Siloing: Good or Bad?

[Garmorn]

Because a RPG should not have X required.
For example when X = combat, then I would call the game a wargame and not an RPG.

The only rules a RPG needs are COMBAT every thing can be fudge a lot easier. Movement and special actions are the next most useful. Well since a game has x=social skills it equal nothing because lots of groups don't use social interaction rules. (See debate on why role v.s. roll play interactions with NPC's)

Your argument is not very well founded.

You you check most games combat rules and abilities take up most of the page count. Does this mean most game are more wargames the RPG's

 

[Aus_Snow]

The only rules a RPG needs are COMBAT every thing can be fudge a lot easier.

Incorrect.

Your argument is not very well founded.

. . .

You you check most games combat rules and abilities take up most of the page count. Does this mean most game are more wargames the RPG's

Again, incorrect.

 

[Garmorn]

Because a RPG should not have X required.
For example when X = combat, then I would call the game a wargame and not an RPG.

Incorrect.

. . .

Again, incorrect.

First let me say that my response was bad manners and let me apologize to Derren and the board.

Now back on the original subject: I don't think siloing in 4e means the game is meant to be are is any more combat heavy in design then 1e or 2e.

It might not be your style but I personally don't know of any system that does not siloing that is not a pure point buy system like GURPS or Hero's. While I have not played the later versions of Shadow Run the first version had some of this in the priorities system.

 

[AllisterH]

Because a RPG should not have X required.
For example when X = combat, then I would call the game a wargame and not an RPG.

So what do you call it when X = social situations?

For example, is Shadowrun a RPG given that you HAVE decking?

What about CoC? A CoC game without investigation would be scoffed at by CoC fans as NOT a CoC game.

Indeed, as mentioned already on this thread, Shadowrun's decking situation is a perfectly good example where siloing in capping an area of the game would actually help the game I think.

If everyone HAD to have some competence in decking or at least helping, the minigame issue would go away.

 

[Gimby]

I'd say that siloing (defined as picking elements in limited numbers from different menu's with no overlap) is certainly a good thing.

The thing with combat in this context is that it is a contagious trump. Once you start swinging everything else comes to a halt until thats resolved. You can force people into combat at will

So if you have McTalky the non-combat bard and McFighty the non-social fighter in the same group then McFighty can always force things to go with his specialisation by hitting someone. Siloing of abilities ensures that McTalky can fight if it comes to it and McFighty can contribute if fighting would be a bad idea.

It also allows you to express your background - I'd love to be able to reflect my character's history as a stablemaster and love of playing the harp, but I love actually being able to keep playing them more. So away with Handle Animal and Perform:Harp and in with Spot, Listen, Jump and Climb so I can cope with the challenges I'm presented with.

Siloing allows me to play a well rounded character without worrying that I'll be obilterated because the DM is basing enemies around the most combat twinked characters in the group.

Exalted would be the best example of where siloing would help. In that game its possible to have characters of the same XP level with one *literally unkillable even while chained up and without gear* while others have no combat ability at all. Characters of the first type can turn anything into a fight as Join Battle specificly trumps any other action.

Essentially, its the old "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. I'd like to play a game where no-one can make themselves into a fully automatic hammergun please.

 

[karlindel]

I think that a certain amount of siloing can be a good thing. Having combat and non-combat abilities somewhat segregated reduces min/maxing, making it easier for new players to contribute just as much as old hands. Also, it decouples two things that are generally not related (combat and non-combat abilities).

There are a lot of character concepts that are difficult if not impossible to implement properly without siloing. For example, the master swordsman who is also a writer, historian, and calligrapher. If you want to build that character in a system that does not differentiate between the two, you would have the disconnect that the character must be less of a swordsman in order to be a writer, historian, and calligrapher. In a system that separates the two completely, however, the character can be the greatest swordsman possible, and also the greatest writer, historian, and calligrapher possible. I note that 4e is not a fully siloed system, since stats affect both combat and non-combat abilities, and so which stats a class needs for combat will push them towards being better at certain skills. Also, as has been pointed out, the feats and utilities overlap between combat and non-combat abilities.

