Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I missed out on this conversation. I think I read all of it but apologies if my points below were already addressed.
Couple of points.
Yes, Freelancer was indeed a great game.
Vigilantism needs to be mulled and prodded, but it looks like a good balancing counter to bandits.
The reason I think we need to get serious about vigilantism is that we will have people who purposely populate the Lawful Good end of the spectrum who will wish to do exactly to CE as bandits do to LG (and everyone else, really). If that is true, then just as the SAD mechanics were built expressly to give bandits a legitimate way to do what they are going to do anyway, then so too should the game be prepared for the Vigilantes. They are going engage in vigilantism no matter what, so why not prepare a system for them to do so legitimately.
Did I get that right?
We need to describe and understand exactly how vigilantism is not covered by 'champion'.
Is vigilantism covered by bounties? Is the bounty system something that might cover vigilantism and if not, how not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason I think we need to get serious about vigilantism is that we will have people who purposely populate the Lawful Good end of the spectrum who will wish to do exactly to CE as bandits do to LG (and everyone else, really). If that is true, then just as the SAD mechanics were built expressly to give bandits a legitimate way to do what they are going to do anyway, then so too should the game be prepared for the Vigilantes. They are going engage in vigilantism no matter what, so why not prepare a system for them to do so legitimately.
Did I get that right?
We need to describe and understand exactly how vigilantism is not covered by 'champion'.
Is vigilantism covered by bounties? Is the bounty system something that might cover vigilantism and if not, how not?
@ Being, I gave the following list of actions that a vigilante can take (the same that anyone, including a bandit):
PFO has this, it is called "Laws", "Association / Agency", or accepting the consequences just like everyone else.
1. If someone attacks a citizen of your settlement, you can freely defend them.
2. If someone attacks a member of your company, you can freely defend them.
3. If someone attacks a member of your ad hoc group, you can freely defend them.
4. If someone violates a law in your settlement hex, you can freely attack the criminal.
5. If you have an active feud, way or are a member of the opposing faction, you can freely attack that person.
6. If that person raided your outpost, POI or similar structure, you can freely attack that person.
7. If that person attack you, you can freely defend yourself.
8. If you have a bounty, assassination or death curse against that person, you can freely attack that person.
9. If your settlement hex is in state of war, and the person is within a certain range, you can freely attack that person. (recent comment by Ryan, not sure if it is developed yet).
10. If you SAD someone and they turn down the offer, you can freely attack that person.
These are open to everyone. They are all ways that you can be a vigilante or whatever role you wish and exact revenge or justice without incurring a reputation penalty.
If you feel more needs to be added to the list, please feel free. But, as all of these are open to all, so should any addition be open for all to use.
No more of this nonsense that we'll if I'm good aligned or high rep, I can do this, but no one else can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes my overriding concern is for balance. If CE and low rep will be significant disadvantages it presents a problem for what I have called 'dynamic balance' unless there is a large population of CE, NE and CN. If there are plenty then their numbers should balance the advantage accruing to within a step of LG. If the disadvantages are too egregious and the population of the darker and more chaotic are underpopulated, then the game will suffer a reduction in dynamism, and endanger players with entropic stagnation.
My hope then is that setting up a counterbalance such as vigilantism which might serve to corrupt the LG, LN and NG side of the equation then vigilantism might serve to lessen the distance between the extremes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes my overriding concern is for balance. If CE and low rep will be significant disadvantages it presents a problem for what I have called 'dynamic balance' unless there is a large population of CE, NE and CN. If there are plenty then their numbers should balance the advantage accruing to within a step of LG. If the disadvantages are too egregious then the game will suffer a reduction in dynamism, and endanger players with entropic stagnation.
It is important to note that Ryan Dancey believes that about 60% of the population in PFO will likely be Chaotic Good and Neutral good. Of the evils, I think it is clear that LE will be the most popular, and the least popular will be players actually setting their core at CE.
Trying to balance, population wise, LG and CE I doubt very seriously needs to be a concern. Both have fairly small populations for similar reasons in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my issue with the direction this discussion is going is the level of import that seems to be placed on it. Banditry is one role within the game and SAD is simply one mechanic of banditry GW had discussed. I hope bandits have many more mechanics they can use, some probably more relevant to everyone else than SADs. And I definitely hope there are many, many more roles than banditry...each at least as developed.
