Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5821987" data-attributes="member: 996">It seems like we're both trying to snatch the middle here, and arguing between straw men.If you don't want characters to be non-contributing, and I don't want them to be identical, we're prettymuch on the same side, or we're only off by a shading of degree.And, I hasten to add, neither of us should be content with D&D as it has existed to date. Characters have been excluded entirely from 'pillars,' players left twiddling their thumbs while the specialist character does his thing for an extended period.  OK, that's a valid play style.  You have many minor challenges over a session or adventure or campaign, and if a player sits out some of them, it's no big deal, the 'big picture' balance is what matters.However, it's not the only valid play style.  Big 'set piece' challenges that consume a single shorter session almost entirely are also a perfectly good way to play.  And letting a player sit one out is not acceptable.Reasonable parity (again, not everyone being identical, just everyone contributing) within every challenge (pillar) provides balance in both play styles.  'Big picture' balance only works for one.</blockquote>