Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5714520" data-attributes="member: 996">I have to disagree.  While that is a way of dealing with min/maxing after it's already aflicted your campaign, it doesn't avoid it - punishes, perhaps.  While I agree that a varied campaign is more enjoyable, a lot of DMs don't - they have a style they like to lean on, be it combat-heavy or 'role-not-roll' or whatever.  Well, that's an answer.  I don't see how it's particularly better, but it serves the same function.  If /every/ choice is equal useful in and out of combat, then you can minimize one to maximize the other.  I think that would be harder to implement - it'd be only as effective as the least perfectly dual-use choices available, and each new thing added would be another point of failure.  A 'silo' aproach has the virtue of being structural - new material need only plug into the structure.Not at all, they forbid perfectly horrid character concepts - the kind that overshadow their fellows or fail to contribute enough to pull their own weight.  If a character can't contribute in adventuring challenges, he shouldn't be adventuring.  As far as the third silo, there could be stock background for those who can't be bothered going into the choices in detail.  For that matter, it's a class based system, so stock or pre-built or default choices aren't hard to provide at all.</blockquote>