Alizor's page

I have heard rumors that some are taking this thread to mean "shut up" if you have a dissenting voice about the rules. Nothing is further than the truth. What Mike (and others) are saying is that while you have the right to object to the RAW and to discuss how things could be different, you DO NOT have the right to ignore them, do what you want, and then essentially brag about in the forums. As players, we do not have the power to follow the rules we like and ignore the ones we don't. If you think something is wrong, start a thread, explain why, and this is important, what you think can be done to correct it. There have been many rule changes that resulted from discussions in the forums. The word "cheating" has a very serious connotation, but what else would you call it? Either you are following the rules or you aren't. Package it however you want, but in the end, it just boils down to that question.

Before you peg me some kind of jack-booted enforcer for the PFS gestapo, I happen to agree with arguments to change some of the rules. After-all, I am a player too and would like things "my way." However, until such changes occur, we are all bound by the rules of the society. Some will say it is a harsh stance, but either play by the rules or play something else.

EDIT--One more thing, despite what anyone may have told *you*, the Venture Officers, Mike Brock, and Mark Moreland are always receptive to email if you feel an issue is more appropriate for private discussion.

As a VC and GM that sees a lot of characters, play styles, etc. I want to ask all the players in our community to, please, be careful when building characters. Many of the game mechanics lend themselves to being used to "break" a character such that it makes it equivalent to a CR much higher than their level would indicate. Within the guidelines of PFS, GM's are not empowered to make significant changes to the scenarios. If you are much more powerful than the challenge, it is not fun for the other players at the table, nor the GM, and might even rob you of an otherwise fun game experience.

Yes, there are players out there that like to read the walk through books with spoilers or to play games with the "god" code turned on, and they are entitled to have fun as well. But understand that is not the truth for the majority of players. Please have some compassion for the entirety of the community and build characters that are equivalent in skill/power/ability as your companions. That works both ways, as well. Don't build a character that is essentially useless because you think it's "cool."

We are playing in a cooperative environment with players you don't know. If you want to run game-breaking characters, please keep those for your home games where the GM has the ability to tailor the campaign to fit your strengths and weaknesses. If your character can do things that make you say things like, "cr@p look at that damage" or "wow, with that AC, it'll take a nat 20 to hit me all day," or "no one can save against that DC," then perhaps you need to reconsider the build.

I have said this numerous times, and it's message is as important as its ever been, "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."

I would say YMMV, but its not about the "you." Everyone's mileage may vary depending on your choices.

Mike's background as a police detective has me pretty comfortable that he knows what he's doing.

I am a relative newcomer to PFS. But having read through this thread, even with my limited experience, I'd like to throw out a few observations and personal opinions. Ultimately I believe I'm saying pretty much the same thing Deusvult is saying...let me try to say it in another way.

From PFS table to table, there will be wide variances e.g. player/GM experience, what classes in the party, etc... These variances do not (and cannot) foster consistent interpretation of a scenario having so many subjective elements. In any activity where so many people are involved and subjectivity plays such a large part, there will be inconsistencies. It is unavoidable. Even the most even-keeled and RAW-dedicated individual is liable to have his judgement influenced by specific circumstances of a given table.

It is also unavoidable that on the grand scale, this will extend to outright application of the rules a la "normally not allowed but you get a situational bonus for your creativity". I'm not going to bother arguing whether or not it should. The reality is that it will. With all due respect, an egalitarian ideal where all are equal and each rule is completely and consistently applied world-wide sounds great for "the society", but is ultimately naive.

Personally, I don't see inconsistency as a bad thing. There should be variances in interpretation as well as application of the rules. I'm not particularly interested in playing a punch-card game. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rat's whisker if some guy 7 states away (or next door for that matter) has a +3 sword of kickbutt while I'm still trying to scrape up enough money to buy a masterwork. I'll know when I'm holding that masterwork that I earned it. That's what matters to me. And if I'm ever sitting at the same table with Mr. Kickbutt, it is the GM's job to try to make it interesting for us both.

In my view, that is the essence of a good PFS GM...make the games fun and entertaining for everyone, while trying not to let people die unless they do something really dumb. If the BBEG rolls nat 20's 8 times in a row (or if I do for that matter), I say fudge away...because I like a challenge and I also like this guy and want to play him again tomorrow.

Just the observations and opinions of a new player who likes the game and isn't shy about spending money on it :)

I could care less about the rule set that an MMO follows. They are not the same and you should not aim for it. Pathfinder is a turn-based tabletop RPG. As a rules set for a TTOP RPG, it works quite well. However, a MMO is not a tabletop RPG. The people who think it should work like that do not get the design issues and probably never will.

