NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6044772" data-attributes="member: 42582">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".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.</blockquote>

Verification