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

RPG Superstar 2015

Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LOL @ Goatsee Castle

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


- I'm not interested in playing the "finances" game...I'm interested in being a part, if only a small part, of an organization involved in the "empire building game". If Charted Companies are the core organizations involved in that....and they have a membership slot limit...that leaves me out in the cold as far as...
I see absolutely no reason to see chartered companies as the core organization involved in making or breaking the world. In the war concept CC's are likely to be squadrons, and odds are if someones squadron is half empty they would either have members outside of companies, or split teams of multiple companies etc... A 24 man team isn't going to be fighting wars by themselves, settlements and player nations are going to be fighting the wars. Chartered companies have never been described as the big movers and shakers in the world. As a casual player I see nothing that would hinder you from joining a settlement or player nation and showing up in 1 in 3 wars

Right, membership in a SETTLEMENT isn't a problem. There is no limitation on those slots. It's membership in the Chartered Company that the problem. That's where the membership limitation comes into play.

However it's the Charted Companies that are the foundation of Settlement Building. Since they are the ones who be OWNERS of the FORTS, WATCHTOWERS, ETC....that are the PRE-REQUISITES for BUILDING the SETTLEMENT. If I want to participate in that aspect of the game, I can't because of the Membership limitations.

Now once a Settlement is BUILT....I can join it...but that's a different aspect of the game....that's "Empire Maintenance" not "Empire Building". You can't be a member of more then one Settlement, so it's not like I'll be participating in building another for my Settlement Charter.

The best I can hope for, therefore...is to be an OUTSIDER who is involved in helping to build someone elses settlement...whether it's as a member of an existing settlement which is helping to build some other folks Settlement so they can establish a Settlement Charter Organization and we can eventualy Ally witn them....or as person outside of the initial Chartered Company which is building the settlement pre-requisites for the settlement organization that I eventualy want to join...but doesn't exist yet.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Onishi wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


- I'm not interested in playing the "finances" game...I'm interested in being a part, if only a small part, of an organization involved in the "empire building game". If Charted Companies are the core organizations involved in that....and they have a membership slot limit...that leaves me out in the cold as far as...
I see absolutely no reason to see chartered companies as the core organization involved in making or breaking the world. In the war concept CC's are likely to be squadrons, and odds are if someones squadron is half empty they would either have members outside of companies, or split teams of multiple companies etc... A 24 man team isn't going to be fighting wars by themselves, settlements and player nations are going to be fighting the wars. Chartered companies have never been described as the big movers and shakers in the world. As a casual player I see nothing that would hinder you from joining a settlement or player nation and showing up in 1 in 3 wars

Right, membership in a SETTLEMENT isn't a problem. There is no limitation on those slots. It's membership in the Chartered Company that the problem. That's where the membership limitation comes into play.

However it's the Charted Companies that are the foundation of Settlement Building. Since they are the ones who be OWNERS of the FORTS, WATCHTOWERS, ETC....that are the PRE-REQUISITES for BUILDING the SETTLEMENT. If I want to participate in that aspect of the game, I can't because of the Membership limitations.

Now once a Settlement is BUILT....I can join it...but that's a different aspect of the game....that's "Empire Maintenance" not "Empire Building". You can't be a member of more then one Settlement, so it's not like I'll be participating in building another for my Settlement Charter.

The best I can hope for, therefore...is to be an OUTSIDER who is involved in helping to build someone elses settlement...whether it's as a member of an existing settlement which is helping to...

Actually, you're wrong. In order to upgrade that fort into a settlement you need a settlement charter be signed. You can sign said charter and participate in that and will at that point be a FOUNDING member of the settlement.

Unless you're just absolutely hung up on the Fort building part... which could have been built months and months previous before anyone decided to upgrade everything from a Fort to a Settlement. Because the ability to create a settlement isn't going to be put in until 7-8 months after launch at which point a bunch of Chartered companies could have had Forts sitting around for a month or two just waiting.


Ryan Dancey wrote:

Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem. The problem will be the supply chain. You'll need way more than 24 people to harvest, process, craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting a character trianed, merit badged, and abilititied to run the construction job will be something you'll be able to reach with a few months of work.

To avoid GrumpyMel's double-cross scenario, the Settlement Charter needs to be created before ground is broken on the Fort.

Otherwise, what assurances (in writing) do the builders of the Fort have?

Goblin Squad Member

Grumpy, you're really focused on how settlement building and a "limited" CC size will affect the limited-time group, and I think you need to nail down your goal posts so we can have a discussion on what your concerns are. First you say a CC can't conceivably build up a Settlement because of some logistical confusion about the process; Responses are given and you shift the discussion without acknowledging those points. Clearly your not interested in playing the "finances" game, but I was merely pointing out how many people can contribute to the construction of a settlement without having to rely on mere "promise" for a reward. Now you're lamenting a limited time player not being able to maintain a spot in an organization that can only be described as the hardest of the hardcore. A casual player not being allowed into a MinMaxing timecounting 24/7 CC. Not really a broad concern I think.

I'm sure there will be places for casual players to attempt to access the "empire building" aspects of the game. They may not have the most important role, or have the highest esteem, but its a harsh assumption to say merely Opportunity Costs will completely exclude you from what should be one of the more Advanced aspects of the game.

Are you arguing that everyone should have access to empire building? Are you arguing for a different view of a Chartered Company that has unlimited membership (mapping it more closely to an existing MMO guild structure)? Do you want the "whole" game available to you in on a few hours of game play?

At no point did anyone say Only one Chartered Company will be able to construct a settlement, as you seem to have assumed. I've been arguing that in fact, many companies will go into hatching such a project in the most efficient way possible, barring specific details, there's nothing preventing these disparate companies from benefiting from the endeavor. Maybe a 24 person group is capable of building it all up from scratch, but it would naturally take a significantly longer period of time than actually engaging into a community of services. "Maximizing Social Interactions" Its how things will get done efficiently.