As a side note, I find it interesting that the OP posted Magic Missile, Mage Armor, and Shield as top first picks for a Sorceror and Grease as an odd choice, as I've always considered MM, Mage Armor, and Shield to be poor first choices for sorceror spells (MM does too little damage, MA and Shield don't last long enough to matter, MA is only worth picking up when it lasts much of the day), and Grease to be a top first pick (it can keep several enemies out of the fight for awhile, and doubles as a way to help allies escape grappling monsters).

 

[Mournblade94]

You mean this comment wasn't you trolling? It has *nothing to do* with the subject. The OP mentioned 4e as his starting point for this thread. Much of the discussion has trended this way.

Being passive-agressive about it does nothing when your sig outs you as a hater, and your posts out you as a troll.

Of course, here I am feeding said troll. It's the holidays though, I'll consider this lapse in judgement my present to me.

Jay

It sounds like you are judging the poster you quoted on his signature. There was nothing vaguely edition wars about his criticism, and many people agree with it.

Honestly the only one that brought any edition war into this was you.

 

[interwyrm]

Siloing is good!

I've been playing Dragon Age lately. Rogues in that game have to spend talent points to gain increased ability to lockpick. Since those talents aren't being spent to improve combat effectiveness, I end up leaving my lockpicking rogue at camp when clearing out the dungeon, and then just bring her in afterwards to loot.



On the other hand, one of the most fun RPGs I ever played was a L5R game back in college. It was a "winter court" scenario, so there was a *heavy* emphasis on social skills. Different PCs were built in very different ways. We had a full on courtier, I played a daidoji bodyguard, another played a shugenja (mage). The DM we had built social challenges that were appropriate to each character... and we each knew that there were some NPCs not to screw with because there was no hope of success.


I guess the short of it is that siloing makes it easier for a DM to run an acceptable game.

Without siloing, you need a really good DM.

 

[Mournblade94]

Siloing is good!

I've been playing Dragon Age lately. Rogues in that game have to spend talent points to gain increased ability to lockpick. Since those talents aren't being spent to improve combat effectiveness, I end up leaving my lockpicking rogue at camp when clearing out the dungeon, and then just bring her in afterwards to loot.

Fantastic Point! I have played Dragon Age on two playthroughs. I used Lelana as a build of treasure hunter/dualfighter/archer. She was always with me, and I did well with her, especially utilizing her stealth ability. Still she was not Combat Maximized. Well so what?

Second game I used her again, but this time I specialized her as a dual fighter. (She was not my treasure hunter, I used the elf for that). I could not believe the difference in combat.

My first lelana was more versatile though. I would have her go scout rooms and when possible pick off isolated enemies. she would always just be a softener though.

The second time I played her she was a killer, and took down enemies fast. But I had only minimal skill in scouting.

I love silo-ing.

 

[Derren]

So instead of letting a player build his character however he wants (and "live" with the consequences of it), its better to force him to always include X, so that , when X happens, he can do things some game designer thinks of being fun?
Which also greatly "nudges" the DM to always include X, as otherwise the whole "Silo" is wasted.

That is not really that much "role playing" to me. Real (full) roleplaying is that a player builds his character however he imagines him and lives with the consequences.

And as it was directed towards me...

So what do you call it when X = social situations?

For example, is Shadowrun a RPG given that you HAVE decking?

What about CoC? A CoC game without investigation would be scoffed at by CoC fans as NOT a CoC game.

Indeed, as mentioned already on this thread, Shadowrun's decking situation is a perfectly good example where siloing in capping an area of the game would actually help the game I think.

If everyone HAD to have some competence in decking or at least helping, the minigame issue would go away.

1. In SR no one is forcing a character or the group to have a Decker. Thus, no siloing. Also, you don't need to have a decker in teh game to play it.
2. I don't know CoC that much, but I am pretty sure the system allows a character to not have investigative skills and to run a "Predator" like scenario without modification. So this, too, is not siloing.

And I have no idea what a game with X = Social Situations is called.