I realize I am not contributing much here, but it really does feel like trying arguing about balance based on SAD and anti-SAD mechanics is kind of like trying to balance the entire combat system based entirely upon the knowledge solely and exclusively on a set of ever-changing stats/requirements for using trip with a whip.
But maybe I am wrong or missing something...does anyone really think SADs will be of central import to the game? Do we really want suggest piecemeal counter mechanic/flags for every mechanic as it is presented?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am under the impression that SADs will be a career bandit's bread and butter, so it will be a very important mechanic for any character a bandit might cross (read: any character). Though bandits could get a lot of other mechanics to rob people (they already have the "attack the dudes and deal with the rep loss" mechanic) I would think a few effective and meaningful choices on actions are better than a whole slew of choices.
Many people are sad about SADs because GW hasn't filled in practically any blanks on them. It's entirely possible that GW's current plan is that a bandit can SAD for 100% of your items or else attack you rep free, and do this all day long to anybody in the world. If this were the case, then SADs would indeed be of central importance to the game, especially on kingdom levels; you can basically war/feud anybody without them warring you back (short of their own SADs), and with no costs. Granted, it's not very likely from what we've seen in the game's direction that this will be the case, but until we get more specifics on limitations to the SAD we just don't know how powerful it will be, and thus how important it is.
We're discussing mechanics for SADs a lot because many people have different ideas on how to do a robbery mechanic correctly (which, to my knowledge, doesn't have an analogue in any similar game) and it gives us something to talk about that isn't alignment or petty sniping. ;) I personally don't have anything better to talk about...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes my overriding concern is for balance. If CE and low rep will be significant disadvantages it presents a problem for what I have called 'dynamic balance' unless there is a large population of CE, NE and CN. If there are plenty then their numbers should balance the advantage accruing to within a step of LG. If the disadvantages are too egregious and the population of the darker and more chaotic are underpopulated, then the game will suffer a reduction in dynamism, and endanger players with entropic stagnation.
My hope then is that setting up a counterbalance such as vigilantism which might serve to corrupt the LG, LN and NG side of the equation then vigilantism might serve to lessen the distance between the extremes.
OR CE players will be rare which is exactly like the Pathfinder RPG game, which have real thematic and mechanical drawbacks to it.
The difference here is that you have a choice at all, not that the choice has to be viable or optimal. If this was a traditional Themepark game, being chaotic evil wouldn't even be an option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My hope then is that setting up a counterbalance such as vigilantism which might serve to corrupt the LG, LN and NG side of the equation then vigilantism might serve to lessen the distance between the extremes.OR CE players will be rare which is exactly like the Pathfinder RPG game, which have real thematic and mechanical drawbacks to it.
The difference here is that you have a choice at all, not that the choice has to be viable or optimal. If this was a traditional Themepark game, being chaotic evil wouldn't even be an option.
If your projection is borne out then possibly the danger of a stagnating game will be countered by an effective settlement warfare system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes my overriding concern is for balance. If CE and low rep will be significant disadvantages it presents a problem for what I have called 'dynamic balance' unless there is a large population of CE, NE and CN. If there are plenty then their numbers should balance the advantage accruing to within a step of LG. If the disadvantages are too egregious and the population of the darker and more chaotic are underpopulated, then the game will suffer a reduction in dynamism, and endanger players with entropic stagnation.
My hope then is that setting up a counterbalance such as vigilantism which might serve to corrupt the LG, LN and NG side of the equation then vigilantism might serve to lessen the distance between the extremes.
OR CE players will be rare which is exactly like the Pathfinder RPG game, which have real thematic and mechanical drawbacks to it.
The difference here is that you have a choice at all, not that the choice has to be viable or optimal. If this was a traditional Themepark game, being chaotic evil wouldn't even be an option.
I just did a quick search, but it doesn't appear that PFRPG does not have any evil character perspective campaigns.
If that is true, how limiting and lame that is. But, I would imagine that well developed groups are making up their own campaigns and some if not all of those limitations are being lifted.
This might be the root of the matter. Too much spoon feeding of the goody two shoes perspective and not enough expansive role playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, you're adding jackals and lambs? How many animal metaphors are we going to have? lol
OK, how about this:
- Bandits need to flag themselves as Bandits in order to do SAD's.
- Vigilantes can attack Bandits consequence-free.
- Bandits can attack Vigilantes consequence-free.
Other than that, SAD system remains the same. How would would you like that, fair?