Goblin Squad Member

Gregg Reece wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


Right, but that COIN can only come from it's MEMBERSHIP. If it's MEMBERSHIP is limited to 24 slots... then if you can contribute more COIN or Hours then I can...I'm OUT. The organization would be HURTING itself by WASTING a SLOT on me. Which means I'm completely cut out of participating in that aspect of the game to any degree.

Only if your friends are dicks.

The other viewpoint is that 5-6 Chartered Companies realize that none of them have the needed skills nor workers to sufficiently sustain nor build a Settlement on their own and instead decide to join forces. Then you've got nearly 150 spots that can help out. Tada.

Or, 100 people on the boards decide to just build a settlement without anyone creating a Chartered Company first. Tada.

Or, your Chartered Company isn't interested in ever building their own settlement, but you've got some other friends who are interested in it. You help those other people build the settlement and you become a member of it. Tada.

Or, you become independently wealthy and have purchased all of the materials and laborers to build a settlement just for you. You get enough people to qualify for the charter and each are being paid to sign, because they're going to be kicked out directly afterward. The settlement is built and you are the only person that is a part of it. Tada.

Sure but again that all relies on BLIND FAITH that the OWNERS of the FORT that you've HELPED build actualy do what they've promised they would when they've got it built...namely use it to create a settlement for they Settlement Chartered Organization which you are hoping to join.

Now, I'm personaly, not too worried about that as the group I'm currently involved with seem pretty honerable.... but I can almost assure the dynamic sets up a situation ripe for exploitation by folks who will gladly take the help...but then turn around and do something completely different then what they promised with said Fort...
and the victems will be hampered in thier ability to get recourse since Forts and Settlements seem to provide significant mechanical benefits to an organization.

In other words, the mechanics are setup to be ripe for exploitation.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Well so far the only part that we clearly see as a hinderance, is you being able to build the fort. I am still very much unsure of whether Ryan was talking about the fort building being the huge expense, or if the fort is relatively less of a challange, and the upgrading of the fort to a settlement is what is the long time/resource consuming part. Even there, you still are talking a very small window, you CAN easily go to creating the settlement from the first fort, you CAN be a part in building the second fort if they are making a second settlement to make a nation. The window of what you might not be a part of is one small, 1 time event... Something of which you could avoid by starting out hard core, and then turning casual after that fort has been upgraded to a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

Building the Fort isn't going to be your problem. The problem will be the supply chain. You'll need way more than 24 people to harvest, process, craft and transport all the required construction materials in a reasonable amount of time.

Getting a character trianed, merit badged, and abilititied to run the construction job will be something you'll be able to reach with a few months of work.

To avoid GrumpyMel's double-cross scenario, the Settlement Charter needs to be created before ground is broken on the Fort.

Otherwise, what assurances (in writing) do the builders of the Fort have?

EXACTLY

Goblin Squad Member

Put another way, at 8 months post launch Gruffling's Rangers decides its done being roamers and freeloaders and they want to build a settlement. We pool resources, scout a hex, settle into the pacification process (where ideally we generate significant wealth/profits), and eventually get enough resources together to put up a Fort. Now GR owns a Fort, has some cash, and decides its TIME. We reach out, make some contracts and alliances and as a Chartered Company, we've evolved our alliances and built up enough capital to advance our cause. We write a Town Charter, offering founding members a seat on a political body (perhaps another revenue stream) and hit the switch on our Fort. G's Rangers hits the commission on a reliable caravan group and they start regular deliveries of supplies so the core 24 can get to the business of defending and managing the project (however that will happen, who knows). Some (yet to be decided) amount of time later, Boom, Fort hatches into a Gruffling's Gruffville and now we start the game of building a loyal populace and so on.

Now, in this scenario I tried to frame it in terms of what's achievable. Will Gruffville be the first settlement? No, not even close. Is it still possible to do on less than the hardest core schedule of unrelenting 24.7 gameplay, I think so.

Goblin Squad Member

A Fort is just a Fort. It is not a Settlement.

I have a feeling that the upgrade from Fort to Settlement will be more than the materials needed to build the Fort in the first place. Probably enough more that any Chartered Company interested in doing it would either have to dig deep or expand their sphere of influence.

What this would do is if someone was saying, "Hey! I want to build a new settlement from the ground up. Give me your materials so I can build a Fort." You tell them to bugger off, because you have no guarantees that you won't be screwed over.

Someone else says, "Hey, I have a Fort. I'd like to upgrade it to a Settlement. Here is the proposed Settlement Charter. Who else would like to sign up?" Then you have a settlement charter and the initial settlement community. You have the community to start upgrading that Fort into a full settlement and you have some vague guarantees that you won't be screwed over by con artists. Everything would be built on the contract and community systems of the game instead of on the good will of others to keep up their ends of the deal.

I have no idea if that's how things will be, but it would give more guarantees to those wanting to be involved in the building of a settlement. At that point, you just find someone with a Fort who wants to build a Settlement out of it. There might be Chartered Companies that make a living out of clearing hexes and building Forts to sell to those wanting to build a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Sure but again that all relies on BLIND FAITH that the OWNERS of the FORT that you've HELPED build actualy do what they've promised they would when they've got it built...namely use it to create a settlement for they Settlement Chartered Organization which you are hoping to join.

I've already attempted to address how this isn't really an issue, and basically you've stated "I don't want to do it that way". Sure, the people that technically own the settlement can double cross the constituents that helped provide services to build out a project, but at the end of the day, that will come at a political cost. Maintaining that Fort might be a real hassle if you're outed as a doublecrossing organization. How will you generate the good will to actually advance to a settlement if you've been pissing people off. Particularly with organizations already forming specifically for the purpose of dropping beatdown on this type of behavior.

