Elorebaen's page

Thank you for the head's up! I think I just need to setup a monthly auto-pay with RS.

Awesome to hear Bill!

Love the idea, looking forward to the product, and I really hope we see more of these types of supplements.

One-step is correct, but I do not think you should see that as a major issue. Why? Because, if your members believe in a similar creed, and act based on that creed, then you will all be fairly close in alignment (whatever that alignment may be).

I think it is useful to flip your approach to alignment. Instead of writing in stone what your alignment will be before entering the game, allow your actions in-game to dictate the alignment of your settlement. I suggest have a somewhat loose idea of your settlement's alignment prior to launch, and then settling on an alignment through your members actions.

I like the depth I'm seeing

I could definitely see these as escalation events.

Great work, K. Thank you for sharing.

Congratulations!

Great title.

avari3 wrote:

I've never understood how this siege window will work on a single server game. I keep getting this image of an Australian player empire destroying everyone while we sleep.

Warning, arbitrary numbers ahead:

So, there are 24 hours in a day (not an arbitrary number =P). Based on the level of development in your settlement, you must set your PVP window at 4 hours per day to get the full benefits. During these hours, your NPC defenses will be at their weakest, and you will have to rely on players to defend your settlement. You look at your settlement members and realize they are most active during US eastern evenings. So you set your PVP window to be 4-8pm eastern time. That way, when your settlement is most vulnerable, you have the most players on to defend it. This is in place to avoid a bunch of people from wiping you out at 2 am when you have no players on. The rest of the time (outside the window you set) you have a large NPC force to deter attackers.

Dario explained it nicely. Basically the reason for the PvP Window is the problem you describe.

Make sure the wedding is not held at the Twins.

That made my day *chuckles* Thank you!

Elegant solution

@Elorebaen - you will be able to transfer them, just not now and maybe not in the fulfillment system.

Thanks Ryan!

Deianira wrote:

Will I be able to assign those add-ons to my buddies later?

Ryan Dancey wrote:

What you can't do is buy an Add-On and then send the Add-On to another person. That will be something we'll manage outside the Fulfillment system.

Not trying to be a pain, but just to be clear ..

A) the Add-Ons (e.g. regional trait, medal of honor, twice marked, etc) I purchased for my Buddy through the fulfillment system will be able to be transferred to my Buddy's PFO account?

-or-

B) should I ask for a refund on the Add-Ons I purchased for my Buddy, and inform my Buddy that they will be able to purchase the Add-Ons through the fulfillment system at a different(later) date?

Thank you. My apologies for the beating of what I am sure is probably a dead horse.

I think you can log in to the Fulfillment system once you get your Buddy invite and do your own add-Ons. Not 100% sure but high confidence.

What you can't do is buy an Add-On and then send the Add-On to another person. That will be something we'll manage outside the Fulfillment system.

Ryan,

Add-Ons are not available to your Buddy, even after they accept. It is my understanding that those with the Crowdforger Buddy pledge should purchase the add-ons that both you and your Buddy would like, and at a later date one will be able to transfer the Buddy Add-Ons to the Buddy account.

New buttons look good. Is there anyway to make the hover-over slightly more different? It can be difficult to know if I have actually clicked on the button or not. THanks!

Using Firefox 20.0.1

Very cool! Plague is definitely one of the better Tales, and expect this one will be as well. Howard catches that authentic pulp quality that suffuses Golarion.

I like the cover as well.

Here! Here!

Welcome to the PFO community, Tark!

Wow, just wow. There will always be a-holes. You've stated your case, just move on.

The proof is in the puddin' RS has been producing high-quality, and highly-useable products since its inception, regardless of whatever reviewers are saying (good or bad).

I would happily pay for Portcullises, and I appreciate the offer.

Keep up the great work Creighton!

Thank you for the awesome products!

Wow, that is some killer design!

I especially like how we are seeing the broader design goals shine through in the the specific mechanics

Question, are we pre-orderers supposed to get the PDF too? I preordered RC back in the day and pledged some to get other stuff but haven't gotten the actual RC PDF on my page yet...

Same situation here. I believe Blonde Frog said she was working on this.

Generally speaking I dig all of this.

I would like to see a process for PCs to devote themselves to a deity. In fact, I think it would be ultra-cool if a PC priest of the particular was required as a kind of sponsor. I would like to see rituals that involved a PC devoting themselves to a deity at a service where other PCs could witness the act, etc, etc.

Very cool.

Anyway the point I'm making here, there could be 2 seperate types of lists of friends. IE 1. a list of friends/enemies that controls say whether someone has access to their settlement resources, shops training facilities etc... and a different one that functions for PM convenience etc...

The prior type of list should be discoverable via in game means, the latter should not, in my opinion.

I like this approach.

Good one Enz.

