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

PaizoCon 2014!

Goblinworks Blog: Put It in Writing


Pathfinder Online

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

What I'm looking for, and expecting, is a game with as many non-competing niches of gameplay (ergo enjoyment), that all produce synergies and interdependencies with each other. If the context can fit into the genre, and is vaguely supported by the flavor of Pathfinder, I hope its in there.

This is not the same as "making it fun for me, and thus everyone" and nor is it looking for a single magic bullet experience. Its more like looking for a dozen experiences, installing them in a horizontal space, and letting everyone access everything as much as they like, with the only limiting resource of time. As the saying goes, you can have anything you want, just not everything at once.

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
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.

Wildly popular products also have the concept of "Network Externalities" working for them. Essentially, their functionality gets them some users and then at a certain point they reach critical mass and the fact they have sufficiently large community of users is what starts attracting other users.

I'm likely flubbing the explanation, but I originally came across that concept in an interview I read on some gaming site quite a long time ago. You might take a look at it and see if you can find if that guy has done anything since.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

That interview seems so very insightful, what with the discontent evident regarding 4e and Next.

Ryan Dancyey (2002) wrote:
This is a very painful concept for a lot of people to embrace, including a lot of our own staff, and including myself for many years. The idea that D&D is somehow "better" than the competition is a powerful and entrenched concept. The idea that D&D can be "beaten" by a game that is "better" than D&D is at the heart of every business plan from every company that goes into marketplace battle with D&D game. If you accept the Theory of Network Externalities, you have to admit that the battle is lost before it begins, because the value doesn't reside in the game itself, but in the network of people who know how to play it.


That's very true. For me, it's not that I think D&D can't be beaten but the D20 system as a whole, the D&D culture and the way it present medieval fantasy role-play is just second nature to me at this point. It'd take a while to adjust. That said, I do enjoy Shadowrun a great deal. But, it's not designed around a medieval fantasy ethos even though it can be adapted to such. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Buri wrote:
That's very true. For me, it's not that I think D&D can't be beaten but the D20 system as a whole, the D&D culture and the way it present medieval fantasy role-play is just second nature to me at this point. It'd take a while to adjust. That said, I do enjoy Shadowrun a great deal. But, it's not designed around a medieval fantasy ethos even though it can be adapted to such. :)

The groups I've been involved in have always played a wide variety of different systems, including complete homebrews. D&D (in whatever incarnation it happaned to be in at the time) has always been among the least favored/played of those...although it still got some play. Alot of the folks I've played with just happaned to regard it (and I tended to agree) as just not all that great of a system compared to alot of the stuff that's out there.

The fact that it was very widely known DID help it to get some play with us....but I think as far as games or most other creative/entertainment projects go...I think the concept of market externalities only carries so far. For a gamer, the concept that you'd only ever play 1 game system is kinda like a person only every willing to watch one movie or read one book or goto 1 type of restuarant. While, from a commercial standpoint most people interested in a particular venue are likely to have tried the clear market leader...I very much doubt that anyone who enjoys that venue to any sigificant degree will be satisfied with stopping there and not branching out to try other competing products which each offer thier own individual experiences.

Most people who I know, who consider themselves "PnP gamers" own and have tried more then 1 RPG System.


I'm a little late to the game, but I have some thoughts to share.

Quandary wrote:
Quote:
Consider adding the concept of heirs for the Feudal settlement and the Kingdom kingdom. A ruling character could have the option of designating an heir, by name, to assume control of the settlement/kingdom if the ruler is absent for some set amount of time. Rulers with no designated heir might be seen as risky - as people who have been in guilds with absent guild leadership can probably attest to.

+1

The same really goes for oligarchies and their larger scale equivalents.

Quote:
(Also consider calling a sole-ruler kingdom a monarchy, instead of using kingdom to mean two things.)

+1

Do not go down the path of Paizo's pen & paper game where there are Racial Category Traits (Half Feats) and Racial Traits (Abilities).

I like everything in this post, pretty much.

Quote:
I do think it would be interesting if Chartered Companies/Settlements/Nations can designate some subject matters to be subject to one type of decision making (monarchy, democracy, etc) and other areas are subject to another style... With changing the rules of the game itself being a subject which would have it's own rules.

