Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Why the term MMO shouldn't turn off Table Top fans and what is the down side of this?


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

If you haven't read the Goblinworks blog, please do. Everything that they have planned isn't typical MMO in the WoW DAoC GW EQ sense. This is what a lot of people are expecting PO to turn into but Goblinworks' approach is almost unheard of. 1200 players to start... not 120000. 1200 isn't even a typical MMO server load. They will add more as time progresses. This makes a lot of things possible that haven't been possible before.

1. The game launch will also be like a beta test. There will always be issues with a game launch. The first wave of players SHOULD expect this. It may not happen, but if it does... its only to those who have enough faith in the brand to endure the storm so to speak. It will be a finalized product but even those have issues. The difference is the impact will be minor in comparision to what most MMOs go through and the resources required will be significantly less.

2. Loyal fan base. Think of this as a more refined / DnD-Pathfinderesque Minecraft. If you haven't heard of Minecraft, it is an open world game that looks like a NES Lego-Zedla hybrid. Its a little buggy, but you customize your world while fighting off MOBs. Its fun and addictve. So addictive people bought the alpha release to fund the creator's efforts for a final product. This thing has gained so much momentum Microsoft picked it up and made it the flagship of their new XBOX Live Game Community Project. I believe Pathfinder has a massively larger loyal fan base.

3. Players can shape the IP that fellow players might possibly buy. Could you imagine an annual release of what players did in game, broken down into a module? Of course there is a legal obstacle course to manuver here, but it could be done. Imagine seeing a product on the shelf and thinking to yourself, "I was part of that history." It could quite possibly revolutionize both the MMO and TTRPG genres. Why? Players want to impact the world in a significant manner and have it known... it would be the end users claim to fame.

4. People who play Pathfinder are more likely to immerse themselves in the "fluff" of the game. We are the patrons of (RP Preferred) Servers. We are the ones who stop and take the time to get in-character when we play. That customer-base will aid in the accomplishment of the desired outcome from developers. They want us to be part of this. This isn't someone making a world and saying here have fun. They are saying this is what we want to do... help us do it.

Possible issues that I see happening with this unique approach are few and minor but could quite possibly be crippling.

1. Untested Approach. No one's ever done this before. It doesn't seem like their resources will be stretched but if they are, things can sprial quickly. Issues may not be able to be resolved quickly. Issues may be bigger than anticipated requiring addtional personnel/resources which may or may not be possible. Lack of funding may lead to opening up more subscriptions than previously anticipated which could allow for undesirable players wanting to exploit the game like other MMOs.

2. Undesirable Players. Limited Space available will make players not "with the program" ie looking for another MMO like WOW or EQ2, occupying a subscription all that more potent and thus hampering the game.

3. Slowed Game Play. From the looks of it, they will be slowing the game play down a good bit to deter #2 some. If it slows too much it may be too slow for those of us that are fans of both TTRPGs and MMOs.

Overall, I am very optomistic of what is to come. I hope that everything works out for the development team and am looking forward to playing the game.

Anyone else have thoughts about the pros- cons to the game from a development standpoint?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

The only major con I see to the game so far is that it has Ryan Dancey attached to it. I'm still stinging from his effort to turn the first ever Network Campaign to a Digital venue by destroying the campaign world.

Goblin Squad Member

LazarX wrote:
The only major con I see to the game so far is that it has Ryan Dancey attached to it. I'm still stinging from his effort to turn the first ever Network Campaign to a Digital venue by destroying the campaign world.

Not familiar with this... what happened?

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
Not familiar with this... what happened?

I spent most of the money I earned when Wizards of the Coast was acquired by Hasbro trying to make Living City a viable for-profit venture. In the face of overwhelming player migration to Living Greyhawk. I failed.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a shame y'all have too much integrity to enforce the forum rules about directly attacking other users when the attacks are against you.

It's tiresome reading the same old venom again and again.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people take the weirdest stuff personally.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
Not familiar with this... what happened?

I spent most of the money I earned when Wizards of the Coast was acquired by Hasbro trying to make Living City a viable for-profit venture. In the face of overwhelming player migration to Living Greyhawk. I failed.