If Vigilantes had to train a skill, and slot a skill I have no problem with that.
Stand and Deliver provides two (hopefully) interesting choices:
- For the highwayman, do you choose to issue a SAD, giving up the element of surprise in exchange for no rep hit?
- For the target, do you think you can take the outlaw or successfully run away (if you do, you lose nothing, but if you get beaten you may lose everything), or should you just pay the extortion?
What choices does Subdue present that are similarly interesting? Apprehend?
He has also stated that making a simple mirror of a skill is unnecessary, if the skill is open to all anyway.
Just use the SAD mechanic! If you make a demand they are likely to turn down, you can kill them without reputation loss.
If you make an offer, even an absurd one, and they accept it, you get their loot. Then you can return it to its rightful owners (doubt it, but whatever). You will also get a reputation bonus for not killing them.
I know this last event is the one some Vigilantes don't want to happen, because they can't kill with impunity, but those are the Chaotic Evil ones and they shouldn't even bother with SADs anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simple matter is that Evil characters make things more difficult for everybody involved; the DM, the other players, and the one playing the Evil character. They can be allowed and played in many of the Adventure Paths (not in organized play, called PFS, but in your own games), but should only be allowed by experienced players who won't let their group fall apart because of the actions of the evil guy. Please don't jump to the conclusion of "PFRPG players are all spoon-fed goody-two-shoes with shallow concepts of roleplay"; that's as ignorant as it sounds.
There's one Adventure Path published by Paizo where you play as pirates (I haven't played that one, but it seems like a good one to include an Evil character or two). There's another where you build your own River Kingdom (basically PFO is an MMO version of this Adventure Path) and with an experienced DM you could create an entire Evil empire. In general, most of the Adventure Paths try to hook in character concepts of all stripes, and can be adjusted a little bit to include an Evil character; Good aligned characters are almost never a requirement (though sometimes the Adventures do expect you character to do the "right thing" for little benefit to themselves).
And of course that's just the Paizo published adventures. Many groups do run completely original material; whether or not Evil is allowed is up to the GM's experience and preferences.
Footnote: GM is Game Master, equivalent to Dungeon Master; in other words the one running the world for the players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes my overriding concern is for balance. If CE and low rep will be significant disadvantages it presents a problem for what I have called 'dynamic balance' unless there is a large population of CE, NE and CN. If there are plenty then their numbers should balance the advantage accruing to within a step of LG. If the disadvantages are too egregious and the population of the darker and more chaotic are underpopulated, then the game will suffer a reduction in dynamism, and endanger players with entropic stagnation.
My hope then is that setting up a counterbalance such as vigilantism which might serve to corrupt the LG, LN and NG side of the equation then vigilantism might serve to lessen the distance between the extremes.
OR CE players will be rare which is exactly like the Pathfinder RPG game, which have real thematic and mechanical drawbacks to it.
The difference here is that you have a choice at all, not that the choice has to be viable or optimal. If this was a traditional Themepark game, being chaotic evil wouldn't even be an option.
I just did a quick search, but it doesn't appear that PFRPG does not have any evil character perspective campaigns.
If that is true, how limiting and lame that is. But, I would imagine that well developed groups are making up their own campaigns and some if not all of those limitations are being lifted.
This might be the root of the matter. Too much spoon feeding of the goody two shoes perspective and not enough expansive role playing.
The PFRPG doesn't have much in way of CE player characters because Chaotic Evil is not conducive to group play. By the alignments very nature its a solo thing for the most part. Sure Chaotic Evil people will work together or with others, but sooner or later throats are going to get cut. I'm not judging whether or not I think CE is cool, I'm just stating a fundamental ideology of what a CE alignment is. In a game which is designed to be advantageous to group play vs. solo Chaotic Evil players will be at a significant disadvantage.
To take that and infer then you must be a goody two shoes perspective isn't accurate. There are plenty of Evil player characters in PFRPG. Lawful Evil and Neutral Evil (I actually think NE is pretty tough to pull off as well, but that's more debatable) are options as well and should offer slightly less restrictions than CE. You just won't be The Joker "Some people just want to watch the world burn" evil. Cause think about it, how great would that guy be to have in your settlement in the long run?
But remember Ryan and the gang aren't saying you can't be CE, they're just saying that game design is established that if you play CE your experience will probably suck in the extended time of the game. I think that's awesome. It makes sense with game mechanics that have long since been established and offers choice with consequences. Something I've been begging for from the MMORPG industry for years now.
