Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore: Modular Madness
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5643495" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think if you did something like this you'd have to 'hide' the silos because you'll never make a manageable system where you are acquiring resources in 5+ different categories. I'm not real sure how you would do that.</p><p></p><p>One way might be to simply rate every single character resource in terms of how much it contributes to each 'silo' and then you'd have to create some sort of meta-mechanic that either forced or heavily encouraged PCs to be built in a balanced fashion. Still seems awkward to me.</p><p></p><p>I think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns. You can keep pouring your resources into combat buffs if you WANT, but the more heavily you go in that direction the less you get for it. At some point most PCs will at the very least end up with a reasonable amount of the 'low hanging fruit' from each category. My fighter might skew pretty heavily towards combat, but he'll probably also pick up some other things that are likely to be useful to a fighter. The Bard OTOH will probably pick all the juiciest stuff from each category, being quite good as a generalist and if it is balanced properly not very far behind the fighter, but just enough to make both sets of choices worthwhile. </p><p></p><p>In effect this could be accomplished by simply making each feature cost an amount that is based purely on the number of other features you have in that silo. Basically the same concept that point buy uses for ability scores. You can get that 17 to an 18 but it is a LOT more expensive than raising a 14 to a 15 in some other stat. As long as all the combat oriented resources aren't simply flatly superior in every way you won't find too many really lopsided characters. This of course shows the problem with ANY type of system you can create though, if a group simply doesn't value one mode of play much then all of this is meaningless and effectively any silo you create for that mode of play will either just be a tax or be left empty, and it really doesn't matter which way that goes since they won't use both anyway (and actually have no problem they need to solve anyway). </p><p></p><p>So, yeah, I think diminishing returns. I also like it for the reasons I stated before, silos themselves aren't a great thing. They'd still sort of exist with diminishing returns, but at least it would be a bit less in your face.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5643495, member: 82106"] I think if you did something like this you'd have to 'hide' the silos because you'll never make a manageable system where you are acquiring resources in 5+ different categories. I'm not real sure how you would do that. One way might be to simply rate every single character resource in terms of how much it contributes to each 'silo' and then you'd have to create some sort of meta-mechanic that either forced or heavily encouraged PCs to be built in a balanced fashion. Still seems awkward to me. I think the better alternative is a system of diminishing returns. You can keep pouring your resources into combat buffs if you WANT, but the more heavily you go in that direction the less you get for it. At some point most PCs will at the very least end up with a reasonable amount of the 'low hanging fruit' from each category. My fighter might skew pretty heavily towards combat, but he'll probably also pick up some other things that are likely to be useful to a fighter. The Bard OTOH will probably pick all the juiciest stuff from each category, being quite good as a generalist and if it is balanced properly not very far behind the fighter, but just enough to make both sets of choices worthwhile. In effect this could be accomplished by simply making each feature cost an amount that is based purely on the number of other features you have in that silo. Basically the same concept that point buy uses for ability scores. You can get that 17 to an 18 but it is a LOT more expensive than raising a 14 to a 15 in some other stat. As long as all the combat oriented resources aren't simply flatly superior in every way you won't find too many really lopsided characters. This of course shows the problem with ANY type of system you can create though, if a group simply doesn't value one mode of play much then all of this is meaningless and effectively any silo you create for that mode of play will either just be a tax or be left empty, and it really doesn't matter which way that goes since they won't use both anyway (and actually have no problem they need to solve anyway). So, yeah, I think diminishing returns. I also like it for the reasons I stated before, silos themselves aren't a great thing. They'd still sort of exist with diminishing returns, but at least it would be a bit less in your face. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Legends and Lore: Modular Madness
Top