RyanD

At least you tried. I have all the respect in the world for people who legitimately attempt to take gaming to the next level. For me there is a clear distinction between doing that and completely clusterfluffing a great setting. Faerun 3X to 4E was a whole hell of a lot of clusterfluffing.

As gamers we should be enlightened enough to know that nothing is true. We all wear rose tinted glasses and sometimes that rose turns to jade. People will have different versions about what happened based on their subconscious prejudices. We are ALL guilty.

I don't agree with the theory that if dungeons were uncontrolled that a battalion of the 75th would go through a decimate the landscape of the game. That seems entirely too MMOpaclypse. I just disagree with having someone lock a dungeon to "sell" it to someone.

I think if Pathfinder Online is marketed correctly... in the correct market, it can survive and thrive, just as Pathfinder has in the face of 4E. The best way I see for this to happen is just as it has been... fan interaction. PFO should never see a Wal-Mart shelf.

I chance to hope... and I hope to be one of the first to walk along the Crusader Road.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My only concern is the feel of the game in the transition from table-top to computer game. They've stated they're not looking to do a port. They've stated they're going to hold to the Golarion world setting. Though, when I think of doing stuff in Golarion I naturally think of the Pathfinder table-top mechanics way of doing so. With no concrete knowing of how skills, feats, abilities, weapons, etc will work I am apprehensive. The mechanics of "how I do stuff" is huge. I'm just used to the table-top rules and can't help but want what I've done with pen and paper except to do it in 1080p resolution.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
I just disagree with having someone lock a dungeon to "sell" it to someone.

It saddens me that you treat "sell" like a dirty word.

Would you react with as much aversion to the idea of "selling" information about prime locations for mining Iron? How about "selling" the iron itself?

Back to the topic of dungeons...

Since it's obviously going to be possible to "discover" a dungeon (Type 1, anyway) and return to town to try to get a group to explore it, what steps do you feel should be taken to ensure the discoverer can't receive compensation for guiding a group to the dungeon and then leaving that group to explore the dungeon without his assistance?


Nihimon wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
I just disagree with having someone lock a dungeon to "sell" it to someone.

It saddens me that you treat "sell" like a dirty word.

Would you react with as much aversion to the idea of "selling" information about prime locations for mining Iron? How about "selling" the iron itself?

Back to the topic of dungeons...

Since it's obviously going to be possible to "discover" a dungeon (Type 1, anyway) and return to town to try to get a group to explore it, what steps do you feel should be taken to ensure the discoverer can't receive compensation for guiding a group to the dungeon and then leaving that group to explore the dungeon without his assistance?

For profit exploration is actually one of the coolest things I'd never even considered that might be possible here. So, that's kinda awesome and I see nothing wrong with it. Most games don't reward exploration at all, or only through "achievements"; for the kids that care about those.

Goblin Squad Member

For those of you completely in the dark like I was while reading this, Living City and Living Greyhawk appear to be two pen and paper campaign settings where the world progresses based on player actions. Greyhawk apparently does this by holding regional campaign events. I would assume living city was something similar, but there wasn't an abundance of information on it that I could find.

So...... from this topic I'm going to assume that Ryan tried to turn it into a digital format in order to make it profitable and altered the campaign world in a way that at least some of the fans were not very pleased about. Grayhawk which was apparently trying to do the same thing, took away a lot of Living City's steam , and Living City sunk into obscurity.

If someone who actually knows what they are talking about could confirm or deny this, that would be helpful.

Whatever the case this appears to have happened some time ago. Apparently Ryan is not a god and makes mistakes. I don't think I am going to hold that against him or this project.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon & Obakararuir, I find myself wanting to agree with both of you. I want Explorers to be self-sustaining but I also don't want dungeon-selling to become a barrier to PvE gameplay. Balance.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
I just disagree with having someone lock a dungeon to "sell" it to someone.

It saddens me that you treat "sell" like a dirty word.

Would you react with as much aversion to the idea of "selling" information about prime locations for mining Iron? How about "selling" the iron itself?

Back to the topic of dungeons...

Since it's obviously going to be possible to "discover" a dungeon (Type 1, anyway) and return to town to try to get a group to explore it, what steps do you feel should be taken to ensure the discoverer can't receive compensation for guiding a group to the dungeon and then leaving that group to explore the dungeon without his assistance?