Note the "Follow Me" doesn't seem to be working.

Added to my cart on the back of Enz's review. Thanks Enz!

RS is top notch. Good to see them getting publicity.

I have always preferred thoughtful use of AoEs due to friendly-fire so I give this direction thumbs-up.

*blinks* GMG is incredibly useful. I suppose it really only appeals to GMs, and of those probably a certain subset. Any GMs out there, I hope you consider checking GMG out.

As touched upon in another thread, I would like to see the various aspect of settlement functionality tied to members of that settlement. Instead of simply dropping the right amount raw materials into a bin and money into a hopper to raise your settlement from one level of proficiency to another, I would like to see it's "tier," if you will, tied to the skills of it's key citizens. One of the menus that the settlement chief manager could have, similar to other game's guild management screens for placing officers, could include the various key positions for settlement management. Using this, the chief manager could then assign those roles to the appropriate members of the settlement.

For instance, a portion of the NPC guard's effectiveness is tied to the level of skill training your designated Captain of the Guard character member has in a number of skills...perhaps his/her skill level in not only combat but leadership skills (like the skills hinted at for formation fighting). The effectiveness of your forge could be tied to the skill of your resident Master Smith.

In this way, it takes more than money and resources to maintain an effective settlement - it takes skilled people keeping the level of proficiency higher by their presence. Otherwise, you could have a rather hollow settlement running at peak performance simply because at one time, it had enough resources and money to pay for that level of performance. The most well built fortress doesn't provide much protection if the guards aren't well directed, nor does the forge run as productively if not well maintained by a skilled smithy.

If this were the case, the right skill sets could become very valuable. You would want to keep these people happy, lest they take their skills, and your settlement's peak performance, with them. There's a reason corporations head hunt for the best CEO's...so why not in PFO?

I really like this idea.

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Does limiting the really cool assassination tricks (whatever those might wind up being) to benefits of allying with and staying allied with NPC assassin factions (like the Red Mantis or Skinsaw Men/Church of Norgorber) handle worries about everyone picking up assassin tricks? Would that limitation bother the players here who are intending to play assassins?

Makes sense to me.

I really like that idea

Awesome! Congrats

Cool blog.

Will some hexes change type? Quandry was getting at this as well I believe. For example, say a monster base was finally destroyed, will that hex now become a wilderness hex? Will all hexes stay the same type indefinitely?

Thanks DaveMage, brvheart and Elorebaen. I'm not satisfied with those god conversions. I think I'll just go with them being lost and forgotten.

You are welcome. I think that is fine as well. Again, I think it is fairly self-contained. Just need to figure out a way to connect with characters that come from the Inner Sea.

Had a question I don't see any info about. For the maps that will be part of GS will they be in 5ft squares?

I ask as I am getting ready to run Shattered Stars Beyond the Doomsday doors and all the maps I just looked at in the AP are 10ft squares not 5. Means I can't easily use a VTT or my projector for these maps.

Thanks

I would imagine they will have a grid overlay that you can adjust to whatever you want, at least the should.

Here! Here!

erbridge,

re Golarion: I used Thy=Aroden and Muir=Iomedae, and have had no problem. The battle took place 1000 years ago for me. I don't think it is a big deal that Iomedae wasn't a deity yet. The area is fairly self-containted.

Kthulhu, I tend to agree with you, but it is actually fairly easy to port ST with just a flavor tweaks.

Also, ST starts at 7.

The NPE needs to connect new players with existing players asap. Social interaction should be there from the beginning. Some MUDs I've experienced have done this pretty well. If I remember correctly Dragonrealms had a guild dedicated to new players, along with a guildhouse where new players could go and ask questions. There were also reglar seminars about aspects of the game. All of these involved actual interaction with other players.

Maybe a short tutorial, but then get the new players interacting with existing players quickly.

Personally, I'd like to see full rule support. System agnostic VTTs are already pretty common, after all. If Paizo wants us to spend money on their support material for their VTT, its better if it offers some advantage of just going with another already established VTT.

I 100% agree. At the very least "practical" rules support.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

If a genie gave me the power to declare the philosophy by which GameSpace adds features, I'd say it should be the most Pathfinder-specific VTT. If Pathfinder has a lumpy set of rules for vision and lighting, or stealth, or encumbrance (which it has all three) I think a VTT should endeavor to help with all of those things. Every time Roll20 says "we're not supporting that because we're 'system-agnostic'," that's an opportunity to differentiate GameSpace as the VTT for Pathfinder.

That doesn't seem like Paizo's current philosophy. I understand they've arrived at system agnosticism and limited (but polished) feature set. But I can say honestly: that's not what I'm looking for in GameSpace. I'm waiting to see how it differentiates itself from other highly-usable, website-based, free VTT apps. It would be ideal if they were decidedly NOT system agnostic and feature-light, because we have that already.