If you help build anything on a promise and a prayer, you might have spent your time better. If you get paid when you render the service, you still profit from the endeavor, even if they people running the settlement project exclude you, and make an enemy of you. Now you have more money, more expertise on how to build up a settlement, and likely a bunch of other Companies also interested in seeing Dooshville (owned by King Doosherton MacJerkface) razed and his populace put to the sword. And so the game keeps going, with challenges and victories and defeats aplenty for everyone. It's not Civilization where you get to define your difficulty, and build you Empire as you see fit. What should be part of the fun of this game is the potential for unexpected challenges brought on by other peoples' desire to fulfill their own goals.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Virgil Firecask wrote:


Okay, vaguely important question.
Quote:
I presume that spots good for a Hideout, Inn, Watchtower, and Fort would be different from each other and if you find a location good for one of those, it probably wouldn't be good for the others.

Yes.

Quote:
Also, I presume that a Chartered Company programmatically will be limited to having only one physical structure (and the logistics would prevent having much more than that anyway).

No, and why would they have such limits?

Quote:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of those various types of structures from a high-level and much hand-waving point of view?

They're designed to do very different things.

Hideouts allow bandits to operate from a hidden base as opposed to just wandering around the wilderness visible to anyone who spies on them.

Inns allow people to set up meeting points for both community and for trade in places where there are no Settlements nearby. (Once there are Settlements nearby they become primarily roleplaying venues).

Watchtowers are designed for Settlements to use to maintain security of their territory. There's little reason to have a Watchtower before you have a Settlement.

Forts serve three purposes. They will be micro-settlements before full fledged Settlements enter the game and the hub around which a full-fledged Settlement can develop in time.

They form a base of forward operations for a group that wants to tackle challenging wilderness activities without having to manage a supply and logistics chain all the way back to another Settlement.

They are an offensive weapon just like medieval castles. You put them in territory you intend to conquer and you treat them like aircraft carriers - basing your strike teams from them to attack nearby targets.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
Grumpy, you're really focused on how settlement building and a "limited" CC size will affect the limited-time group, and I think you need to nail down your goal posts so we can have a discussion on what your concerns are. First you say a CC can't conceivably build up a Settlement because of some logistical confusion about the process; Responses are given and you shift the discussion without acknowledging those points.

No I asked Ryan what the expectations were of the amount of effort and group size involved in the construction of settlement pre-requisite buildings. I did that specificaly because I did not want to be working off of ASSUMPTIONS that might be inaccurate.

His response was that the actual Construction of the Fort wasn't a big deal, but the supply-chain involved would require "way" more people then the 24-man roster a CC was limited to.

I'm not IGNORING statements given...if you haven't noticed I've been making extra effort to insure I'm not assuming things and I'm working off of accurate statements about the design mechanics.

Gruffling wrote:


Clearly your not interested in playing the "finances" game, but I was merely pointing out how many people can contribute to the construction of a settlement without having to rely on mere "promise" for a reward.

Sure but that has nothing to do with participating in the "empire building", they guy who is doing it just for cash is simply being a merchant....entirely different dynamic then the guy who is doing it because they want to see something grow from it.

Gruffling wrote:


Now you're lamenting a limited time player not being able to maintain a spot in an organization that can only be described as the hardest of the hardcore. A casual player not being allowed into a MinMaxing timecounting 24/7 CC. Not really a broad concern I think.

I'm lamenting because the proposed dynamics create an artificial and uneccesary requirement for organizations to be the "hardest of hardcore"

in order to participate in that aspect of play....rather then organizations that are open to members who comprise a variety of different play styles...ranging from the hardest of hardcore to the completely casualy....each participating to the degree that they can and reaping rewards commensurate to the degree they can participate...but NOT being excluded from participation.

Gruffling wrote:


Are you arguing that everyone should have access to empire building?

Yes, I'm advocating that everyone should be able to participate in that aspect of play to some degree. That doesn't mean that everyone should get to be "the King"....but everyone should be allowed to participate in service to "the King" to some degree.

Gruffling wrote:


Are you arguing for a different view of a Chartered Company that has unlimited membership (mapping it more closely to an existing MMO guild structure)?

That or absent that, if it proves to be undesirable for other reasons... to allow Settlement Charter Organizations to exist for long enough without a Settlement to participating in the ground-breaking of Forts and doing all the pre-requisites that are required for a settlement to be created.

Gruffling wrote:


Do you want the "whole" game available to you in on a few hours of game play?

No I'm arguing that the mechanics should not be designed to INCENTIVIZE organizations to EXCLUDE players from membership/participation simply because they have a limited (or more realisticaly...NORMAL..) play schedule. Rather mechanics should be designed so that Organizations are not required/incentivized on placing barriers to membership and participation of individuals. Organizations should not feel pressured to exclude individuals simply because of the number of hours they can contribute, if they otherwise are a good match for the organization. Players should recieve rewards commensurate to thier contribution, but that should not include a complete bar on participation. YMMV.


Ryan, can you speak to how you hypothetically see the first few settlements coming together with regards to NPCs, supplies, cost, time from game launch, inter-player and inter-company politics, etc?

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks, I have a much better idea of what your concerns are, and I can maybe offer differing perspectives that might sooth them.

A major concern is the perception that a Settlement Building effort will force exclusion of casual players from contributing in an immediate way, promoting a sense of ownership over the project. In my Gruffville example, I tried to point out the opportunity should exist for a less hardcore "slower" style of settlement building. If Grumpy's Co. has developed enough of a resource base or capital, you should be able to put the pieces together over time, with the help of external communities. You will not be the first settlement on the map, but the map should always be large enough to allow for further expansion on less than Hyper-efficient methods. Its only when you make the blanket assumption that everyone will be trying as hard as possible to go as fast as possible that you start to enter into the exclusionary realm of hardcore vs casual. This is normal for any MMO that different types of players will self select into different capacities.