From the way you described it... and I stated before, it seems like you were selling the "right" to something that we as players should all have access to. The following is what I envisioned when I read what you wrote.

Someone running around dipping into dungeons, running out, putting a lock on the door, and moving on until they have reached their maximum number of "locks". The grabbing a group of people and bringing them to the dungeon, unlocking it for a fee, then moving on with another group, etc. In the mean time, my group is running around looking for dungeons and can't find any because only a certain number in a hex spawn and that limit has been reached by the ten players running around locking their 10 dungeons each in order to sell them.

As far as type one dungeons go, go right ahead. Just because you find them and bring someone to them it doesn't mean I can't access them.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
I just disagree with having someone lock a dungeon to "sell" it to someone.

It saddens me that you treat "sell" like a dirty word.

Would you react with as much aversion to the idea of "selling" information about prime locations for mining Iron? How about "selling" the iron itself?

Back to the topic of dungeons...

Since it's obviously going to be possible to "discover" a dungeon (Type 1, anyway) and return to town to try to get a group to explore it, what steps do you feel should be taken to ensure the discoverer can't receive compensation for guiding a group to the dungeon and then leaving that group to explore the dungeon without his assistance?

I believe in the small scale, few people are opposed to the idea of selling a finding of a dungeon. It's the larger scale people dislike, AKA a scenerio where a small organized group can gain a monopoly on dungeons within several hexes and more or less preventing others from having a chance to discover them themselves.

I like the idea of an explorers guild who I can go to if I want to get to a dungeon with little hassle, on the other hand I greatly hate the idea of say there being 5 explorer guilds, each controlling 1/5th of the map, and it being virtually imposible to actually find a dungeon without paying the explorers guild.

Now as far as how to prevent scenerio 2. I think ryan's plan is pretty good for that, dungeon spawntimes being unpredictable (IE no 30 minute window for a group to quickly grab all of the dungeons the second they pop up), reasonably short times (say 3-4 hours or so), long enough so that hording dungeons en mass isn't going to be a lucrative goal.

IE finding 1 group willing to pay for your dungeon in an hour is a pretty easy task. Finding 5 groups before they start despawning, not so easy.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't like the idea of dungeons being sold like they are a rare resource. Dungeons aren't amusement parks where you pay an entry fee, they are dangerous areas where adventurers can prove their courage.

However the idea of hiring a guide to help you find a dungeon seems very reasonable. So dungeons should not be restricted in how hard it is to find one that someone hasn't already been claimed. They should be hard to find period, with certain trainable skills that make it easier to find.

That way its more like "I found some elven ruins that look like they may have some valuable magical secrets inside, and I'll take you there for 100 silver coins."

Instead of.

"I own every dungeon in these parts! If you want to go adventuring you better pay ME!"

Goblin Squad Member

@Obakararuir, I get your point, although it seems like this what you describe is a "griefing" problem rather than a "selling" problem.

Obakararuir wrote:
As far as type one dungeons go, go right ahead. Just because you find them and bring someone to them it doesn't mean I can't access them.

I'm not sure how you meant this, exactly, but if you're talking about a specific Type 1 Dungeon, then yes it does mean you can't access that one if I've got it locked.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

... its more like "I found some elven ruins that look like they may have some valuable magical secrets inside, and I'll take you there for 100 silver coins."

Instead of.

"I own ever dungeon in these parts! If you want to go adventuring you better pay ME!"

I always envisioned it as the former, not the latter. In fact, I was one of the earlier posters to raise concerns about the latter.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Andius wrote:

... its more like "I found some elven ruins that look like they may have some valuable magical secrets inside, and I'll take you there for 100 silver coins."

Instead of.

"I own ever dungeon in these parts! If you want to go adventuring you better pay ME!"

I always envisioned it as the former, not the latter. In fact, I was one of the earlier posters to raise concerns about the latter.

Agreed that everyone wants the former, but I also agree that it does take the measures Ryan mentioned to prevent the latter. If they are spawning and despawning unpredictably and regularly, that is the only way to make cornering the market difficult. Doubly so in high security zones that are the biggest target for such a scheme (largest density of players to space, most of whom dislike PVP and not wanting to travel outside ot PVP areas.

