Siloing: Good or Bad?

[Imaro]

Ooooh, I like the idea of "Domain Management" as a silo. Now there's rules I'd love to see.

A thought occurs. In a system with silo'd abilities, would it not be easier to add silo's than in a non-silo'd game? If you add "Domain Management" as a silo, forex, you don't have to reduce either combat effectiveness or non-combat effectiveness. In previous versions of D&D, gaining a domain was difficult to balance since you had to take from somewhere and "adjusting the sliders" was problematic.

I think it's easier to add silos, only in a situation where everyone playing the game wants a particular silo for their character? As I touched on in my previous post, what happens when a particular silo doesn't fit my character concept. I could just not use it, but then I'm really at a disadvantage power wise to the other PC's who do, and the game has become,at least for my character, unbalanced.

But, if "Domain Management" is a separate silo, it is balanced with itself and only itself. It does not relate in any way to the other silos and thus does not borrow anything from those areas to become better.

Again, this only works when everyone wants a domaintorun and rule. If my concept is a wandering mercenary and I have no interest in taking the domain silo, how do I balance with PC's who now control armies and nations? The thing is, with each silo, aspects of your game,playstyle, etc. are more specifically designated for the entire group. If everyone has similar goals, desires, etc. for their characters this could work really well... if not there's a point where siloing becomes a burden and restriction on one's character in the name of balance.

Feats, in this sense act to cross polinate silos - feats are not limited to a single silo. If you want to make your Domain Management silo better, your combat silo might not improve, but, it also will not lose either. In other words, burning feats to improve one silo does not actually make another silo less effective.

If you burn three feats for your Ritual Caster bit, sure, you lose out on taking three feats for combat, and someone who takes 3 combat feats will probably be a bit more effective in combat, but, not so dominating as to make you inneffective.

In other words, feats make you a bit better in one silo, but, not taking those feats leaves you simply competent.

Look at my skill example I posted in a previous post for why I disagree with this statement. Someone with those same three (actually 2 or 1 depending on if it's a class skill or not.) feats invested in one or two particular skills can overshadow anyone else that has them.

Heck, one of the biggest issues I've seen with feats is the +1/+2/+3 feat across 30 levels. I think that's the spread anyway. One of the most contested issues in game balance is a grand total of a +2 spread over 30 levels.

Losing +2 will not break your character. Losing that +2 to gain rituals will not break your character either.

But your example here is flawed you're comparing one feat (the expertise feat) with 3 feats to cast rituals (that still don't give you any actual rituals). How about using another feat to up your damage and one more to add something to your AC. Are the 3 feats still inconsequential? Honestly, I don't know but I don't think it's anywhere as clear cut as you're tryingtomake it... and sacrifices between silos are still happening.

 

[keterys]

I think it's easier to add silos, only in a situation where everyone playing the game wants a particular silo for their character? As I touched on in my previous post, what happens when a particular silo doesn't fit my character concept. I could just not use it, but then I'm really at a disadvantage power wise to the other PC's who do, and the game has become,at least for my character, unbalanced.

You're at no disadvantage, as the silo is actually protecting you from the part of the game you're not interested in (domain management) hurting your combat (or whatever) abilities. Since that is the basis of your argument, you may want to rethink that approach.

 

[Imaro]

What disparity of power? You sit out the domain management part, and you doing so has no harm to your combat, social, investigative, etc abilities.

More importantly, your friends being interested in it doesn't hurt _their_ combat/social/investigative abilities.

That said, if you're playing a game like Birthright or whatever - that clearly has domain management as part of the shtick for the game. What are you doing making a character who doesn't want to? Thankfully there's less impact than a character who "doesn't do combat" in a D&D game... something that has caused problems in the past, but is less of an issue now.

So the answer is sit out of a big chunk of gameplay? I thought we were trying to move away from that with good siloing(remember the Decker example from Shadowrun, earlier in the thread).