The concern that the dynamics of limited company size are "unnecessary" misses the forest for the trees. Players will have the option of joining monolithic groups (nations, kingdoms, alliances, w/e), capable of large scale movements and influence, but the Chartered Company isn't that group. If you allow a Co. unlimited size, there will be little to no reason to invest in the larger scale organizational models, for a couple reasons: A) its what everyone expects from the simplistic style of Guild in existing MMOs. B) with a single large group you have less incentive to maximize interactions, since you can keep everything "in house". The more you do that, the less pressure there is on the economic model, and the less interaction between groups, until you get several large kingdoms that you HAVE to join to feel safe and find progression. Diversification is key to avoiding that, and when you limit the size "artificially" you also assure a diverse number of companies. We'll still see larger groups form, but under less predictable and more dynamic methods.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
Ryan, can you speak to how you hypothetically see the first few settlements coming together with regards to NPCs, supplies, cost, time from game launch, inter-player and inter-company politics, etc?

I see some being built by small groups of people who are incredibly dedicated to the task.

I see some being built by large groups of people who are incredibly dedicated to the task.

I see some being accidents where all the conditions happened to be right but nobody was working towards that goal until someone has an "ah-ha!" moment and shows others how to fit all the pieces together.

There won't be any Settlements until at least the 7th month. Not that it will take 7 months to make one, but that we don't intend to seed the necessary stuff into the game for at least 7 months.

My current (very, very very rough) calculations are that it will take about 75 player days of labor to harvest, process, and craft the necessary resources for a Fort and a Settlement. That assumes that we set things up so that you could gain the necessary skills, merit badges and abilities to do all that harvesting, processing and crafting in parallel with that work (which may not be the case). The time for construction is not factored into that estimate.

My current (very, very very rough) plan is that the most common commodities consume most of that time, with wood beams and fieldstone being the primary intermediate components used. This means that low-skilled, new PCs could be doing a lot of the bulk work, giving them some reason to be recruited by groups trying to build a Settlement. But there are some high-end things (like Soulstones) that will require fairly substantial commitments of time to gain the ability to craft as well.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Quote:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of those various types of structures from a high-level and much hand-waving point of view?

They're designed to do very different things.

Hideouts allow bandits to operate from a hidden base as opposed to just wandering around the wilderness visible to anyone who spies on them.

I can see hide-outs being used for much more than bandit attacks. They would make a perfect place to allow a group to spy on their rivals.

“Dang, how is it Gruff’s rangers seem to know our every move, and can seemingly attack and disappear without trace”

Hide-outs would also be a great way to ambush armies. The army may not be quick travelling to attack a settlement. However, having hide-outs strewn along the road from settlement X to settlement Y means you could engage in guerrilla warfare.

I can think of some other interesting options for hide-outs, but I’ll keep them under wraps.

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Inns allow people to set up meeting points for both community and for trade in places where there are no Settlements nearby. (Once there are Settlements nearby they become primarily roleplaying venues).

Inns could be a great location for merchants to setup, if they want to be able to sell to a diverse range of alignments.

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Watchtowers are designed for Settlements to use to maintain security of their territory. There's little reason to have a Watchtower before you have a Settlement.

Personally I can see watchtowers as a good intermediate step towards securing a hex as they;

• Provide a secure place to log off
• Provide storage (perhaps useful for storing some of the building blocks needed to create a Fort)
• Provide warning of impending attacks
• Provide some protection(?) – I’m not sure if you can attack from inside a watchtower, but it would make sense.
• Send a clear statement that group X intend to ‘claim’ this hex

Also if a group was proactive they could scour a hex for all suitable sites to create watchtowers. This would then limit rival watchtowers secretly popping up as they would need to destroy the current one first, alerting the group as to their intentions.

Goblin Squad Member

Once the initial time investment is done and all the pieces can be created is there anything more involved that would make it difficult to throw up a second settlement? If there's a group that can throw a boatload of membership (not even talking Chartered Company here, just a bunch of folks organized outside the game) at the resource gathering you could, in theory, have all the resources gathered in a couple days and then you are all set to start settlement #2 hatching.

Using goons as an example, what would stop them from throwing 600 people at resource gathering and crafting then popping Goatse Castles all over the countryside after they build the first Temple of Something Awful? 75 player-days is 1800 hours. With 600 people that comes down to 3 hours per person. Even though you can't parallel all the tasks, that's still roughly a settlement per day assuming the average member plays for only 3 yours a day.

There's really no reason I can see not to gather the materials for multiple settlements at once and run full-tilt at the bottlenecks in manufacturing and transport. Get enough materials for multiple settlements and then sic your slavering hordes on the obstacles in whatever hex you want that you don't already control.

I guess my point of concern is that time to learn how to do something really isn't much of a check since it's a one-time expense. Just look at Titans. Sure it takes a long time to fly one, and a blueprint is expensive, but those are one-time costs and we can see the effect that has had in the EVE universe.

Once a Fort or Settlement is up what kind of upkeep or maintenance would be required? Are there any on-going costs? What would it cost to add another building/store/defense/etc, and what would that addition do to the maintenance?

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Mr. Dancey,

Since this issue seems to have confused a large number of players (myself included), would you mind a larger, more in depth blog post on your ideas for how social organizations would work? And then show how various social organizations fit into the scheme of how to create and grow a settlement? And the goal of settlements themselves?

Right now, as it see it, organization flows like this: individual --> party --> chartered company --> settlement --> player nation. The question is, what is the role of each of the steps in growing? Any clarification would be great, and a blog post would make sure you don't have to answer the same question 100 times before the information gets saturated into the community :)

Goblin Squad Member

Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
There won't be any Settlements until at least the 7th month. Not that it will take 7 months to make one, but that we don't intend to seed the necessary stuff into the game for at least 7 months.