The bottom line with every mechanic, is the developers have to consider as soon as they are making them "what if 50+ people work together to do X". They can't simply assume that when it is being done en mass it will be defined as griefing as that kind of scheme is just unprovable. If 20 people happen to be selling in an area, one of them is the former, the other 19 are an organized goal to price rig it, working through out of game communication, how do you prove who's griefing and hwo the legit one is.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
it seems like you were selling the "right" to something that we as players should all have access to.

I suppose I do not understand the why of this. It seems to me to be the same logic that suggests everyone should get to kill the uber boss and save the world in their own special story.

If I find a dungeon in which I expect there to be treasure, why can't I draw someone a map and sell it to them? Just limit the maximum dungeon "keys" you can have to one. It would be possible to find others while you are holding a "key" already, but to lock it, you need to release (or sell) the previous one you found. I could, however, sell the location of the other "unlocked" dungeon I found, but I would have to sell it without the lock and key...and someone else might get there first.

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith wrote:
Just limit the maximum dungeon "keys" you can have to one. It would be possible to find others while you are holding a "key" already, but to lock it, you need to release (or sell) the previous one you found. I could, however, sell the location of the other "unlocked" dungeon I found, but I would have to sell it without the lock and key...and someone else might get there first.

This seems like a great solution to me.

All the upside, minimum downside.

Goblin Squad Member

There are some things that WILL happen that WILL turn off P&P players:
- in an MMO you are nothing special, the world does not revolve around you like it usually does in a P&P game
- the game doesn't wait for you
- other players will screw you up
- no MMO can be as imaginative as a P&P game can be, no matter what

The down side of P&P gamers "swarming" PFO could be that there would be likely a good amount of disappointed (if somewhat naive) people bad mouthing the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

MicMan, it's my experience that your second and third points don't apply as events in the world don't hinge upon me and other players still screw me up by either picking my pocket, stopping me from attacking or otherwise being a jackass. By extension of your second point, the sandbox style *makes* the player the center of the world. If the players do nothing then nothing of import happens in the game world. This is illustrated directly by the dungeon mechanic whereby monsters will eventually roam free and destroy settlements if the players don't keep them under control.

I complete agree, however, on your fourth point. The field of flowers you're in can suddenly, and without cause or warning, be a lake of fire in a P&P game but is unlikely in an MMO unless it's coded in.

Goblin Squad Member

In fairness, 'coding' is equivalent to the GM. That field of flowers won't change unless the Gm agrees to it.


Aye.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forencith wrote:

I suppose I do not understand the why of this. It seems to me to be the same logic that suggests everyone should get to kill the uber boss and save the world in their own special story.

I actually disagree with this. If anything I am more against recurring MOBs than I am against selling dungeon access, which I'll get to in a second.

Recurring MOBs with recurring loot is horrible and is something that I hope PFO stays away from. This of course will cause issues with having to generate massive amounts of content to keep things fresh but I believe it can be done. If I kill Hargesh the Gnoll Warlord of the Bloodpaw Tribe, he should be dead. Someone can replace him, the tribe can disband, what have you... but if I loot his ruling spear that has special properties, there should not be another one like it. Multiple plot points can spawn from here. Rival tribe invasion, tribe split, tribe disbaning and sold into slavery, tribe get desperate and starts reckless attacks of retaliation. Hargesh should never roam the realm again... save some other plot point of resurrection, undead awakening.... etc. These are just examples on a small scale of how non-recurring MOBs can work.... in theory mind you.

Nihimon wrote:
Forencith wrote:
Just limit the maximum dungeon "keys" you can have to one. It would be possible to find others while you are holding a "key" already, but to lock it, you need to release (or sell) the previous one you found. I could, however, sell the location of the other "unlocked" dungeon I found, but I would have to sell it without the lock and key...and someone else might get there first.

This seems like a great solution to me.

All the upside, minimum downside.

This given that you have to be part of an explorer consortium, in order to gain a "key". You would have to provide security on the entrance and if that security is killed or flees exclusive access is waived. Any "keys" are dropable lootable items. I can see this working. Otherwise I would have to argue the point that everyone can explore.

Now if exploration is going to be an occupation type then it should be quantified by skill improvement which would lead to a logical reason as to why you could find some dungeons that others couldn't. This gives reason to why you should be able to sell them and would make the whole providing guards unnecessary since the average adventurer shouldn't be able to find it. At least that is how I see it.