For the most part I agree. It would be wonderful to have rule support built in. However, as a GM, I would still want the ability to turn off any or all of those rules and revert to a more agnostic system. If I want to house rule stealth (to use the in-progress rewrite post, for example), I wouldn't want to have to fight the software to do that. I would want to just turn it off and then narrate / roll based on my house rules. Or if I want to use a unusual / custom vision type like "treesight" (in this case, an ability to see from the perspective of any tree within 30'), I'd need a way to either support that or turn off vision/lighting alltogether.

And so on. Optional rule support is the way to go.

I think this is an important nuance of this discussion that can get lost.

There is a huge gulf between "full" rules support and "practical" rules support. "Full" rules support we have never seen in a VTT, and nor do I think it is actually necessary. "Practical" rules support covers all of the most typical rolls you will deal with on a regular basis, so skills, combat, saves, etc, etc. A character sheet that takes care of the math. A way to add and save macros. "Practical" is a far cry from "Full" rules support. You do not need "Full" support.

An example of a feature rich "practical" approach is what LM's Pathfinder framework has done for Maptool. It covers all of the typical elements in most typical games, with ways to extend it for more customized campaigns.

I think when experienced users say that they desire rules support they are thinking along the lines of "practical" rules support, and others think they are saying "full" rules support. You do not need "full," and nor could you probably ever reach that. But there is a whole lot that you can integrate that a computer can do really well, and used every game session.

Just checking back: Have the downloads been made available from the kickstarter--Crowdforger Pioneer level ?

Thanks!

No. It is looking like the 2nd half of March. You will receive an e-mail at your KS e-mail, and your Paizo account most likely when they are available.

There are places in Golarion where both are not Heinous so when they introduce those areas into the game what then?

There are places in Golarion where being a Cleric, Paladin or follower of particular gods is considered Heinous what do you do when they are introduced into the game.

Followers of Asmodeus would not consider Slavery to be a Heinous act should they be able to get the benefits of murdering people who have the Heinous flag for being Slavers?

If it made sense for that part of the world, then they would just alter how the flag works in those areas. Simple.

The Heinous flag is an extremely subjective thing at the current time its just the developers inflicting thier morality or more likely worry about being condemned by groups who would find the behavior offensive.

It seems as if by "extremely subjective" you are saying that GW has a weak argument for why the Heinous flag applies to what it does in the Crusader Road. If so, I wish you just say that, instead of this objective/subjective language, which just muddies the water.

Anywho, if that is what you are saying I think you are incorrect because the Riverlands have specific mores against slavery, and there is lore backing up this particular view. Which doesn't mean slavery is magically not present, as the lore also shows, it just means there is a general distaste for it, if you will.

Here are the main collections info. Enjoy!:

Goblinworks Blogs

Easy to Navigate Collection of Goblinworks Blogs

Community Greetings and Helpful reading

The Blog Posts Everyone Should Read

PFO Fan Wiki

Pathfinder Wiki (lore/Canon)

Just saw this last night, and WOW! I love it! Kind of reminds me of some Erol Otus' pieces, like on the MM.

look for Gygax Magazine here on Paizo.com soon!

That is good to hear!

@Hobbun - You can have as many characters gaining XP as you are willing to pay for.

This is not something really in our control.

If we said "one character gains XP at a time, period", all that would do is cause a lot of people to have more than one account. (This is that EVE has done, and it is why the average number of accounts controlled by EVE players is something like 2.5).

I think that's dumb. We get the same amount of money, but you get the hassle of managing two logins, two passwords, two payments etc.

So we'll let you get for as much parallel XP gain as you want to pay for, and avoid saddling you with the hassle.

I think this makes sense as well, as it makes it easier to track unwanted behavior.

Elorebaen wrote:

I don't think we should create systems that foster "alts"...

How would you propose accomplishing this? Once you get into specifics, I think you will quickly realize that you're up against the same old "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog" problem.

There is simply no way for the system to know if that other characters is your main or my alt.

I realize there will be alts. There is a difference between having alts and fostering them. What I don't want to see are systems that foster alts. For example, if the game systems end up creating a system whereby the only "crafters" are characters that we never really interact with because players see them as "alts," then I think this is bad for the community, and in turn bad for a game based on community.

The issue is not identifying what is an alt, the issue is whether the design supports a deep community based in character interaction. If it does, then it is most likely not fostering alt creation. PFO has already gone a long way to address this by supporting various design elements that support community and player-interaction.

I would rather the devs focused on cool tools that allow for meaningful human interaction, rather than waste any time trying to social-engineer the players into playing a particular way.

I am in 100% agreement, though social-engineering is precisely what we are doing in creating cool tools for meaningful human interaction. We certainly want to engineer the most fertile ground for meaningful human interaction.