All that being said, retaining Lawful Good status should be pretty difficult too. That's the goody two shoes perspective and can be very limiting to players (not to mention annoying) when doing group activities. This is by design and is a reason why playing a Paladin in a group of PFRPG needs careful consideration because it WILL have quite an impact on the rest of the players and story. Now I've noticed people mention the concept of True Neutral. That's another hot button alignment and often game versions haven't even allowed for a True Neutral selection for players. The reason being that True Neutral is almost always impossible to pull off and often when played well results in VERY dull characters. I'm only pointing these two out to show that alignment isn't an anti-evil bias, but anti-extreme. LG, TN, CE are the extremes and generally are difficult to pull off. They often have massive restrictions with a potential to lead to severe complications for said player down the road. Attempting to pursue such alignments should be done carefully and with purpose with the person doing it knowing full well of the consequences that come with it.
Alignment isn't a restriction in of itself. It's a measure of how you've been playing your character. According to GW there are some role/classes that have alignment restrictions and possibly other game mechanics that will have alignment restrictions as well, but it will be the players choice if whether they wish to experience those restrictions by their actions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason being that True Neutral is almost always impossible to pull off and often when played well results in VERY dull characters.
I don't believe I am dull. Muted maybe.
TN can be played as a dynamic agent of balance. You don't get opportunity in anyone else' campaign to be dynamic as a True Neutral because almost everyone has that prejudice that TN means milquetoast.
So no campaign does TN well. Yet as an opponent of whomever is the currently dominant extremist force with the consistency of Law and the dynamism of Chaos, devoted to nature for good or for evil, the TN is an agent of balance, and not at all dull.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason being that True Neutral is almost always impossible to pull off and often when played well results in VERY dull characters.I don't believe I am dull. Muted maybe.
TN can be played as a dynamic agent of balance. You don't get opportunity in anyone else' campaign to be dynamic as a True Neutral because almost everyone has that prejudice that TN means milquetoast.
So no campaign does TN well. Yet as an opponent of whomever is the currently dominant extremist force with the consistency of Law and the dynamism of Chaos, devoted to nature for good or for evil, the TN is an agent of balance, and not at all dull.
To be fair dull is a subjective term and best left to each individual to decide. I did say often not always, but I personally haven't seen anyone really pull it off well in my opinion. Anyone who's tried usually end up falling into the background as campaigns tend to be about motivations that bring up issues of good vs. evil, lawful vs. chaotic etc. I could definitely see a True Neutral NPC being really exciting and dynamic however. The players would never know which side she/he was truly on. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I confess TN would be very difficult to do solo and not be just a footnote within a settlement-vs-settlement PvP world. There is a potential however that an organization could attract sufficiently numerous high-quality members to field an organization dedicated to dynamic balance in the River Kingdoms. Some few queries have been floated to that effect. I think it is an idea with promise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I confess TN would be very difficult to do solo and not be just a footnote within a settlement-vs-settlement PvP world. There is a potential however that an organization could attract sufficiently numerous high-quality members to field an organization dedicated to dynamic balance in the River Kingdoms. Some few queries have been floated to that effect. I think it is an idea with promise.
Hmmmm Interesting. A Switzerland settlement huh? It would be really interesting to see how a group would go about maintaining neutrality without just being conquered. I would imagine it would require a large number of members to pull off for sure. Even then could be exciting to see how long they could hold off remaining neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless I am mistaken, neutral in that the philosophy to maintain balance between good vs. evil and law vs. chaos is what Being is getting at rather than "neutral" in politics.
If that is the case, then perhaps even a medium sized, well run organization would suffice. It would be tricky though, and Being larger would certainly help. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmmm Interesting. A Switzerland settlement huh? It would be really interesting to see how a group would go about maintaining neutrality without just being conquered. I would imagine it would require a large number of members to pull off for sure. Even then could be exciting to see how long they could hold off remaining neutral.
We have had this discussion in the past (here). :)
Unless I am mistaken, neutral in that the philosophy to maintain balance between good vs. evil and law vs. chaos is what Being is getting at rather than "neutral" in politics.
Each alignment I think can mean more than one thing.
Chaotic Evil - A free spirit, but also evil when the time is right, or Evil for personal gain. Or, it can follow more along the lines of it's common nickname: "Chaotic Stupid", where the person goes out of their way to spread Evil and Chaos, even at great personal risk, and has no sense of social cohesion.