I'm fully open to everyone being able to do what they want in the game IN CHARACTER as long as it can be justified through mechanics and plot. The idea of a dungeon being locked because that's the game just irks me. I know and accept that there will be things that have to be and cannot be helped but the less the better.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Obakararuir wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The only major con I see to the game so far is that it has Ryan Dancey attached to it. I'm still stinging from his effort to turn the first ever Network Campaign to a Digital venue by destroying the campaign world.
Not familiar with this... what happened?

It was how the original network campaign, RPGA's Living City ended. To be brief, Living City was sold to Ryan Dancey who promised more, professional scenarios. Instead his first approach was to nuke the city, move us forward 100 years and make everyone scrap their characters and start over.

When that got roundly rejected by the player base he decided to run two parrallel campaigns on a very weird premise. Dancey had promised a series of professionally run modules and in the same context told the folks who had authored Living City modules in the past that their services would no longer be needed. And the module run essentially stopped petering to a couple of modules a year and then none. And at that point most of the LC players gave up in disgust and moved to Living Greyhawk.

He had stated that he was going to add a Digital dimension to the campaign, without any clue as to how we were going to support it at conventions. (I was an RPGA judge and volounteer at the time.) In short anyone who was involved with Living City at the time can't avoid remembering Dancey with more than a little bit of bitterness.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
... if I loot his ruling spear that has special properties, there should not be another one like it.

I totally agree with this. I also just had an epiphany about unique items like this, as well as Relics and Artifacts, and how to make them worthwhile as pure loot drops without unduly perturbing the crafting economy. Is it reasonable for most crafted gear to have few, if any, drawbacks, while exceptionally powerful crafted items, Relics, and Artifacts would have significant drawbacks to offset their power?

Obakararuir wrote:
Otherwise I would have to argue the point that everyone can explore.

I understand Ryan's post to mean that it will be entirely possible for anyone to simply stumble upon a Dungeon, and I'm not a huge fan of creating any deep skill tree to make this easier. I wouldn't object to a fairly shallow skill tree to make it easier, but it shouldn't require a lot of investment, if any.

Obakararuir wrote:
The idea of a dungeon being locked because that's the game just irks me. I know and accept that there will be things that have to be and cannot be helped but the less the better.

100% agree, with both points.

Goblin Squad Member

LazarX wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The only major con I see to the game so far is that it has Ryan Dancey attached to it. I'm still stinging from his effort to turn the first ever Network Campaign to a Digital venue by destroying the campaign world.
Not familiar with this... what happened?

It was how the original network campaign, RPGA's Living City ended. To be brief, Living City was sold to Ryan Dancey who promised more, professional scenarios. Instead his first approach was to nuke the city, move us forward 100 years and make everyone scrap their characters and start over.

When that got roundly rejected by the player base he decided to run two parrallel campaigns on a very weird premise. Dancey had promised a series of professionally run modules and in the same context told the folks who had authored Living City modules in the past that their services would no longer be needed. And the module run essentially stopped petering to a couple of modules a year and then none. And at that point most of the LC players gave up in disgust and moved to Living Greyhawk.

He had stated that he was going to add a Digital dimension to the campaign, without any clue as to how we were going to support it at conventions. (I was an RPGA judge and volounteer at the time.) In short anyone who was involved with Living City at the time can't avoid remembering Dancey with more than a little bit of bitterness.

Bitter =/= showing up in every post that has anything to do with Ryan Dancey and bringing up this old tired stuff repeatedly. That's a bit beyond bitter.

Let it go, please.

Goblin Squad Member

In LazarX's defense, I asked. Ryan gave his account, LazarX gave his. Truth and fact are both objective, hence us only having 8 planets in our solar system instead of 9.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
In LazarX's defense, I asked. Ryan gave his account, LazarX gave his. Truth and fact are both objective, hence us only having 8 planets in our solar system instead of 9.

Yes, except his facts are wrong.

We tried to run with existing Living City content for most of a year. There just weren't enough scenarios that could be used to continue. We begged people to submit content, and got mostly crickets (or scenarios designed so that a very small number of people could do things they wanted to do, even though those things were strictly forbidden by the rules of the campaign, or were limited to storylines involving specific characters and of no interest to other players.)

