Untrained/trained Skills....Noooo!

[Zurai]

Thank god, the people I play with are actually entertaining and the GMs actually understand how to switch between groups at different locations and keep them occupied. On the occassions where someone in our games ends up sitting out for a time, they are engrossed in what is going- laughing, groaning or praying/rooting that the character(s) involved actually pull off what ever they are attempting.

That was my first thought as well. Thank God my players/friends aren't "MEMEMEME's" who only care about the game if their own character is directly in the spotlight.

 

[Cadfan]

That was my first thought as well. Thank God my players/friends aren't "MEMEMEME's" who only care about the game if their own character is directly in the spotlight.

That is an excellent reason why the game should have features which split up the party, leaving several characters sit on the sidelines, even though it could be designed otherwise.

 

[Celebrim]

I honest fail to see how ANY of these are good design policy.

Your post strikes me as a rant, and I can't get up the emotion to respond in kind.

Design policy? What kind of design policy precludes player choice? All I'm saying is that it is very hard in general to design challenges where the player's can't or won't attempt to find a way to by pass them. Even if you design a camp shaped dungeon with the idea that the players will sneak into it together, you can't as a DM ensure that that is the course of action that they take.

And if you do always ensure that your players can only overcome or even attempt to overcome your challenges in the expected way, then you've got a bigger problem with your design than the fact that the group might legitimately decide to give one player the glory or even split the party.

 

[Zurai]

That is an excellent reason why the game should have features which split up the party, leaving several characters sit on the sidelines, even though it could be designed otherwise.

I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of a fantasy or sci-fi movie or book that I've enjoyed where the characters were together for the entirety of the plot, and never once had to split up - which has the benefit of exposing both their strengths and their weaknesses.

If the characters can be assured that they will never, ever be split up, their weaknesses become immaterial because the other party members will always be able to cover for them. Might as well not even have weaknesses at that point. Similarly, their strengths won't shine as much, especially in cases like stealth (where the lowest roll in the party determines the party's success).

A well-rounded character should have something it is good at and something it really isn't at all good at, and a well-rounded adventure series should, in time, highlight both of those circumstances.

 

[Terraism]

"Except in terms of flavour"? I'm not sure that should be so easily discounted. There's a big difference between a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in a storm even though some of them aren't trained in swimming, and a high level party barely/mostly surviving a shipwreck in absolutely calm water.

Chiming in again - and, wow, did I kick off a poor example with my crippled wizard thing - but I wanted to add that, while I do think characters shouldn't be decent at things they haven't worked on, in the past (and I expect to continue so into the future,) I've done that by giving action points out. If a high-level party is really pushing to survive a shipwreck in a storm, they don't just drown if they haven't trained in it, but instead, they spend a significant resource, instead. A sort of "everything push".

 

[drothgery]

It might very well be how Saga does it (I can't check, and I don't remember).

It is; you can't make knowledge checks with a DC of 15 or higher untrained.

 

[Grog]

Its also poor since AIB: Alone is Bad.

In fact, didn't the 3E designers say that they built the system around the combat encounter because that was the one time when they could be sure that everyone in the party would be doing something?

Or am I misremembering?

 

[Zurai]

In fact, didn't the 3E designers say that they built the system around the combat encounter because that was the one time when they could be sure that everyone in the party would be doing something?

Or am I misremembering?

Contrarily, the reason "Alone is bad" is because 3E encounters are designed assuming that the entire party is present.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of a fantasy or sci-fi movie or book that I've enjoyed where the characters were together for the entirety of the plot, and never once had to split up - which has the benefit of exposing both their strengths and their weaknesses.

Ah, but we're not supposed to be emulating fantasy or sci-fi movies, are we?

 

[Grog]

Contrarily, the reason "Alone is bad" is because 3E encounters are designed assuming that the entire party is present.

How else would you design a party-based game?