You are definitely at a disadvantage when the player next to you can control and use an army, pull from coffers, etc. while you can't and have gained nothing in other abilities to compensate for it. As far as it affecting other abilities... no it doesn't but you either accept that every character must rule a domain, and/or must craft things, etc. with each silo added... or there will be a disaparity in power and/or your contribution to the game.

The Birthright example is pointless, since yes if you agree to play a game ahead of time with domain management included you should very well make an appropriate character. However what about the organic growth of a campaign. the warlord might grow to want a domain, while the fighter is perfectly happy being a hired sword and the wizard is more concerned with crafting items of power. Now what? Must everyone have a domain and know how to craft enchanted items, since these silos have been added?

 

[Gort]

Yes, you could, but you would have more balance issues since there are classes which are more effective out of combat, and are thus less effective in combat to compensate.

Well, surely that's a good thing? It always sucked having to sit by as someone else did an entire segment of the game. That was one of my major problems with Shadowrun 3 - everyone had their specialism that they were so good at that the other party members were irrelevant.

Computer system - decker has a 30 minute adventure. Car chase - rigger has a 30 minute adventure. Astral encounter - mage has a 30 minute adventure. Combat was basically the only bit of Shadowrun the entire party could get involved with, so we ended up running a game where 90% of encounters were combat, just so you could actually play a game with friends instead of waiting for hours for your turn in the spotlight to come up. Naturally, every character became a combat something (combat mage, combat decker, combat rigger, etc).

I'd like to see D&D expand on the other parts of adventuring as they have in combat, and make everyone useful in them. Skill challenges were a step in the right direction, but I don't like where they ended up. I'd actually prefer more of a tactical combat type thing for activities like trap disposal, negotiation, survival, and research - lots of choices and different approaches to these if possible.

But above all, RPGs should involve every player in every encounter - you should always be making a meaningful contribution to the game, otherwise we're back to the bad old days of Shadowrun 3.

 

[keterys]

So the answer is sit out of a big chunk of gameplay?

No, the answer is to actually play the game. But if you choose to sit out of the domain management part, that's entirely up to you.

You are definitely at a disadvantage when the player next to you can control and use an army, pull from coffers, etc.

You are definitely at an advantage when the player next to you has to worry about taxes, keep his citizens happy, worry about invading armies, etc.

Wait, what? Both statements are false. You're either participating in the domain management or not.

while you can't and have gained nothing in other abilities to compensate for it.

Why would you gain something for not playing the parts of the game your friend does?

There should be no reward for, for example, a character choosing to maximize combat ability at the sake of ability to talk, do arithmetic, sail a ship, or any number of other things.

As far as it affecting other abilities... no it doesn't but you either accept that every character must rule a domain, and/or must craft things, etc. with each silo added... or there will be a disaparity in power

There is no disparity in power because your friend can brew beer or make a nice wooden chair. When you get into combat, that ability doesn't matter. That's the entire principle of silo-ing, and why it's useful. In fact, the lack of silo-ing is what leads to the disparity in power, where the person who wants to be able to brew beer is worse than the person at combat, and not actually better at any other facet of the game, other than the occasional rare instance where they can go 'Hey, I brew' and be happy about it.

and/or your contribution to the game.

This is true. If you choose not to contribute to the game in certain scenes, then you have chosen not to contribute to the game in certain scenes. Whether that's a scene about preparing a village for an incoming army, a masquerade ball to shmooze the nobles, a crime scene to investigate, or a scene about marshaling armies to a portal to stop an incoming elemental horde. In a game with silos, everyone can participate in all of those by default. In one without, some people are forced to be unable or a detriment by participating in those, or it requires that you expend resources on every area in advance... and if they don't come up, that's unfortunate for you.

However what about the organic growth of a campaign. the warlord might grow to want a domain, while the fighter is perfectly happy being a hired sword and the wizard is more concerned with crafting items of power. Now what? Must everyone have a domain and know how to craft enchanted items, since these silos have been added?