We tried using libraries of existing content from other publishers. That took as much work as writing scenarios ourselves. We tried hiring developers to do the work - it turned out that teaching them all the strange conditions and insider knowledge required to make a Living City scenario took so long that they couldn't be paid to do the work. We tried writing the scenarios ourselves, and burned out; no surprise there.

In the end we tried a reboot to make it simpler to create content, but by that point it was an exercise in futility since Living Greyhawk had effectively consumed the old Living City social network. Ending the campaign at that point was the only sensible thing to do.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Obakararuir wrote:
In LazarX's defense, I asked. Ryan gave his account, LazarX gave his. Truth and fact are both objective, hence us only having 8 planets in our solar system instead of 9.

Yes, except his facts are wrong.

We tried to run with existing Living City content for most of a year. There just weren't enough scenarios that could be used to continue. We begged people to submit content, and got mostly crickets (or scenarios designed so that a very small number of people could do things they wanted to do, even though those things were strictly forbidden by the rules of the campaign, or were limited to storylines involving specific characters and of no interest to other players.)

We tried using libraries of existing content from other publishers. That took as much work as writing scenarios ourselves. We tried hiring developers to do the work - it turned out that teaching them all the strange conditions and insider knowledge required to make a Living City scenario took so long that they couldn't be paid to do the work. We tried writing the scenarios ourselves, and burned out; no surprise there.

In the end we tried a reboot to make it simpler to create content, but by that point it was an exercise in futility since Living Greyhawk had effectively consumed the old Living City social network. Ending the campaign at that point was the only sensible thing to do.

RyanD

Regardless, those events hold no direct influence on the current endeavor save the experiences of what does and does not work.

Goblin Squad Member

Obakararuir wrote:
Forencith wrote:

I suppose I do not understand the why of this. It seems to me to be the same logic that suggests everyone should get to kill the uber boss and save the world in their own special story.

I actually disagree with this. If anything I am more against recurring MOBs than I am against selling dungeon access, which I'll get to in a second.

Recurring MOBs with recurring loot is horrible and is something that I hope PFO stays away from. This of course will cause issues with having to generate massive amounts of content to keep things fresh but I believe it can be done. If I kill Hargesh the Gnoll Warlord of the Bloodpaw Tribe, he should be dead. Someone can replace him, the tribe can disband, what have you... but if I loot his ruling spear that has special properties, there should not be another one like it. Multiple plot points can spawn from here. Rival tribe invasion, tribe split, tribe disbaning and sold into slavery, tribe get desperate and starts reckless attacks of retaliation. Hargesh should never roam the realm again... save some other plot point of resurrection, undead awakening.... etc. These are just examples on a small scale of how non-recurring MOBs can work.... in theory mind you.

Nihimon wrote:
Forencith wrote:
Just limit the maximum dungeon "keys" you can have to one. It would be possible to find others while you are holding a "key" already, but to lock it, you need to release (or sell) the previous one you found. I could, however, sell the location of the other "unlocked" dungeon I found, but I would have to sell it without the lock and key...and someone else might get there first.

This seems like a great solution to me.

All the upside, minimum downside.

This given that you have to be part of an explorer consortium, in order to gain a "key". You would have to provide security on the entrance and if that security is killed or flees exclusive access is waived. Any "keys" are dropable lootable items. I can see this...

I agree with everything you have stated. I now agree that found dungeons should not be locked to a player. The play is welcome to "call in" security to watch the entrance so they can go sell the location to someone, but it is absurd to think a player would be able to "padlock" an ogre den so no one else can get in...and in a sandbox, I think such artificial absurdities should be limited.

I do think a strong charter can kill on sight anyone in their territory...and through such tactics maintain control of any dungeons in their territory.


Obakararuir wrote:
Truth and fact are both objective, hence us only having 8 planets in our solar system instead of 9.

There are NINE FREAKING PLANETS.

Otherwise, what is my very excited mother going to serve us?

Goblin Squad Member

Nothing?


Exactly. It's not fair. You can't just nerf the solar system.

End Astronomical Tyranny--Protest Oppression Of Pluto!

T-shirts currently out of stock.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Why the term MMO shouldn't turn off Table Top fans and what is the down side of this? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.