THIS would be really cool! That could lend towards combinations like, say, a monarchy that governs internal affairs - taxes, policies, building, etc - but a more democratic system in charge of foreigh affairs, the military, and so on.

Quote:

Great Legionnaires is now recruiting people of evil alignments so that you can betray us and run off with our bank!

Oh wait... that would be pure insanity.

Unless there is some way to display another alignment than your true alignment to other players you would never be able to do this. If there is a way to disguise your alignment then they can make it so you can join companies based on your disguised alignment.

There's a difference between living in a nation and ascribing to its beliefs or joining its military. You wouldn't let a Lawful Evil person join your army or royal guard or run for office, sure! But if you have a player nation that a thousand players live in... realistically, how would you survey every individual that wants to immigirate into your country and make sure they aren't "evil?" Honestly, that sounds to me like a clunky, forced game mechanic that will stifle the all important sandbox player interactions. Plus, think about ANY CITY EVER in real life or in-game. Cities aren't and can't be restricted by alignment - there are good and bad people everywhere.

If any of this has been addressed already, please let me know! ... and tell me what I've missed?


Just wondering about one thing: Do you stop being supported by a NPC settlement if you start being supported by a PC settlement? And if so, i guess you would gain access to training facilities within that PC settlement? So basically a settlement could sell training services to CCs that isn't part of a settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Hycoo wrote:
Do you stop being supported by a NPC settlement if you start being supported by a PC settlement?

If by "supported" you mean "sponsored", then I think the answer is yes. I don't think Ryan's stated it explicitly, but I think a CC can only be sponsored by a single Settlement.

Hycoo wrote:
So basically a settlement could sell training services to CCs that isn't part of a settlement?

If by "part of a settlement" you mean "a resident of the Settlement", then again I think this is correct. However, it's not really clear. It's possible you will have to be a resident (member) of a Settlement, rather than just be in a Sponsored CC.

Ryan talked about this here.

Ryan Dancey wrote:
5A: Certain skills will require you to be a member of a Settlement that has access to certain kinds of buildings or certain advancements of those buildings.

(Emphasis mine)

Ryan, can you clarify whether a member of a Sponsored Chartered Company may have access to the training facilities of the sponsoring Settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Can we get a clarification, please?
One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)

I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.

Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.

RyanD

This wouldn't bother me as long as there were some distinct benefits to being good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

As it is now, what benefits are there to being lawful-good, or chaotic-good as opposed to neutral good?

I say allow neutral companies that accept every alignment exist, but make them lose out on some awesome benefits a more exclusive alignment would gain. Perhaps unique and highly beneficial player owned structures, or NPC followers. Or being considered friendly by NPCs that are usually hostile. Or having fees and upkeep on certain transactions and assets reduced or waved.

If you HAVE to be good to build a temple of Sarenrae, and you have to be lawful-good to build in the area around the Paladins of Ioemedae, and you can send guards to their capitol to train as paladins. Or anything along these lines... then there are REASONS to be lawful good that you will only get some of the benefits of if you are neutral-good, and none of if you are neutral.

That balances it IMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Can we get a clarification, please?
One of those two statements is an error. I'm just not sure which one I think should be wrong. :)

I think the issue of Neutral being 1-step away from all alignments is the error.

Otherwise, all the big successful Settlements will be Neutral, and anyone who proposes starting a Settlement that isn't Neutral will face a huge uphill battle.

RyanD

This wouldn't bother me as long as there were some distinct benefits to being good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

As it is now, what benefits are there to being lawful-good, or chaotic-good as opposed to neutral good?

I say allow neutral companies that accept every alignment exist, but make them lose out on some awesome benefits a more exclusive alignment would gain. Perhaps unique and highly beneficial player owned structures, or NPC followers. Or being considered friendly by NPCs that are usually hostile. Or having fees and upkeep on certain transactions and assets reduced or waved.

If you HAVE to be good to build a temple of Sarenrae, and you have to be lawful-good to build in the area around the Paladins of Ioemedae, and you can send guards to their capitol to train as paladins. Or anything along these lines... then there are REASONS to be lawful good that you will only get some of the benefits of if you are neutral-good, and none of if you are neutral.