It’s been mentioned that the game mechanic to advance a Fort to a Settlement won’t be available until approx. 7 months after the initial launch. That means that everyone has approx. 7 months to gather enough resources/coin to construct a Fort and have the resources required to advance the Fort to a settlement, once the game mechanic is introduced.

Therefore even if you have a slow start, it still sounds plausible that the majority of players/chartered companies/guilds who want to have a settlement when the game mechanic is introduced, will be able to.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
organization flows like this: individual --> party --> chartered company --> settlement --> player nation.

It's not one track. It's likely three tracks.

individual --> (party)
This is your temporary group for today's game session, or the next half hour. (I'm assuming you can be both in a company/guild and party, if only because most MMOs work that way.)

individual --> chartered company
This is your permanent close circle of companions. It's like a small guild in other MMOs.

individual --> settlement --> player nation
This is your home base on the map. The settlement is like a large guild in other MMOs, but tied to a base in a hex. The nation is like a very large guild in other MMOs. It needs a minimum of two settlements.

Parties, companies, and settlements are social structures made up of players. Companies don't join together to make settlements - the individuals in those companies join together to make settlements. Nations are social structures made up of settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.

A mixture of both.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan, you mentioned a 'logistics train'. How are you imagining that working out- will characters engaged in combat consume some resource that needs to be replenished, will forts allow associated people to respawn there, or something else?

In other words, why is it advantageous for me to be close to my fort while clearing out dungeons?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.
A mixture of both.

One thing I am a bit currious on, what is the primary point of contention intended? At least from my understanding many of the goals involve

1. reducing/eliminating choke points
2. Having resources mostly spread out so that no area has an extreme stranglehold on any type of resource.
3. Continuing to have enough land that having a settlement is not too difficult for a new charter.

All of which I fundimentally agree with, and have to agree they are extremely good in allowing future players to come in and not just stick with the same static leadership.

On the other hand... what is the driving force for war at that point. Why would 2 established guilds actually care to get at eachothers throats beyond brief spurts of pride. Assuming war is costly and harmful to both involved what is the main drive to expand out, yet at the same time not be encoraging the expansion that puts the larger empires at conflict, but at the same time not encoraging these empires to plow over and absorb the younger weaker settlements at a rate that forces new players to have the choice to join one of the great empires, or forever remain weak in NPC territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.
A mixture of both.

I would sugggest that a long seige be required to take a fort or settlement. Something that allows the owners to be able to respond to the attack even if they are offline when the attack began. If the fight is over right away one side could attack at night while the other players are sleeping. Maybe something like the attacker has to take an objective thru 3 fights that take place at a 3 different set times.That would give the defender time to call in allies and make war difficult.


Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.

Ah, so PFO has it's first coward!

I'll be happy doing all that hard work if it means pillaging your village.

Oh, and this is sort of one of my first posts, so HELLO PFO community.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.
A mixture of both.
I would sugggest that a long seige be required to take a fort or settlement. Something that allows the owners to be able to respond to the attack even if they are offline when the attack began. If the fight is over right away one side could attack at night while the other players are sleeping. Maybe something like the attacker has to take an objective thru 3 fights that take place at a 3 different set times.That would give the defender time to call in allies and make war difficult.

I would say there is good and bad to both sides of the coin. On one hand yes there is the issue of supprise strike coming out of nowhere when the settlement is nearly empty.

On the other hand... Who honestly wants to fight a 6 to 8 hour war, and what sense does forced scheduling make in a sandbox. Why are the walls impenitrable except on tuesdays from 4-8pm... no that doesn't make a lick of sense at all. Worse with the long battle idea, the idea of the seige having an end almost completely vanishes. as obviously people are going to die, many times over in a battle, If the war dosn't generally end in the time it takes for one side to kill everyone on the other side... well then we are assuming it takes a reasonably small amount of time to get back into the action, at which point... well what is stopping the battle from going on indefinently?

Secondly the timeframe when a settlement is completely empty sounds like a rediculous notion. When we are talking settlements we are looking at organizations of sizes that should be well above 100, if an organization didn't recruit any members that play durring the "off" hours, that is a huge oversight.

That being said, I also agree, there should be time for a warning and a response, The concept of Siege enginery does provide options for a believable attack that is neither forced into a schedule, nor capable of popping in and out before a reasonable chance of response can occour.

IMO a workable system (this may or may not have anything to do with what GW is planning, but it is simply a system that is an option). Seige enginry itself could not necesarally be player operated at all. It could be an NPC run structure, of which the player must command, mobilize and send out. Now lets assume it takes say 6-12 hours minimum to mobilize and set up an NPC force to man siege engines, carry the battering rams etc... and then longer than that to move these engines and forces through hexes to the target

Now settlements themselves have options in something they can set up, an invisible NPC spy/informants network. Depending on how well this group is leveled up, determines how long the advanced warning is to if someone else is setting up an attack. This eliminates the war on a set schedule, but still gives long notable warnings, grants potential for counters etc... but also allows solid attacks without any artificial or unbelievable restraints.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
... why is it advantageous for me to be close to my fort while clearing out dungeons?

I would expect the main reason is that you can take all the loot you've acquired in the dungeon and drop it off someplace relatively safe. Since it's close by, you'll be less likely to get killed between the dungeon and the fort. You can let that loot pile up over time until you're ready to coordinate transportation to other points.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.
A mixture of both.

One thing I am a bit currious on, what is the primary point of contention intended? At least from my understanding many of the goals involve

1. reducing/eliminating choke points
2. Having resources mostly spread out so that no area has an extreme stranglehold on any type of resource.
3. Continuing to have enough land that having a settlement is not too difficult for a new charter.