Chaotic Neutral - A free spirit who works more towards his own benefit, and his own freedom than he does that of others, or, it can be someone who spreads Chaos for the sake of Chaos, because they simply love Chaos (think Lolth, though she's CE).
True Neutral - It could be the Druidic (or Arcane) Balance between all things (in the alignment sense: LvC, GvE), or, it can mean a position of pure Pragmatism. Doing whatever is practical and logical at any given moment. So if it makes sense to manipulate the "system" to get something done, you do it, if it makes sense to work outside of a system, or to try and take down a system, you do it. You can do both Evil acts, and good ones depending on what's most practical at any given moment.
Further, TN can be a more passive alignment, who just wants everyone to "get along" without leaning much one way or another.
Each alignment can mean a few different things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I am mistaken, neutral in that the philosophy to maintain balance between good vs. evil and law vs. chaos is what Being is getting at rather than "neutral" in politics.Each alignment I think can mean more than one thing.
Chaotic Evil - A free spirit, but also evil when the time is right, or Evil for personal gain. Or, it can follow more along the lines of it's common nickname: "Chaotic Stupid", where the person goes out of their way to spread Evil and Chaos, even at great personal risk, and has no sense of social cohesion.
Chaotic Neutral - A free spirit who works more towards his own benefit, and his own freedom than he does that of others, or, it can be someone who spreads Chaos for the sake of Chaos, because they simply love Chaos (think Lolth, though she's CE).
True Neutral - It could be the Druidic (or Arcane) Balance between all things (in the alignment sense: LvC, GvE), or, it can mean a position of pure Pragmatism. Doing whatever is practical and logical at any given moment. So if it makes sense to manipulate the "system" to get something done, you do it, if it makes sense to work outside of a system, or to try and take down a system, you do it. You can do both Evil acts, and good ones depending on what's most practical at any given moment.
Further, TN can be a more passive alignment, who just wants everyone to "get along" without leaning much one way or another.Each alignment can mean a few different things.
That is how I see them also. I would add that I really don't see them as "straightjacketing" player behavior, or as limit labels that others seem to feel that they are. Each defines a certain area of action that covers a pretty broad spectrum and the system does a pretty good job of describing where All possible actions fit within it. If you drift between them because your actions do not match one only, it does not mean that either you or the system is flawed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since everything needs to be boiled down to its simplest form, and direct questions seem to get responded to:
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
I certainly hope so. It makes sense to me. Robbing someone on the threat of death is a pretty hostile act. I certainly wouldn't be chummy with someone who did that to me. I'd thank someone who snuck up behind the assailant and knocked him out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I certainly hope so. It makes sense to me. Robbing someone on the threat of death is a pretty hostile act. I certainly wouldn't be chummy with someone who did that to me. I'd thank someone who snuck up behind the assailant and knocked him out.Since everything needs to be boiled down to its simplest form, and direct questions seem to get responded to:
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
If this would be the case, then the "rescuer" would then become a hostile target to the bandits, and this a consequence free target. Not just for the bandit, but for anyone who would want to intercede on the bandit's behalf.
This is why I called it a "Hostility Bomb", an ever expanding ring drawing more and more people into the web.
So the next question is, how soon should the bandit see people in the vicinity as "Hostile"?
Then w had an earlier question of rearranged SADs. If both parties have arranged for the SAD exchange, should the attack on the SAD issuing character make the "rescuers" hostile towards the other party of the arranged SAD? It is in fact there interaction that is being interfered with, with deadly force.
These are the problems I see with the SAD system if it is considered a hostile act, that can be interfered with by anyone in the vicinity. Not even the raiding of outposts, or POIs make everyone in the vicinity see the raiders as hostile, unless they are connected (owners) of the outpost or poi. The only other group that has the ability to respond to a raid is if raiding is made illegal and they are citizens of that settlement.
"Agency" is the word that needs to be considered. You must have agency with the individual or location being assaulted, in order for the attackers to appear hostile to you.
I have stated, many, many times, there should be tools for those seeking to administer "justice". I produced a list of 10 ways that you can engage in consequence free PvP, one of which was the SAD.
But if the SAD us going to generate hostility in the vicinity, then it has no practical use for the bandit and bears risk for even pre arranged SADs.
That is the real risk here. Settlements or companies will not be able to prearrange SAD deals with local bandits or mercenaries, who would then guard those caravans during their journey.