That balances it IMO.

Alignment.

I agree with Andius' approach, there has to be REASONS for players to choose to become an alignment or REASONS for players to fall into/work at achieving an end state alignment. I noticed a huge wasteful pages of discussion of alignment in another thread which ended up being more a Wittgenstien army of opposing, embattled definitions!! :D

I cannot get my head around alignment at all. The only idea I can relate it to is as a form of population dynamics: So for illustration:

1. Beginning of game - all players assumed to be "most stable" state of Lawful Good. Explanation: By this I mean all players wish to cooperate and make the lovely land of Golarion a sort of Eden fit for angels. A perfect world.

2. As players take various actions that put them into competition or worse with each other so their alignment will shift further along towards Chaotic Evil - the most "unstable state" Explanation: By unstable I mean these (*cough* scum of the universe) aim to maximize damage and dismay to other players (characters?!) and the world building of The River Lands as much as possible and as expediently as possible.

3. There is room in between which explains all other alignments light of one or the other of THESE alignments and equally both at the same time.
Explanation: A sort of double-entry book-keeping of your alignment from both points of view.

--

I'd assume various content, rule-limitations and reputations could be based off alignment states?

Which brings me to the idea of population dynamics, how these different communities of players interact with their own kind and with other kinds and whether or not "birds of a feather, fly together"?

--

As said, pure theory, but I can't really conceptualize Alignment in another functional form?


Can't Neutral only have members from other neutral alignments? NG, LN, CN, NE. While the rest have 1 step away + Neutral. That would give all alignments 3 other alignments except neutral that have 4, not such a big deal. If you fall out of your alignment (and lose access to your original settlement and friends) it probably wouldn't be too hard to get back to neutral by doing some good/evil deeds or do/break contracts (if that is what decides your alignment)

Goblin Squad Member

Chartered companies are not a subset of a Settlement. Characters in a chartered company could be from different settlements.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In light of that, I would like to request the additional orgainizational level of 'church'. That would be an organization which was dedicated to the worship of a specific deity or force, and be independent of membership in Chartered Companies, Settlements, or any other organizations. The mechanical benefits would be limited to being able to be recognized as a member and granted permissions- the church buildings could be owned either by individuals, chartered companies, or the settlements, if it would be too complicated to allow another intersecting set of ownership category. Even if every member of a church was also a member of one settlement (or vice versa), neither would become subject to the rule of the other.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Beginning of game - all players assumed to be "most stable" state of Lawful Good. Explanation: By this I mean all players wish to cooperate and make the lovely land of Golarion a sort of Eden fit for angels. A perfect world.

I'm personally hoping we get to choose our initial alignment, but I hope for every non-neutral alignment we can increase in it from our initial starting point. So you may choose to start your paladin as lawful good, but as you turn away from all that is evil or chaotic, and focus on upholding justice, you will go from a pretty good guy who follows the law, to a paragon of your ideals.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
... I hope for every non-neutral alignment we can increase in it from our initial starting point.

You mean something like starting at Lawful (1) / Good (1) and progressing to Lawful (7) / Good (9)? That's kind of interesting. I hadn't really thought about it much in those terms, but I would imagine that's what it's going to be behind the scenes anyway - Ryan has talked a lot about your actions having small, incremental effects on your alignment.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Andius wrote:
... I hope for every non-neutral alignment we can increase in it from our initial starting point.
You mean something like starting at Lawful (1) / Good (1) and progressing to Lawful (7) / Good (9)? That's kind of interesting. I hadn't really thought about it much in those terms, but I would imagine that's what it's going to be behind the scenes anyway - Ryan has talked a lot about your actions having small, incremental effects on your alignment.

That is interesting, and importantly I think that would work as well as (or better) than my "alignment sliding (away from LG) system". A bit like "paying into your alignment account" vs "taking out a large amount" by doing a contrary action eg.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at the University of Washington. Some people are members of the Delta Delta Delta chapter at Washington State University. All of them are members of the National Association of Delta Delta Delta.

Ryan, in this example, can the National Association of Delta Delta Delta reach down into the Delta Delta Delta chapter at the University of Washington and expel individual members, even if those members are the leaders of that local chapter? Or would the Nat'l Assn have to revoke the entire charter?