All of which I fundimentally agree with, and have to agree they are extremely good in allowing future players to come in and not just stick with the same static leadership.

On the other hand... what is the driving force for war at that point. Why would 2 established guilds actually care to get at eachothers throats beyond brief spurts of pride. Assuming war is costly and harmful to both involved what is the main drive to expand out, yet at the same time not be encoraging the expansion that puts the larger empires at conflict, but at the same time not encoraging these empires to plow over and absorb the younger weaker settlements at a rate that forces new players to have the choice to join one of the great empires, or forever remain weak in NPC territory.

What I don't want to see is war used for the purpose of large scale griefing. It has to be hard to destroy what someone else has built.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:
Onishi wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Notmyrealname wrote:
Is this going to be a "can't we all just get along " type of game or a "whose settlement do we burn down today" kind of a game? Will it be easy to make war on other player's towns? It seems like alot of work could go up in smoke.
A mixture of both.

One thing I am a bit currious on, what is the primary point of contention intended? At least from my understanding many of the goals involve

1. reducing/eliminating choke points
2. Having resources mostly spread out so that no area has an extreme stranglehold on any type of resource.
3. Continuing to have enough land that having a settlement is not too difficult for a new charter.

All of which I fundimentally agree with, and have to agree they are extremely good in allowing future players to come in and not just stick with the same static leadership.

On the other hand... what is the driving force for war at that point. Why would 2 established guilds actually care to get at eachothers throats beyond brief spurts of pride. Assuming war is costly and harmful to both involved what is the main drive to expand out, yet at the same time not be encoraging the expansion that puts the larger empires at conflict, but at the same time not encoraging these empires to plow over and absorb the younger weaker settlements at a rate that forces new players to have the choice to join one of the great empires, or forever remain weak in NPC territory.

What I don't want to see is war used for the purpose of large scale griefing. It has to be hard to destroy what someone else has built.

I imagine it will be hard...unless you have a whole bunch of people that want to help you break stuff. Then it will be easy.

You have to prevent it by fielding players to fight them off.
It seems in this game, if you can't defend it, you don't deserve to keep it.

Goblin Squad Member

How do I contact the board moderator? I flagged the wrong post by mistake and don't see anyway to fix it.

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:


What I don't want to see is war used for the purpose of large scale griefing. It has to be hard to destroy what someone else has built.

Absolute agreement there, that is why most of my ideas still involve warning, high cost of waging wars, reasonable defense etc... War should not be a meaningless I see them I can beat them, thus it is a good idea to plow over them. On the other end of the spectrum, war also cannot be at the side so far on the defensive that nations never want to go into conflict. There needs to be reasons to fight, reasons for wars to happen, and the concept that wars have to exist, otherwise things remain static, and get dull rather quickly.

I also think that it does need to be harder to attack than to defend, and that the cost of attacking needs to be substantial enough to not be done half heartedly. Siege engines should cost time, and noteworthy resources. I do not want to see large nations, regularly stamping out new start-up settlements just to prevent them from rising to the point that they might be a threat one day so it is better to stamp them out while they are weak and powerless. On the other hand I also equally don't want war to be an almost never happens event. The biggest factor I could see assisting with that, is distance being a serious factor for siege engines. IE hitting a settlement 10 hexes away from your nearest base of operations should put larger drawbacks. If you have to trek those engines long distances, and they were attack-able with huge replacement costs for the entire trip, that would greatly cut down on people just paving over a settlement because they feel like it, and limit things to more localized fighting, at which point a settlement that is known to be overly aggressive in attacking neighbors, well every other settlement in the area would quickly start to feel uneasy with their presense and a group attack would eradicate the problem.

The great thing of the siege weaponry requirement is that it more or less eliminates attacks from people with nothing to lose. If someone is launching a large scale siege... they either have a settlement, or are being endorsed by a settlement, that will be facing the diplomatic consequences for their actions.

Bottom line war needs to ocour, it needs to be fun, it needs to be meaningful, there have to be rewards and consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

Fun is so subjective.

Goblin Squad Member

Kryzbyn wrote:
Fun is so subjective.

Totally agreed, perhaps a better phrasing would be "it needs to be fun for as many as possible". While it is true what one person finds fun others may despise, there are also things that almost everyone who is playing for PVP would enjoy, and things that would put most players to sleep. For instance hacking away at a wall for 8 hours, would largely be viewed as almost universally dull. At the same merit, an intense battle, of which the outcome is not obvious, will likely be considered very fun for at least 75% of players who like PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Fun is so subjective.
Totally agreed, perhaps a better phrasing would be "it needs to be fun for as many as possible". While it is true what one person finds fun others may despise, there are also things that almost everyone who is playing for PVP would enjoy, and things that would put most players to sleep. For instance hacking away at a wall for 8 hours, would largely be viewed as almost universally dull. At the same merit, an intense battle, of which the outcome is not obvious, will likely be considered very fun for at least 75% of players who like PVP.

IMO, the way to handle territorial conquest is require it be done in stages. The more developed a hex is, the more layers of the onion you need to peel away before you can sieze control/destroy.

For example Conquest/Sacking/Razing a settlement might work like this...

Stage 1: Knock out all Defensive Watch Towers in the hex. This could be done with by groups of players with no special equipment doing damage to those structures directly. This allows you to INVEST the hex.

Stage 2: Invest the hex by constructing a Siege Camp in it. Constructing a Siege Camp could take a number of hours and a certain amount of materials that have to be put into the camp. During which time it would need to be defended. Once the camp is built it gets it's own set of automated defences, like watch towers.

Stage 3: Use the Siege Camp to construct a Siege Tower..again more time and resources...and you get a movable siege engine you can bring against the settlement.