SADs will have to be conducted in the meta game, and poorer merchants won't have the SAD offer to exchange for that escort. They will not be able to secure escort as easily with their limited gold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If this would be the case, then the "rescuer" would then become a hostile target to the bandits, and this a consequence free target. Not just for the bandit, but for anyone who would want to intercede on the bandit's behalf.I certainly hope so. It makes sense to me. Robbing someone on the threat of death is a pretty hostile act. I certainly wouldn't be chummy with someone who did that to me. I'd thank someone who snuck up behind the assailant and knocked him out.Since everything needs to be boiled down to its simplest form, and direct questions seem to get responded to:
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
What? Why would someone doing the right thing and helping someone be shown as hostile to anyone but the bandits? That's insane. No Hostility Bomb. The bandits were in the wrong as the initiator of the hostilities, so they're the only ones that get flagged as aggressors.
Edit: Are you saying that the Attacker flag is also a Hostility bomb?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is the real risk here. Settlements or companies will not be able to prearrange SAD deals with local bandits or mercenaries, who would then guard those caravans during their journey.
SADs will have to be conducted in the meta game, and poorer merchants won't have the SAD offer to exchange for that escort. They will not be able to secure escort as easily with their limited gold.
Uh, that's not what SADs are for. That's what Contracts are for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does to me also, it would create an exploitable "Hostility Bomb".Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?TBD. Seems weird to me though.
An identical one to the Attacker flag. I guess we need to scrap that too. No one should be able to help anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit: Are you saying that the Attacker flag is also a Hostility bomb?Since everything needs to be boiled down to its simplest form, and direct questions seem to get responded to:
Will a SAD trigger everyone in the vicinity to see the character issuing the SAD as hostile?
No, the attacker state in the hostility system is individualized, or attached to together members of the associated player grouping.
What creates the Hostility Bomb is the "everyone in the vicinity" part. In almost all of the systems described, you can not retaliate unless you are somehow connected to victimhood. That doesn't mean you can't intercede, but you will have to accept the consequences of that action, just like everyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well I hope you like your murder-robber simulator. I'd have liked to play this game, too.
There are ways that you can help someone else, but you have to have some form of agency with them.
1. If someone attacks a citizen of your settlement, you can freely defend them.
2. If someone attacks a member of your company, you can freely defend them.
3. If someone attacks a member of your ad hoc group, you can freely defend them.
4. If someone violates a law in your settlement hex, you can freely attack the criminal.
5. If you have an active feud, way or are a member of the opposing faction, you can freely attack that person.
6. If that person raided your outpost, POI or similar structure, you can freely attack that person.
7. If that person attack you, you can freely defend yourself.
8. If you have a bounty, assassination or death curse against that person, you can freely attack that person.
9. If you SAD someone and they turn down the offer, you can freely attack that person.
This list has been agreed to by Ryan Dancey as being in the design direction of the game, and are all meaningful forms of PvP.
The only place(s) in the River Kingdoms where you might run into some difficulty is within the settlement hexes of other companies (other than your own) that may have laws against some, many or all of these.
No one is the world's police force, and even U.N. Peace Keepers need to get permission by the host country to enter. Even then, they are often limited in what they can do.
The best way not to get robbed or murdered, don't travel alone. Even in a group, travel smart and aware of the dangers around you.
It won't be a murder-robbery simulator, but also not Hello Kitty Online, it will be somewhere in between ( although probably not 50/50 but hopefully 60/40ish).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't need a world full of policemen who kill on site, some kind of law enforcement flag that allows you to order the bandit to drop the SAD ,or else you get to attack ,would be better. There could be choices for everyone, like the law man orders the bandit to leave or orders them to hand over their weapons and then leave, the bandit can attack the lawman or comply. The lawman could also signal the merchant to attack if he wants and they will help. All that could be done without the bandit being hostile to anyone but the merchant. With the alignment system we cant have everyone able to jump in a LG role just because it is convenient for PVP. Evil aligned characters would not take it personally if they saw a bandit robbing someone, their alignment would not feel they must attack ,they might approve of taking from the weak.