What I'm wondering about specifically is having a Settlement that was ostensibly founded as part of our meta-organization, but where the local Oligarchy in the Settlement goes rogue and starts ignoring the rulings of the Star Chamber that runs the Player Nation. In that case, what tools will the Player Nation have to enforce its will? Is kicking the entire Settlement out of the Player Nation the only choice? Or can we reach down and kick out the members of the local Oligarchy?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
What I'm wondering about specifically is having a Settlement that was ostensibly founded as part of our meta-organization, but where the local Oligarchy in the Settlement goes rogue and starts ignoring the rulings of the Star Chamber that runs the Player Nation. In that case, what tools will the Player Nation have to enforce its will?

I think the follow-up question is: if some group names themselves something to pass as part of your meta organization, even if you didn't approve it, is there supposed to be some mechanism besides PvP to enforce your trademark or name?

I think the idea of some sub-settlement or sub-company going rogue sounds like it is well within the spirit of the game as it has been described so far. PvP is there in part to let players settle their differences without GW mods getting involved.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, I see where you're going, and you're right. I'm a lot less worried about some group claiming to be part of The Seventh Veil when they're not than I am a group that is part of TSV acting against our meta-Charter.

If I apply this as a real world example, it would be like a US State defying a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It would be much better to simply go in and arrest the Governor than to send in the National Guard to try to take over everything. Granted, in the real world, it would largely depend on the level of popular support the Governor had. In-game, there won't really be a way to arrest an individual in order to remove them from power - so I'm asking if there will be some other way to remove them from power.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon - I do think you have a valid question. Since this is the contracts thread: If a nation or meta-charter founds a settlement, can they install someone as mayor, and use the power of contract enforcement to hold the mayor to his oaths?

I'd take that further and propose a settlement ruler type of "governor", that is, someone appointed for a limited term by the nation that owns the settlement. Governors should be able to be recalled by the nation.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon - I think the quote you've used was an example of how Player Nations and Settlements connect not Chartered Companies.

The Player Nation in question could expel the Settlement in question if it had the votes to do so. The voting structure would be determined by its charter so there are lots of cases where it could be hard or impossible for that to happen.

The Player Nation could not interfere with the internal organization of its constituent Settlements.

@Urman - if someone is actively trying to pass themselves off fraudulently as being affiliated with your group I would find that to be unacceptable and my response would be to force them to change the name of their organization. However that's a rough rule because I could easily see situations where it was unclear which group had precedence to use a given name or naming scheme, and many gray areas where even if precedence could be established, an absolute "first past the post" adjudication could be most unfair.

The classic example would be if Company A was created on day one of the game but never did anything, then Company A1 became really interesting/powerful/notable many years later, and someone took control of Company A and wanted Company A1 to change its name simply due to precedence.

So in practice it would require arbitrary decisions on a case by case basis.

RyanD

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman - Player Nations don't found Settlements or issue Charters to Chartered Companies.

Goblin Squad Member

My thanks, Ryan, as always.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan, can you answer whether or not members of a Sponsored Chartered Company will have access to the training facilities of their sponsoring Settlement? Or will they have to be residents of the Settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan, can you answer whether or not members of a Sponsored Chartered Company will have access to the training facilities of their sponsoring Settlement? Or will they have to be residents of the Settlement?

Boy Nihimon, I'm glad you're here to ask the questions I'm too dumb to ask. You've thought of things I'd have never thought of.

Goblin Squad Member

You only get "credit" for the structures in the Settlement you are a member of.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Is being a member of a settlement always exactly the same thing as being a resident? What does that involve?

Sorry, key words and tricky phrases is one of my flaws. It did get me the excellent recollection merit, though.


Yeah not so easy to follow all the time :) So you need to be a member of a settlement to train the most advanced skills. While being sponsored by a PC settlement (but not a member of one) you cant train any skills (since you can't be sponsored by a NPC and a PC settlement at the same time...?)

Goblin Squad Member

Thank you, sir.

Goblin Squad Member

@Hycoo - NPC Settlements have buildings that enable training.

@DeciusBrutus: "Resident" is an undefined term.

351 to 381 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.