Or those characters do those things between sessions and are happy doing so, and the guy who doesn't want to doesn't have to? As long as they're silo-ed correctly, it works out.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Silos Good! Edition Wars Bad!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y"]Silos Good! Edition Wars Bad![/ame]

 

[keterys]

That said, I would recommend broader silos than adding one for _every_ single little subsystem people want to add, but eh, whatever floats folks' boats. If, for example, you say that it takes a feat to get a domain, and that domain on average gives you X bonuses in other scenes that is par for value for any other feat... then poof, whatever happens in that domain silo who cares about the rest. If you want everyone to have a domain, then you add the silo to everybody. And not using it is your choice. And possibly an impediment to your party.

Don't get caught up on the side ideas of item crafting, or domains, or chocobo hatching and look at the base things that will actually come up in a game.

Basically, the most simple thing is to look at just Combat and Social silos for a moment and go
'Okay, is there any reason someone should be able to sacrifice everything from one to be better at the other?'
'Should anyone be forced to sit out either?'
'How much of a game should a subset (such as one) player be able to dominate an encounter?'
'Does it matter whether that encounter is combat, physical, social, or investigative?'
'If 4/5 of the people at the table need to mostly sit out a particular type of encounter, will that likely mean that we'll do _much less_ of those encounters?'

Cause I'm pretty sure ending up in a situation where a large percentage of the party is twiddling their thumbs is bad, no matter what the situation is - hence the decking, rigging, astral examples. It's okay for someone to be _better_ at some of those, but everyone should get to participate and have an ability to contribute. Even if the barbarian is better at taverns than masquerade balls

 

[woodscanner]

This has been a really interesting thread, with quite a few posts I was really impressed by.

I always hate it when someone butts into a conversation and says "Hey, what you are really talking about is...", but anyway - many of the posts seem to be about "To what extent is it the responsibility of the game ruleset vs the DM/players to ensure that all the players get to participate meaningfully in the game for the majority of the time"

It really reminds me of the discussions on the HERO boards, because with the HERO system it is so easy to design a character who is hugely effective in a narrow range of conditions, and then play to maximise these strengths (classically the player who takes all his powers with "do not work at night" and then ensures all adventures occur during the day. Or sulks in the corner ruining it for everyone). This is a difficult problem for referees to solve when the game system allows it, and variations on this theme seem to crop up fairly regularly in HERO discussions.

So, are we saying that "siloing" involves the game designers dividing the game into chunks that are expected to crop up regularly in the game (such as "combat") and using the ruleset to ensure that all characters are able to contribute to each of these chunks? In which case I think it is a good idea.

Having said that, a DM and players who trust each other and know each others' play styles obviously don't need this. Good for them, really. Some sets of players and DMs aren't so lucky, or want to play in pick up games like Living Forgotten Realms, and this allows them to be more confident that out of the box characters and adventures will interact in such a way that everyone will probably have a good time.

As for whether 4e does it too much/not enough, I don't know. At one extreme all characters are identical, or the system is so rules-lite that there is little rules based difference between them. At the other is something like "anything goes" Hero system. For my group 4e has helped us solve some if the problems that have annoyed us since 1st edition (and also created a few others). YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

No, the answer is to actually play the game. But if you choose to sit out of the domain management part, that's entirely up to you.

So you know everything your campaign will incorporate from the beginning? No new feats, options, etc. allowed once play begins? If not then "play the game" can and already does mean different things to different people as far as D&D is concerned.

You are definitely at an advantage when the player next to you has to worry about taxes, keep his citizens happy, worry about invading armies, etc.

Wait, what? Both statements are false. You're either participating in the domain management or not.

Wrong, both statements are true... but apply to toally different parts of the game. Nothing in your example directly affects my characters combat silo... while in my example I can grab 10 of my soldiers and take them into battle with me, thus affecting the combat silo. Your examples are cleanly within the silo... I'm trying to show you it's never that clean cut because players will think outside the box. As another example there are skills which have combat purposes and do make charcaters more effective in the combat silo.