I suppose you don't even need an extra lawman flag , just more choices available for everyone in the area of an SAD .So vigilantes can jump in when they feel being good wont get them killed , jk. So it would deal with the problem of how to stop bandits from robbing in front of a crowd. The SAD could give options for people close by to choose also.Bandits will have to judge when it is safe for them to SAD and people nearby will be part of the SAD with their own options but the bandit is not auto-hostile for an SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is Drakhan, you're the one advocating 'murder' in this scenario. A SAD is a criminal act, and does not necessarily end up in an attack or in murder. It seems you (or at least the position you're advocating) want to wade in and kill the 'dirty rotten scoundrels' for something that may very well be legal in the hex it occurs in. Why would that not make you hostile also?
As I've stated previously, I would really love to see consequences for crimes (or chaotic acts if they're not illegal) that extend beyond 'kill them!'.
I'm not opposed to having a small timer after each SAD where the attacker is "Hostile", I think mostly because these SAD's will take place in Wilderness/Monster hexes, and not crowded Settlement or NPC hexes. However, if you take the Attacker/Mass-Murder flag system, and apply it directly to SAD's, you ruin the SAD system, completely.
The only time bandits will get attacked after SAD'ing someone, with a small "hostility" timer, is when someone else happens to be in the right place at the right time, and cares enough to help.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't need a world full of policemen who kill on site, some kind of law enforcement flag that allows you to order the bandit to drop the SAD ,or else you get to attack ,would be better.
A "Cease and Desist" ability was suggested that would do just that. As Stephen Cheney stated, when we suggest an ability, skill or feat, we need to make a case for it functionality and make sure it is not a mirror of something else already. There also needs to be offsets or tradeoffs (COSTS).
I like the idea of a C.A.D. or the Apprehend mechanics. But, they have to be trained, slotted and have a meaningful function for their use. If they do nothing more than the SAD, then just SAD.
Yea, for people who want to play the Bandit-hunter role, I've often said, the SAD system is a 2-way street. Just SAD the SAD'ers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True Neutral - ... it can mean a position of pure Pragmatism. Doing whatever is practical and logical at any given moment. So if it makes sense to manipulate the "system" to get something done, you do it, if it makes sense to work outside of a system, or to try and take down a system, you do it. You can do both Evil acts, and good ones depending on what's most practical at any given moment.
This is how I usually play TN and how I plan on playing my main character for PFO.
True Neutral - ... it can mean a position of pure Pragmatism. Doing whatever is practical and logical at any given moment. So if it makes sense to manipulate the "system" to get something done, you do it, if it makes sense to work outside of a system, or to try and take down a system, you do it. You can do both Evil acts, and good ones depending on what's most practical at any given moment.This is how I usually play TN and how I plan on playing my main character for PFO.
Yea, that's why TN is my second favorite alignment. I like to play somewhere between CN and TN. Good alignments both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need a world full of policemen who kill on site, some kind of law enforcement flag that allows you to order the bandit to drop the SAD ,or else you get to attack ,would be better.A "Cease and Desist" ability was suggested that would do just that. As Stephen Cheney stated, when we suggest an ability, skill or feat, we need to make a case for it functionality and make sure it is not a mirror of something else already. There also needs to be offsets or tradeoffs (COSTS).
I like the idea of a C.A.D. or the Apprehend mechanics. But, they have to be trained, slotted and have a meaningful function for their use. If they do nothing more than the SAD, then just SAD.
Having thought about it some more ,I think just adding the bystander group into the SAD would be easier to put in the game .So if Group A does an SAD to group B and group C is in range(whatever that is)then group C gets their own SAD pop up window with their own choices to pick. Group A and B have the standard SAD going on as developed, group c gets choices like
1. tell bandits to leave and a free attack if they don't drop the SAD2.tell merchant you will assist if he attacks and you auto join the combat on his side.
3.order bandits to hand over their weapons or you will attack
The bandits get the new option to attack group C if they are threatened with choice 1 or 3.
No new flag or system needs to be developed just an addition to the SAD that they are already working on , make the SAD include any group close by as a third party, they can just ignore it all too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SAD as a large AoE.
Then you get bandit hunters dangling caravan bait with hidden fighters inside AoE range. Not very different than traveling with obvious guards except attempting the illusion you're an easier target to lure bandits into a SAD.
It prevents helpless bystanders though especially in an urban SAD situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a pretty good article by Chris Roberts which explains why risk needs to be part of a game to make it truly great
"You can’t have light with dark and you can’t have reward without risk."
