Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7908322" data-attributes="member: 29398">Other than maybe 4e, the games you cite are all more or less player-driven - which is fine if you've got players who are willing to drive and thus push the DM to the side a bit.Not all of us have that, or not all the time.Where I to some extent put this back onto the Rogue's player for not finding ways to contribute even though the situation wasn't ideal.Now if it's a situation where the Rogue was off elsewhere - say, on a solo scouting mission - for most of the session, one must assume this is accepted by all involved; that there's going to be time when the DM focuses on the main party and ignores the Rogue and there's going to be time when the DM focuses only on the Rogue and ignores everyone else.&nbsp; But that's probably a separate thing, so let's assume everyone's together.Which tells me a few things at first glance: --- that in order to be so adaptable to any challenge the PCs' abilities must have a large amount of overlap (so bang go niche protection and interdependence and thus the main reason for forming a party in the first place); --- that it's made much more difficult to specifically and intentionally challenge the abilities of just one PC or class (not that this comes up often but it's nice to have in the toolbox); --- and that a party can competently take on any challenge regardless of its class-race composition (thus making party composition almost irrelevant to the run of play).All of these to me would be bugs in the design rather than features.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7908322, member: 29398"] Other than maybe 4e, the games you cite are all more or less player-driven - which is fine if you've got players who are willing to drive and thus push the DM to the side a bit. Not all of us have that, or not all the time. Where I to some extent put this back onto the Rogue's player for not finding ways to contribute even though the situation wasn't ideal. Now if it's a situation where the Rogue was off elsewhere - say, on a solo scouting mission - for most of the session, one must assume this is accepted by all involved; that there's going to be time when the DM focuses on the main party and ignores the Rogue and there's going to be time when the DM focuses only on the Rogue and ignores everyone else. But that's probably a separate thing, so let's assume everyone's together. Which tells me a few things at first glance: --- that in order to be so adaptable to any challenge the PCs' abilities must have a large amount of overlap (so bang go niche protection and interdependence and thus the main reason for forming a party in the first place); --- that it's made much more difficult to specifically and intentionally challenge the abilities of just one PC or class (not that this comes up often but it's nice to have in the toolbox); --- and that a party can competently take on any challenge regardless of its class-race composition (thus making party composition almost irrelevant to the run of play). All of these to me would be bugs in the design rather than features. [/QUOTE]

Verification