|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I think the degenerate condition of being able to demand too much (or be immune to demands) is avoided by allowing the merchant, at their option, to give 75% of their non-equipped items to the bandit, or to negotiate with the bandit for any mutually agreeable amount of coin.
If we assume that the merchant is better at getting coin for stuff and is only carrying commodities, then everyone is better off finding an agreeable amount of coin.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Money Changes Everything wrote:
Coin is a unit of account. Coin can be infinitely divided and combined. It is virtual and does not appear as an in–game object. When your character walks around, you're not lugging around a huge bag full of money. Coin has no weight and can be moved from place to place instantly. We may decide at some point to generate some in–game rationale for all of this using mystic hand–waving and such to "explain" the curious properties of coin, but for the sake of this dev blog we'll keep it relatively simple.
With the assumptions I made, (where the merchant has comparative advantage, and the carried items are commodities) SAD demands for carried items are not sensible choices.
Demands for excessive coin are a degenerate condition, as would be the ability to be immune to SADs by having no coin.
I'd say the biggest factor influencing multiple combatants is that multiple combatants won't be polite and fight to death. When the one gets close to taking down one of the ten, the victim will withdraw, forcing the one to suffer attacks from the nine and chase down his target, or switch targets, allowing his first target to swing back in unnoticed, or heal up for a second round.
I think that it's entirely possible to trigger an event that adds or changes a flag:
When a character attacks a non-hostile character, add the "Accidental? Attacker" relationship.
What a character attacks a character with whom he has the "Accidental? Attacker" relationship, replace it with the "Attacker" relationship and apply alignment/reputation penalties.
Here's the basis of my position:
Suppose that there is no Reputation or SAD or Contract system at all. A group of greedy bandits comes across a weaker group of greedy merchants who are carrying valuable commodities. It is virtually certain to both parties that the bandits will prevail utterly in any fight. The merchants have comparative advantage in getting coin in exchange for those resources (because that's what merchants do). If the bandits kill the merchants and take their stuff, some of the stuff will be destroyed.
(Further assumptions: neither party is able to credibly precommit to a course of action, and each holdup is considered independently of any others)
Those conditions are sufficient to show that there is an outcome to this one encounter that both the bandits and the merchants would prefer to the case of slaughter and looting, and at least one such outcome is "The merchants provide some amount of coin to the bandits and the bandits don't attack."
However, there is a trust problem: If the merchant pays the extortion while still within the power of the bandit to kill, the bandit still gets the same reward from killing the merchant and taking their stuff. If the bandit agrees to escort the merchant or leave them alone in exchange for a payment after the merchant leaves the power of the bandit, then the merchant (once outside the power of the bandit) has no reason to pay the extortion.
This is almost isomorphic to what Games Theory describes as the Isolated Prisoners' Dilemma: While the "best outcome" (Jargon: Pareto Optimum) occurs when the Merchant pays and the Bandit lets them by, if each party makes a decision that strictly dominates (The bandit always kills the merchant regardless of the outcome of the extortion, or the merchant never pays after he is safe), then we end up in a different spot (Jargon: Nash Equilibrium).
Various factors can produce the "Extortion Paid and Passage Granted" outcome, but all of them either require that one or both parties are not strictly rational, can credibly precommit, or some other change to the assumptions set forth above.
Enter the world with Reputation and SAD:
Now the bandit has two options to start: Issue a SAD, demand extortion without issuing a SAD, or attack without doing either.
Assume that the SAD can be issued for an amount in the region where both parties would prefer the extortion be paid and passage granted:
Issuing a SAD strictly dominates attacking without demanding coin: If the SAD is refused, then the outcome differs from the bald attack only by the improved Reputation.
Demanding extortion without issuing a SAD puts us in a similar situation as the original case, except now the bandit has a smaller reward for killing and looting (The same +Coin but added -Rep). Issuing a SAD is superior to demanding extortion without the SAD for the bandit in two cases, equal in one, and only inferior in the case where the merchant pays and the bandit kills the merchant anyway. (If the merchant refuses and the bandit allow the merchant to pass, he breaks even; in either 'honorable' case, the bandit has a higher reputation for choosing SAD over demanding without the SAD.)
The rational merchant will know this, and will therefore conclude that any bandit who could issue a SAD but chooses to demand extortion without one expects a higher reward from doing so, and will therefore attack even if the extortion is paid. Therefore the merchant will never pay such a demand, and issuing a SAD dominates demanding extortion without issuing a SAD.
If the reputation penalty for breaking a SAD is high enough, then one the extortion is paid, the bandit no longer has sufficient incentive to attack (the -Rep is greater in magnitude than the +Coin). That, combined with the merchant having to act first, moves the point where nobody would unilaterally change their mind (Nash Equilibrium) to the point where nobody can do better without anybody doing worse (Pareto Optimum), and allows rational agents to demand and pay the SAD.
That the SAD also creates an interesting narrative and fosters other forms of meaningful player interaction is a trifecta.
That's pretty much the way I think it should be- you risk accidentally hitting someone and giving them cause to fight, but if they choose to take you up, you don't lose too much.
If they don't take up the gauntlet and you don't hit them again, there shouldn't be any shift.
To clarify what you want:
There are several interesting and fun Class Features in Pathfinder that are not part of the Core or Base Classes.
You hope that many of those Class Features have analogue Abilities in PFO.
If I'm right, then it's a question of crowd forging priority. Based on the ratio of desire for a particular feature to the amount of time=money to provide it, each added feature will be prioritized.
