D&D 5E Levels Above 10?

[pemerton]

very few players like having a chunk of character sheet and pretend it isn't there

Just delete it, then. I'm not saying "pretend it isn't there". I'm saying include an option to say "my PC doesn't have anything from that silo".

The rationale is exactly that being able to choose between being good at 2 roles or being very good at 1 role is a perfectly valid and interesting strategic choice in character building.

OK, but silo-ing produces valid and interesting tactical choices in both scenario/encounter design and in action resolution. Which is more important? I have a personal view, but that's not really relevant - my point is that it's not easy for a game to have all these things, and so the idea that siloing is restrictive in a way that trade-offs are not is incorrect.

To elaborate - any party-based RPG in which it is possible to build a PC who is of average effectiveness across 3 pillars, or of expert effectiveness in one pillar but mediocre in the two others, generates strong pressures to specialise, particularly if the mechanics of the game permit the players to exercise a strong degree of control over which PC is primarily exposed to which challenges. The pressure has two related sources: the GM has pressure to set challenges at a level which will require expert rather than average abilities to resolve (so as to ensure that the mechanical "costs" of trade offs in character buile are experience); and the GM has pressure to set challenges at a level which will require expert rather than average abilities so that the players can't walk over every challenge just by sending their expert to deal with it.

My own view is that, if trade-offs are to be permitted they should pertain to breadth, not depth. If you are good at social, you can also be good at sword-fighting or archery but not both. If you drop social, you can use the PC-build resources saved to become good at archery as well as sword-fighting, but you can't use those resources to make your sword-fighting better. Conversely, if you ignore combat altogether than you can be good at both Diplomacy and Intimidate, whereas if you go for a mixed combat and social build you can be good at one or the other but not both.

The idea is that trade-offs don't make your numbers, and hence your raw capability, better. They just increase your breadth within a pillar in exchange for giving up breadth across pillars.

I still think this has obvious restrictive implications for encounter and adventure design, but it would at lesat reduce some of the pressures towards hyper-specialisation that I describe above.

And if someone wants to build a sword-fighter who is no good at archery or social, fine - there can still be an optional rule saying that you don't have to use up all the PC build resources that you are entitled to.

 

[pemerton]

The biggest reason: "Why should I be gimped on the things I want my character to be good at in order to be good at things I don't give a damm about?"

And the flip side to that question is "Why should I be gimped at social because I want my PC to be good at combat?".

I'm not saying that silo-ing is mandatory. I'm saying that implying it is restrictive in a way that non-siloing is not is mistaken. Non-siloing just puts the restrictions in other places, especially encounter and scenario design. And also, in practice, tends to make character breadth are recipe for character ineffectiveness, because of the pressure on GMs to design towards hyperspecialised PCs.

 

[Li Shenron]

To elaborate - any party-based RPG in which it is possible to build a PC who is of average effectiveness across 3 pillars, or of expert effectiveness in one pillar but mediocre in the two others, generates strong pressures to specialise, particularly if the mechanics of the game permit the players to exercise a strong degree of control over which PC is primarily exposed to which challenges. The pressure has two related sources: the GM has pressure to set challenges at a level which will require expert rather than average abilities to resolve (so as to ensure that the mechanical "costs" of trade offs in character buile are experience); and the GM has pressure to set challenges at a level which will require expert rather than average abilities so that the players can't walk over every challenge just by sending their expert to deal with it.

You make it sound like a bad thing, but it's not. It's normal to send the Rogue scouting or looking for traps, just like it's normal to send the charismatic Bard to talk it out with the guards, or the Fighter to the front line soaking up the monster's attacks and so on.

My own view is that, if trade-offs are to be permitted they should pertain to breadth, not depth.

...

The idea is that trade-offs don't make your numbers, and hence your raw capability, better. They just increase your breadth within a pillar in exchange for giving up breadth across pillars.

This is good, but in fact this doesn't sound like siloing to me!

This is more like making sure that there is a limit to specializing. I don't like one-trick-ponies just as I don't like jack-of-all trades, I like characters who are in between, neither "flat" nor "spikey".

I think there is some room for depth too, maybe less than before due to the bounded accuracy principle.