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12879-Death-Of-A- Spaceman
Not to get side tracked but thanx for the link. was a great read and an interesting way to handle death in a meaningful way while keeping to the fun and immersion requests of lots gamers. If only there was a way to do something similar in PFO. I think that would make things interesting. The whole "next of kin" idea is wonderful. Especially from a RP stand point, but we are a bit off topic. I might start a new thread. Sorry for the derail, back on topic....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is Drakhan, you're the one advocating 'murder' in this scenario. A SAD is a criminal act, and does not necessarily end up in an attack or in murder. It seems you (or at least the position you're advocating) want to wade in and kill the 'dirty rotten scoundrels' for something that may very well be legal in the hex it occurs in. Why would that not make you hostile also?
As I've stated previously, I would really love to see consequences for crimes (or chaotic acts if they're not illegal) that extend beyond 'kill them!'.
To be fair, the SAD mechanic is a threat of murder. While it might be true that not every SAD results in murder, all of them are conducted with the threat of.
It is also true that not every attempted murder ends up in murder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing is Drakhan, you're the one advocating 'murder' in this scenario. A SAD is a criminal act, and does not necessarily end up in an attack or in murder. It seems you (or at least the position you're advocating) want to wade in and kill the 'dirty rotten scoundrels' for something that may very well be legal in the hex it occurs in. Why would that not make you hostile also?
As I've stated previously, I would really love to see consequences for crimes (or chaotic acts if they're not illegal) that extend beyond 'kill them!'.
To be fair, the SAD mechanic is a threat of murder. While it might be true that not every SAD results in murder, all of them are conducted with the threat of.
It is also true that not every attempted murder ends up in murder.
Absolutely agree - which is why it would be great if there was another subsystem that threatened bandits with 'murder' or some other consequence that attempted an apprehension or interdiction, but didn't leap straight into 'kill them!'.
I might be naive, or it might be too much coding effort to put in game, but in an area of Golorian that is known for its bandits and its chaotic ways, plus given one of their freedoms states 'you have what you can hold', I just see it as a little strange the immediate reaction to robbery it outright attack/murder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't need a world full of policemen who kill on site, some kind of law enforcement flag that allows you to order the bandit to drop the SAD ,or else you get to attack ,would be better.A "Cease and Desist" ability was suggested that would do just that. As Stephen Cheney stated, when we suggest an ability, skill or feat, we need to make a case for it functionality and make sure it is not a mirror of something else already. There also needs to be offsets or tradeoffs (COSTS).
I like the idea of a C.A.D. or the Apprehend mechanics. But, they have to be trained, slotted and have a meaningful function for their use. If they do nothing more than the SAD, then just SAD.
Having thought about it some more ,I think just adding the bystander group into the SAD would be easier to put in the game .So if Group A does an SAD to group B and group C is in range(whatever that is)then group C gets their own SAD pop up window with their own choices to pick. Group A and B have the standard SAD going on as developed, group c gets choices like
1. tell bandits to leave and a free attack if they don't drop the SAD
2.tell merchant you will assist if he attacks and you auto join the combat on his side.
3.order bandits to hand over their weapons or you will attack
The bandits get the new option to attack group C if they are threatened with choice 1 or 3.
No new flag or system needs to be developed just an addition to the SAD that they are already working on , make the SAD include any group close by as a third party, they can just ignore it all too.
In your scenario, you're assuming that the bandits are the bad guys and that the group being SADed are in fact merchants. It would be prudent to build in an option to help the 'bandits' as well.
Absolutely agree - which is why it would be great if there was another subsystem that threatened bandits with 'murder' or some other consequence that attempted an apprehension or interdiction, but didn't leap straight into 'kill them!'.
There is though. It's called Stand And Deliver.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Absolutely agree - which is why it would be great if there was another subsystem that threatened bandits with 'murder' or some other consequence that attempted an apprehension or interdiction, but didn't leap straight into 'kill them!'.There is though. It's called Stand And Deliver.
Which will make life hilarious when vigilantes ride in and kill the wrong group :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this issue is really quite done. We have posts from both Stephen Cheney and Ryan Dancey that clarify the major issues that some people were having or creating.
Although I'm still not convinced that SADs are all that beneficial for the economy, the merchant or the bandit, the devs seem to think they are.
If anything else, SADs reducing killing and if that is one of the goals of Goblin Works, then the system will be working as intended.
Yeah, they maybe swapping a murder simulator for a robbery simulator, but it is a lot easier to recover from a robbery than it is from a death.