For example, I expect that mounts and pets will be higher on the list than Alchemists and Dragon Disciples- because each new "class" takes a lot of time but many appeal to few players.
The groups that exist at the end of EE will bear only a passing resemblance to the groups that currently exist.
That's my prediction and expectation.
No. It is suboptimal to try to capture your opponents queen in chess, if you are playing according to the rules.
Chess is won by putting the opposing king into checkmate, and capturing pieces (including the queen) is often an effective way to do so- but there are situations where a move which captures the opposing queen is a losing move.
It's my personal position that trying to find and walk the line at which a weakly defined rule (like the policy on Griefing, but not like the strongly defined and malleable mechanic of Reputation) is enforced is a violation of the intent (and thus the letter) of that rule. Your policy statement sounded to me to be the same as "We will be almost, but not technically, Griefers."
That perception was mostly formed when you discouraged a new player who was scared of open PvP, and your defense was "He said it was a dealbreaker". It's been reinforced every time you've used "The game isn't fully finished yet" as a justification for interpreting a rule in a way that I don't think is supported by the developer's statements (In particular, claiming that it makes sense to use SAD for anything other than frank extortion, including "taxation" but not including any cases where getting coin and/or items is not a primary goal.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to change your mind; I'm trying to explain why I have formed the position I have, in a way where it's obvious to me where I might have erred.
Is that what you expect to happen, what you want to happen, or what you intend to bring about?
Because I actively intend to prevent the scenarios that you describe from coming about. Although if you simply remove the griefing behaviors (e.g. can flipping, outing people for harassment with the intent of causing them to commit suicide) from your scenario it matches mine closely enough.
I guess I can't even leave without being called out. Congratulations, you've identified a way to manipulate me into engaging with you.
Xeen wrote:There is always one person in charge, no matter how the game is setup. One charismatic person will be in control... How he handles that control is going to vary. No matter how high you go, you will always end at one man.
And your stated goal of "We want to steal your stuff" isn't problematic. Your almost unstated goal of "We will make it hard for players who have already precommitted to courses of action that make it hard for us" is irrational, but not unreasonable. But neither of these goals are furthered by misrepresenting the SAD as a way that anybody can circumvent the Reputation system. I'm not sure what goals and patterns of behavior are furthered by that, or I'd have called them out more specifically.
Hmmm. Yeah I would imagine "(Title) (Name) of (Player Settlement)" should be titles that the settlement itself can award for free.
Or it could be associated with a mechanical effect as well (Sheriff), and/or have only a finite number available (Herald), or some other scarcity mechanism.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
That's the way I see things working. Not a generic "give me stuff or die" ability, but the ability to mimic the Stag Lord, demanding stuff and hurting people who don't give it to you but (Spoiler alert) characters are not only free to hunt and kill you, but get rewarded for doing so.
That was exactly the post I was referring to. The earlier posts regarding the actual history of SAD are background that I believe makes the more charitable interpretation be lying, rather than having such poor recall of recent events.
For the record, there remains no sane interpretation to the announced SAD mechanics that would allow anybody to make a demand against an arbitrary target that the typical target literally cannot meet. That would take all of the players that want to kill characters and drink tears (the group that Reputation is intended to discourage) and simply force their characters to demand "Give me more than you have or die!" before engaging in a behavior that is contrary to the established goals of PFO.
There was that point a little bit ago where you lied about how the SAD came about and implied that it was certain that anyone who wanted to could issue a SAD demand that was impossible to meet.
Moved here per request:
And the SAD originally required the user to be flagged, with the implication that all criminal activity would require or create a long-term flag on the criminal. Enforcers would then always have mutual hostility with criminals, and everybody would be happy with their meaningful choice to join the Law or Chaos-themed 'faction'.
You'd be on firmer ground saying that you need to make a (DC 11) knowledge check to know that the (CR 6) creature in front of you is a skeleton.
It might be a bone golem, and if you use what you know about skeletons to fight a bone golem, you're gonna have a bad time.
Pax Keovar wrote:
Because most people won't bother coming up with a suitable name in the first place, and therefore the base rate is "expect to have your name changed".
Not every action that falls into a reference class that is not categorically prohibited is not discouraged.
I can draw a line at "Running multiple characters so as to avoid interacting with other players."
The only other place I can draw a line is "Using software that gains an advantage from faster reactions."
Strangely enough, the major expense I foresee is replacing equipment lost in actual war battles. Since players who don't participate in those battles don't lose ships in those battles, they don't incur any expenses.
Try to keep up; the discussion is about whether botting should be supported, permitted, or prohibited.
2: I see that New York charges students from Illinois more to attend state schools.
Right, because you could reach three times the size and still have 40% turnout for those calls, and you didn't think that would result in more people showing up.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
A Lady is an untitled noble (or a noble period, sort of). As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather titled nobles like Baron, Duke and Count (and bigger names like King, and similar honorifics like Abbot) not be available to anyone with a buck.
If titled titles are tied to their titles, that would create interesting dynamics...
That's exactly what you would want us to think if you were Blaeringr...
Because poker is a game involving incomplete information. Saying "I add this amount to the pot." isn't dishonest unless you try to add fewer chips that you say you did, and your opponent should have no belief that you are adding more information into your bets.
Pax Areks wrote:
Interesting certainty, coming from you. Do you think that there would be some observation you might be able to make that would be different depending on whether that was true or not?