But having also freedom of choice to give up some breadth for depth is VERY helpful to players who aren't that good with resource management or problem solving, because it means that by giving them a more "narrow" character they have an easier time playing, and I think it's fair to increase their numbers a bit in that case.

Some reasonable limit must apply, and certainly I don't like seeing this exploited like min-maxing. The "depth" can be made expensive enough to discourage this a bit, just like a point-buy system for ability scores has progressively high costs for high scores.

 

[pemerton]

You make it sound like a bad thing, but it's not. It's normal to send the Rogue scouting or looking for traps, just like it's normal to send the charismatic Bard to talk it out with the guards, or the Fighter to the front line soaking up the monster's attacks and so on.

(1) Rogues scouts or looks for traps - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

(2) Bard talks with the guards - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

(3) Fighter soaks attacks on the front line - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

I know the answer to (3) - the other players play their PCs fighting from behind the front line. Even if the fighter is the best, the design of D&D (all PCs have attacks and hit points) ensures the other PCs can contribute.

What is the answer to (1) and (2)?

But having also freedom of choice to give up some breadth for depth is VERY helpful to players who aren't that good with resource management or problem solving, because it means that by giving them a more "narrow" character they have an easier time playing, and I think it's fair to increase their numbers a bit in that case.

Some reasonable limit must apply, and certainly I don't like seeing this exploited like min-maxing.

How can it be anything but min-maxing? You're maximising your capacity in one pillar by trading off your ability in the other pillars.

As to whether it's fair to increase the numbers of narrow PCs - why? How does that make for a better game?

 

[Cadence]

(1) Rogues scouts or looks for traps - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

(2) Bard talks with the guards - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

In our games they listen to whats going on, get ready to rush in in-case trouble erupts, plot about what they want to do next when that's done, write a note to the DM about something the rest of the party wouldn't know, sprint over to grab a beer, kibitz a little... the individual focus often doesn't take that long and then the focus moves to the next person or to the group as a whole.

Even if the party is equally balanced, don't they still often split up at various points and run into the same issue of what to do while the focus is on another subgroup of the PCs?

I assume if they are balanced, the whole party doesn't simultaneously scout ahead en masse, or all try to jointly negotiate at the same time. (Is it just that it isn't always the same person scouting ahead? Even if they're reasonably equal, don't some players migrate more to certain tasks anyway?)

 

[Li Shenron]

(1) Rogues scouts or looks for traps - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

(2) Bard talks with the guards - what do the other players do while this is being resolved?

...

What is the answer to (1) and (2)?

I enjoy the show.

I am not a primadonna who needs to be in the spotlight all the time or a restless person. If I ever get bored because it really takes too long, I would start looking for something to do either in-character (changing/readying my equipment, searching for something, examining the NPCs or the environment) or out-of-character (tidying up my character sheet, preparing my next tactics, reading my spells for better understanding or new ideas), idle time is creative time.

If you find yourself often bored, then you need to talk it out with the rest of your gaming group. Make it known and agree on a solution to speed up those moments, or if you all agree you can then design your characters so that you never ever have an idle time. Everybody has a limit on that... of course if "Bard talking with the guards" starts taking half an hour, I'd get bored too. But it never happened AFAIK.

As to whether it's fair to increase the numbers of narrow PCs - why? How does that make for a better game?

It doesn't normally make my game better because I like versatile characters (but never jack-of-all-trades). But it does make the game better to those players who are confused when having too many options to keep in mind, and they are people too.

 

[pemerton]

it does make the game better to those players who are confused when having too many options to keep in mind

I can see how it helps them to have narrower characters. But why do their numbers have to be bigger?

 

[Li Shenron]

I can see how it helps them to have narrower characters. But why do their numbers have to be bigger?

I think it's just more fair that way, it delivers a feeling that overall they characters are not inferior to the others. Otherwise it feels like telling them "you are playing an inferior character because you are an inferior player".

It's really like in point-buy for ability scores, you can have all your six scores equal if you want so that you can do more things in the game effectively, or you can focus your points on less scores, giving up some capabilities and possibly taking some risks (e.g. saving throws). While I think that the majority of gamers dislike seeing PCs with only one uber-score and the other dumped, I am also sure that you wouldn't consider "fair" a point-buy system (i.e. not rolled stats) where you can either have 15 in all your scores or have 15 in two-three of them and 10 in the rest, or would you?