Why would you gain something for not playing the parts of the game your friend does?

There should be no reward for, for example, a character choosing to maximize combat ability at the sake of ability to talk, do arithmetic, sail a ship, or any number of other things.

Why? Since we are getting into definite statements about what there should or shouldn't be a reward for, please expound on why, if I want my character to be the greatest musician ever, why can't I (just like in real life) choose to focus on becoming that to the detriment of other areas?

There is no disparity in power because your friend can brew beer or make a nice wooden chair. When you get into combat, that ability doesn't matter. That's the entire principle of silo-ing, and why it's useful. In fact, the lack of silo-ing is what leads to the disparity in power, where the person who wants to be able to brew beer is worse than the person at combat, and not actually better at any other facet of the game, other than the occasional rare instance where they can go 'Hey, I brew' and be happy about it.

Brew beer and make a chair? Are we really to the ppoint where we bring out the most absurd examples to debate with... why not stay with the domain silo example instead of going the route of the ridiculous. Also, why do we talk about these instances like the DM is a robot. If I see one of my players has sacrificed combat ability to brew beer or for woodworking (and I'm going to assume that I was just to busy or something to tell him what type of game I'm running), you better believe I'm going to add elements of those skills into many of my adventures. There's also the fact that me not being a robot I can and will extrapolate from those skills so that they apply in a wider range of situations. Perhaps through wood working the PC can identify diffewrent types of wood, knows their locations, what races or tribes frequently use what wood, and so on. But then again I ascribe to the mentality that a DM being able to adapt and individualize encounters for his group is one of his greatest advantages.

This is true. If you choose not to contribute to the game in certain scenes, then you have chosen not to contribute to the game in certain scenes. Whether that's a scene about preparing a village for an incoming army, a masquerade ball to shmooze the nobles, a crime scene to investigate, or a scene about marshaling armies to a portal to stop an incoming elemental horde. In a game with silos, everyone can participate in all of those by default. In one without, some people are forced to be unable or a detriment by participating in those, or it requires that you expend resources on every area in advance... and if they don't come up, that's unfortunate for you.

Again, what if it doesn't fit my character concept? Better question, why is this needed as opposed to me stepping up, as the DM, and saying what my campaign will be about (whether that entails combat, intrigue, social maneuvering, exploration or whatever) and then my players making appropriate characters? This eliminates every problem you are talking about. What is the advantage of a game designer deciding what is and what isn't important in my game, and inevitably not hitting the mark with some people, as opposed to me stepping up and guiding my players?

Or those characters do those things between sessions and are happy doing so, and the guy who doesn't want to doesn't have to? As long as they're silo-ed correctly, it works out.

Again, so he sits out a portion of the campaign.

 

[Dausuul]

So the answer is sit out of a big chunk of gameplay? I thought we were trying to move away from that with good siloing(remember the Decker example from Shadowrun, earlier in the thread).

Look, if you choose to sit out part of gameplay, that's not the game designers' problem. If you're in a hack-and-slash game, and you don't like hack-and-slash, there is no game mechanic that can fix it; your choices are to a) work out a solution with your DM and the other players, or b) quit and find a new gaming group, or c) suck it up and deal. Ditto for domain management, exploration, social interaction, and any other aspect of gameplay you can think of.

In a well-siloed system, the game designers have provided you with the tools to participate in all parts of the game. That's their job. Whether you choose to use them is up to you.

In a non-siloed system, you can sacrifice your ability to participate in the aspects of the game you don't like... in exchange for completely overshadowing the other PCs in the areas you do like. So now, instead of just you sitting out part of the game, everybody is sitting out part of the game. I fail to see the improvement.

(I do think a small amount of give and take between silos is good. If player A prefers combat and player B prefers social interaction, it's fine to let player A shine a bit more in battle and player B shine a bit more when talking. The important thing is to ensure that both players can still participate in both activities.)