Stage 4: Now that you've got your Siege Tower created, you need to move it to the Settlement itself. It moves slowly within the hex and can be attacked/destroyed while that is going on.

Stage 5: Assualt the Settlement. Once you've got your Seige Tower moved into place in close proximity to the settlement, a count down timer starts that indicates the progress of the assault (assuming settlements at this point are still monolithic objects, not 3D virtual spaces). Once the the timer counts down to zero, the assault is successfull and the settlement falls...proceed to Stage 6, the spoils...if the Siege Tower is destroyed before the counter reaches zero, the assault fails.

Stage 6: The Spoils. Suggest the successfull attacker (owner of the seige tower) is allowed 3 options about what to do with the settlement... A) Conquest...transfer ownership to a newly created settlement charter organization. B) Raze.... Destroy the settlement. C) Sack.... damage the settlement and loot some portion of the wealth/resources that it has in it.

Now that's for full scale territory conquest....if you just want to damage the hex's economy...you could simply send some raiding parties in hit resource gathering/processing nodes...maybe deal with some NPC guards that might be generated by any defences built for the hex (like Watchtowers).

Nice thing about that dynamic is you could scale the time/resources required to attack the settlement to the level of defences built by the Settlement Owner. So for example, GW could allow settlements to build defensive "improvements" like Walls or Barbicans, etc that upped the time it took for a SiegeTower counter to run down...or maybe even did some damage to the SiegeTower over time....and you could give the attacker the ability to construct different levels of siege towers...ones that took more resources/time to build...but which ran down the siege counter quicker or had more hit points, etc.

Note also that alot of Wars/Conflicts may NOT be based around the goal of taking out a settlement...it may simply be to exert dominance over resource gathering activities in some, unsettled hex that happens to posses valuable resources at that time....in which case you don't really need to worry about all the take out the settlement stuff...you just hit the players gathering resources or setting up resource camps, etc. Attacking a settlement is kinda like going for the Grand Slam...you only exert that kind of effort when you want to "Salt the Earth" of an opposing faction. If you just want to gain some wealth or advantage...you hit thier resource gathering activites, which may not even be located in thier settlement hex. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

[Stage 6: The Spoils. Suggest the successfull attacker (owner of the seige tower) is allowed 3 options about what to do with the settlement... A) Conquest...transfer ownership to a newly created settlement charter organization. B) Raze.... Destroy the settlement. C) Sack.... damage the settlement and loot some portion of the wealth/resources that it has in it.....]

How about also have diplomacy to force them to agree to pay a tax tribute to your town.Some type of contract they have to agree to, or you sack their town.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Fun is so subjective.
Totally agreed, perhaps a better phrasing would be "it needs to be fun for as many as possible". While it is true what one person finds fun others may despise, there are also things that almost everyone who is playing for PVP would enjoy, and things that would put most players to sleep. For instance hacking away at a wall for 8 hours, would largely be viewed as almost universally dull. At the same merit, an intense battle, of which the outcome is not obvious, will likely be considered very fun for at least 75% of players who like PVP.

Guarantee it will be more fun for the victors :)

Goblin Squad Member

Notmyrealname wrote:

[Stage 6: The Spoils. Suggest the successfull attacker (owner of the seige tower) is allowed 3 options about what to do with the settlement... A) Conquest...transfer ownership to a newly created settlement charter organization. B) Raze.... Destroy the settlement. C) Sack.... damage the settlement and loot some portion of the wealth/resources that it has in it.....]

How about also have diplomacy to force them to agree to pay a tax tribute to your town.Some type of contract they have to agree to, or you sack their town.

Well, I imagine that sort of thing would happen mostly BEFORE the attack or at least before it was resolved. For the attacker, once you've gone through all the expense and risk of fighting until the point you've won...you are probably going to want to make off with everything you can carry.

The real benefit to such an arrangement comes from the THREAT of conflict. For the potential target, if they realize you have sufficient force to destroy them, it's better for them to just pay you off then risk getting attacked. Sometimes even if the target thinks they have a pretty darn good chance at fending you off, if they think the cost to them for doing so exceeds what you are actualy asking in tribute...they'll often just pay you rather then fight even when they could win because it's the less expensive course. For the attacker it's a no brainer, if you can get someone to pay you something based on the simple threat you MIGHT attack, without you having to actualy do anything, it's FAR more proffitable just to collect the tribute then incur all the expense and risk of mounting an attack.

History is replete with such arrangements. Look at the late Roman Empire and Byzantium for example. Paying off the Barbarian tribes with tribute was a pretty common occurance. Even when the Romans/Byzantienes were relatively confident they could beat the barbarians, they often paid instead, because it was cheaper then fighting and winning.

Fast forward to the early Middle Ages and the practice was so common that it gave birth to an expresion still used today... the term "Danegeld" or "Paying the Dane" comes from the historical practice of paying tribute to Viking raiders to prevent them from attacking ones territory that many monarchs in Europe engaged in during the 10th-12th centuries.

It would be interesting to see if such dynamics develop in PFO as well.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
It would be interesting to see if such dynamics develop in PFO as well.

Unfortunately, given on-line anonymity and its accompanying assholishness, wouldn't we expect more destruction-for-destruction's-sake than any sort of ransoming? I recall that's what's often reported in EVE.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
It would be interesting to see if such dynamics develop in PFO as well.
Unfortunately, given on-line anonymity and its accompanying assholishness, wouldn't we expect more destruction-for-destruction's-sake than any sort of ransoming? I recall that's what's often reported in EVE.

I'd say that largely is still based on mechanics of the game, and to be honest I haven't heard that much of destruction for destructions sake, in eve, I've heard quite a bit about methods that push the boundries of griefing vs tactics etc... but in general most of what I've seen and heard of in eve, tends to have a profit or control motive.

