/DM understanding (and subsequent, consistent agreement and application of social accord).  Without considerable effort it would run like 3 solo adventures and would increase DM workload dramatically and it would, again, HAVE to be supported by an equal attention to each pillar…and thus corresponding, equal robust, (hopefully unified) resolution mechanics/min-games/sub-systems for each pillar.   Default D&D (its resolution mechanics and class structure) has never supported this playstyle.  It requires tremendous social accord and understanding amongst the group.  It requires a tremendously skilled DM who is willing to put in extra effort.  It requires patient players (who are ok with “exclusive spotlight rotation”).  It requires robust resolution mechanics for non-combat.  It requires “opt-out” options and considerable advice/warnings on the implications of this “opting-out” and specialization on everything I outlined above…but even moreso it requires advice for the DM/means for handling the imbalance of combat (wrought by the loss of aggregate PC action economy due to an intentionally disengaged PCs…the kind that I outlined in my prior post) where the stakes are life or death. This is why it should not be default.  It is extremely difficult, requires unprecedented support (ironically, I would say 4e supports it best due to its non-combat resolution mechanics), requires considerable and consistent social accord at the table, and is extremely demanding on the DM.   That being said, if the group wants to give it a go, they’re going to drift their game toward it anyway (its been done and will be done in the future…despite their being better systems out there for it).  If 5e wants to be 100 % inclusive and provide means for “outlier groups” to actualize their playstyle preferences/tastes…modules to do so and considerable advice is the way to do it.  And I see no harm in that (so long as it is modular, the non-combat action resolution mechanics are in place and there is considerable advice/guidance for those groups).</blockquote>

Verification