I already know that the devs know this – but many of the fans here just don’t get it . Persuade your fans as to why – and with patience, the persuadable will be persuaded. However, some of these fans are NOT persuadable under any circumstances. That’s life. Keep selling them books and they will still be your customers, just not your online players. That’s okay. Let ‘em rant, because that isn’t Pathfinder.

I do see, however, a number of things that CAN work and DO feel like "Pathfinder,” to wit:

1 - Class Abilities: Pathfinder has improved upon and developed a number of class abilities that serve to distinguish the class from others. Those abilities should form a tangible aspect of a class design.

For example, we know what Paladins are. A Pathfinder: Online Paladin should have auras; smite evil, and have the ability to confer those benefits to others. Similarly, we know that a Witch has a familiar, can fly, and can cast hexes like misfortune and deep slumber. Alchemists in Pathfinder throw bombs and can use mutagens to increase their stats and body size. While something like a Vancian based arcane bond is not likely to matter in PF: O, Wizards should be able to throw a weapon and have it return to their hands. They should get some sort of metamagic and should be able to craft magic items. They should get a scorching ray and get multiple numbers of them as they advance (never mind what damage they actually do or how often it can be used) Barbarians are all about rage and DR. Gunslingers are all about guns, deeds, and grit, Ninjas can vanish, etc..

Keep the recognizable iconic abilities of classes and make them do similar sorts of things which are somewhat intuitive and recognizable to a player. The underlying math, lethality and so forth is irrelevant. Let the computer game designers of the MMO be computer game designers of an MMO. Nevertheless, some of the iconic powers of a class need to be represented and unique because that’s what fans expect and that’s what keeps up the verisimilitude of the Pathfinder brand.

2 - Look and Feel: Pathfinder has a distinctive art direction to its characters and many of its monsters. Some of that is going to work well in a computer game -- and some of it is not. Cut the stuff that will not work for polycount and animation reasons and do it without remorse.

But when you get right down to it, Pathfinder is Wayne Reynolds' art style. Make that come to life? You are golden in terms of art direction. Fail to deliver it and you dropped the ball and will alienate customers. Sorry – but in many respects it really IS that simple.

Above all, keep the cartoony look to your characters. There are strong benefits to this. On a technical design basis, it reduces polycount. As we move forward in the next five years, PC Gaming threatens to go off a cliff and the desktop will not be the primary platform for this game. Accordingly, anything that reduces graphical overhead and makes it more laptop friendly is good. Any CTO who tells you what the GPU capabilities are of the expected users of this game 4 years from now is making it up. He doesn’t know. That’s an ENORMOUS tech risk, so the engine and art direction has to be HIGHLY scaleable.

If you went for something like the CANVAS engine for your art style? You would not go wrong in terms of artistic impact (tech/economic feasibility is another matter). Apply the CANVAS engine's style and Wayne Reynolds art and color palettes and tell me you wouldn’t drool to play that game.

On a less technical basis, cartoony designs also serve to make the game look unique. The problem with realistic 3d models , shaders and middleware environmental options all designed to operate within the tech limits of the hardware platform of the day is that it all ends up looking the same, from game to game. Seeing as you are likely to have to use middleware for much of your environmental organic effects, anything that serves to distinguish the look of the game from that produced by others enhances the value. In this case, it also delivers on the expectations of fans – so double down on Wayne Reynolds' iconics and cartoony goblins.

Blizzard made the right call with WoW. Some people hated it and it turned them off -- but you cannot argue with that level of success. I can confirm that there was a significant debate within BioWare as to whether to go cartoony with SW:ToR. BioWare decided to go a little cartoony with their art direction in TOR too -- and it was the right call. Some people complained sure, but some people always complain.

3 - Golarion: At Paizo's current publication rate, it is likely that there will at that time of PF:O's release be more game material written about the world of Golarion than any other fantasy world in the history of RPGs. Even the FR (and that's saying something, damn it).

That is a VAST treasure trove of IP. It's the one thing Paizo brings to the table which it does BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE, in or outside of the computer development field. Do not sacrifice this on anybody's sandbox altar. Dance with the girl that brung ya.

That's what a Pathfinder: Online is to me. It's not rolling a 20, it's not Vancian Magic, longswords which do 1d8 or even magic missiles.

Gimme a Witch that hexes with a fox familiar, a chance to interact with the iconic characters which LOOK like Wayne Reynold's art come to life -- all set in a believable slice of Golarion.

That's a Pathfinder MMO to me.

Let's just say that creating the Beginner Box was an enormously educational process, and that the fruits of that education will be delicious for many years to come.