But assuming there is destruction for destructions sake. I would say PFO has a much better system for reducing it, or at least adding difficulty to it. At least from descriptions in the blog, it isn't going to be possible to just sling spells, swords or arrows at a fort or settlement to take it down. You actually need seige engines, which I at least am assuming are most likely produced at the settlements, are fairly large, slow moving etc... More or less we are looking at deleberate and defined acts of declaring war, which is only possible by groups that have something to lose, in the general area of the fight. IMO this should greatly cut down on attacks with little intent or motive behind it other than to ruin someones day.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
I recall that's what's often reported in EVE.

There's a tremendous amount of ransoming that goes on in EVE. But it's not a majority of the PvP outcomes. You really have to work to make being a ransomer profitable and most people who want to gank don't want to work.

Goblin Squad Member

This game is going to appeal to so much more than just standard MMO players. Case in point I have a friend of mine that plays those "build it and defend it" turn based games on his iPad. He's not much for MMO's but we play PFRPG every Friday, and he enjoys it. It won't take much to get him into this...at all, I bet.


Onishi wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Fun is so subjective.
Totally agreed, perhaps a better phrasing would be "it needs to be fun for as many as possible"

While it's true that fun is subjective, and the best you can hope for is to please the most people possible, the solution to achieving that is deceptively simple in its concept. It's the execution that proves problematic.

To make things fun, you need to find the proper balance between giving the players as many options as possible (to find their own fun), while also restricting those options to stop them from infringing on others (griefing).

In relation to war a variety of tactics should be available to players in order to achieve their goal, in this case conquering an enemy. The standard would be sieges and opposing armies clashing on the battlefield, but this shouldn't be the only option. Stealth, subterfuge, and other tactics need to be available to the players outfitted and interested in employing them. By offering a wide range ways for players to contribute and participate, you greatly increase the odds of people having fun.

For every new option you need to be sure there is a suitable counter or way to deal with it. No mechanic can be griefer proof, but you can certainly make it more difficult to grief with by giving the players sufficient and reasonable ways to deal with "problematic" individuals.

tl;dr More options available, the more likely you are to find fun.


Making something fun I think is one of the most over-engineered problems in games. Honestly, we're not all too dissimilar and what's generally fun for one person is fun for lots of others as well. Simply make something you think is fun and let those who enjoy the same thing flock to your product. The problem comes when you're trying to make something fun for you and for someone else who has a different sense of fun. The result is mediocrity and leaving both groups of people with a sour taste in their mouth. People and companies honestly simply lack backbone. Walt Disney tested his ideas by going with the ones that he rarely got wide acceptance from his board of directors. Problems really only arise when you try to appeal to the masses.

This leads me to a problem with capitalistic societies where you have corporations trying to attract more and more customers which requires more and more simplification of things to appeal to broader customer bases. This subverts one of the tenants of a free market, which is supply and demand. Companies try to supply something they're really not suited to and it comes across as bland yet due to things like brand loyalty (x and y previous titles were great so lets try this new one), social pressures (your friends may enjoy it and encourage you to play) and marketing (often pervasive messages telling you that you should play) people often feel constrained to just accept it and, thus, mediocrity becomes the status quo.

Some ideas are truly great while the vast majority are not. People are too afraid to try and fail.

Goblin Squad Member

@Buri, your thesis is almost surely wrong.

I recommend that you watch this TED talk:

Malcom Gladwell on Spaghetti Sauce

Goblin Squad Member

Malcolm Gladwell is always good; I've never seen him speak, but have read most of his books. That spaghetti sauce talk certainly might also apply to game space.


It's not wrong. That video reinforces my point, actually. Product diversification is good. However, trying to provide a single product (plain sauce, for example) actually turns people off (the 1/3 example he provides), as Malcolm actually talked about. What in my post is 'surely wrong' by that TED video?

To bring it back to games, it's like having a single RPG trying to incorporate as many game features with as little complexity as possible to appeal to the most broad stroke of the gaming market, to approach the more extreme example. Instead, if you have an RPG that tailors to heavy role-play, you'll get that segment of the market. If you have an RPG that tailors to the more combat focused market then you'll get that segment of the market. You get problems in both markets when you try to accomplish both goals with the same product. The combat-heavy players will complain about role-play and the RPers will complain about the combat focus. The point is you can't have both plain and extra chunky spaghetti sauce in the same sauce.

The sooner the game industry accepts this, the sooner we'll have richer games. I'm talking to the AAA studios with that, of course. There is a thriving indy market, afterall, that wholeheartedly embraces that concept.

Goblin Squad Member

@Buri - I'd guess he was disagreeing with your paragraph where you said "... the problem with capitalistic societies where you have corporations trying to attract more and more customers which requires more and more simplification of things to appeal to broader customer bases..."

The video suggests that corporations making spaghetti sauce have been doing the reverse over the last 15-20 years (The video is from 2004, and Gladwell was talking about stuff that had happened in his past). Rather than simplifying things and giving us one choice of sauce, they have been giving us multiple sauces, each very different. And people aren't always sold by brand loyalty, or social pressures, or marketing. Prego upended and dominated the market by delivering what people really wanted - even if those people couldn't articulate it.

I think, from your statements about games above, that you understand it (the need for diverse alternatives), but your paragraph about capitalism and corporate behavior simplifying things and giving us bland alternatives is at odds with Gladwell's talk. But some corporations/industries also understand it.


Ah, I see. That would make sense if you weren't in my head, which you weren't. :) As I demonstrated, I was talking about expecting a single product to "steal the market." There is no magic bullet so don't even look. If you look at wildly popular consumer products such as the iPhone you'll see that the product itself doesn't really do much besides enabling other functionality so it gets to be an extension of consumer expression instead of being the end-result of that expression. Outside of these types of products, you get into niche markets where product diversification is the way to go.

301 to 350 of 381 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing 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.