The Guide Program remains a good idea, both for the benefit of new players and for the community into which they are integrating. To those who wish to pursue the creation of such a program in this game, though it takes a great deal of time, effort, and dedication, from my own past experience, I can say it is extremely rewarding work and encourage you to do so. Helping your fellow player and building interpersonal bridges and bonds, especially those that manage to rise above the potentially divisive politics of nation building games, can only make the community stronger.
I wish you well.
I have been quoted in print without my permission...or a hefty payment. Where's my lawyer?!?
Seriously, being a wandering harvester and helpful traveler in most games, I certainly see the appeal of such a group and had said as much to Gale (thus the quote). A network of like-minded players, loose in hierarchical structure but strong in theme and friendship, especially able to exist in the context of such a competitive game, should be a very interesting and entertaining experiment.
Perhaps the most difficult challenge yet to be faced by this budding band is the TBD home settlement. In a game where training to any decent level is tied to player-run settlement membership, having a roving band associated with so many other "affiliated settlements" might be a tricky political dance.
Given their growing neutrality in all things political, Thod's Emerald Lodge might be worth considering.
For the early hour, and for a feline, Cat has been awake for an astonishingly long time this morning. With her left paw crossed atop the right, she has silently watched the first risers of the party arrive at the table below to break their fast and discuss their venture in hushed tones. As they wait for the stragglers, she methodically bathes a patch of fur that to any onlooker, would have seemed as clean as any other patch.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
That such features as sitting in a chair and writing in books are possible features to be crowdforged is actually more than I had thought possible. If it comes to a vote some far day down the road, it means it had a chance to be included and the majority vote should win the argument.
That sir, is all the answer I was looking for. Thank you for your reply.
*tips his green hat at the green CEO*
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Ryan,The problem with leaving it up to us to answer, "...what marvelous wonders you have behind the curtain that will be so dazzling as to break us of our obsession with chairs," is that we don't make the game. If it is a "given that it's hard to do anything, and everything leads to either/or tradeoffs," then it sounds like you're saying GW will be limited in its ability to provide anything we're asking for outside the realm of what you already have planned. I could live with that. I'm used to making my own fun in games, regardless of assistance from the game itself. But then, you finish with "suggesting that [we] should rethink what [we] ask for and not settle for marginal utility," as if you're prepared to offer us more than what we are currently asking for if we just hit upon the right things for which to ask.
So are you asking us to think bigger since we might only get one choice, or are you shuffling the shells and asking us to pick the right one hiding the features that you already have in mind, or are you really just saying that we should be happy "imagining" with what you're already coding in the game (which in your mind is better than our marginal utilities)?
For someone asking pretty direct questions, I can't help but restate that the answers seem rather cryptic or purposely vague. At this point, I'd even be fine with, "We aren't planning for anything that the posters in this thread are asking for." Honest. As a gamer, I'm somewhat of a minimalist - I'm able to create my own fun with very few bells and whistles. But as a teacher, I'm used to the conveyance of information being a rather straightforward exchange - not a mystery.
I take so long to post, that you posted before I was finished, so I'm editing this to include your point. It sounds like your conclusion is the same as my saying that we should be happy "imagining" with what they're already coding in the game (which in Ryan's mind is better than our marginal utilities). If that's what Ryan is saying, I'm fine with that. I'm just looking for a straight answer.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
On one hand, we are reminded of MVP and you take nearly a page to list reasons why usable chairs are difficult and costly to code into the game. Yet here, you seem to be alluding to features and roles that will challenge our assumptions about role-play in an MMO and make our last decade of MMO experience seem impoverished by comparison. Would you care to describe what marvelous wonders you have behind the curtain that will be so dazzling as to break us of our obsession with chairs?
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Again, for the sake of role-play, what toolkit are you speaking of? Though some of your lengthier posts have provided much appreciated details, there are times you can be rather cryptic (or perhaps purposely vague). These allusions to an environment that will challenge us to think bigger and more creatively are a bit thin on specifics. If you mean that you believe the game itself will be that role-play friendly or engaging, snappy. If not...I want my chair. :)
I have no problem at all with being told that something I wish to be able to do is too difficult, costly, time consuming, etc. As a potential customer, I appreciate that the CEO is being honest about realistic expectations for the game he represents. What I find odd is that, as CEO, you are directly or indirectly telling posters that things they've said they would find desirable in a game are "unimaginative". Likewise, to allude that any of these posters were claiming that writing in a book or sitting in a chair would be the best part of their gaming session is stretching what they have said in an attempt to make your point. Yes, you were reflecting on your own gaming experience, but the implication seems rather easily read. If that was not your intention, I apologize for the false assumption.
That you will be providing us more engaging roles to play is greatly appreciated. However, I do not see how providing us with these would diminish our desire for the abilities we have listed here since none of them are tied to specific roles. That nearly makes it sound as if our desire for these things is somehow rooted in a less than satisfying role-play experience, and that if we are but provided more meaningful roles, we will toss aside these unimaginative practices. Actually, in that the proposed system for skill acquisition promises to remove the grind that monopolized our playtime in other games, we will find ourselves with even more time to sit in chairs and write books. :)
So you see yourself as safeguarding GW's development budget from all these frivolous role-players who will squander money rightfully allocated for more critical game features? Given Ryan's last two posts in this thread, I doubt you have much to worry about.
As for our suggestions, I don't see anyone asking for these in EE, or even OE. Neither has anyone advocated that one of the mentioned RP features should take precedent over the development of any MVP features. By comparison, this thread has generated far fewer "pie in the sky" wishlists (let alone demands) than most other threads focused on a particular aspect of the game.
What I do believe is that we all would do well to keep our expectations realistically low for any aspect of the game. Actually, role-players are quite adept at making more from less, so I'm sure we'll get along swimmingly well while we wait for our day. However, in a game at least loosely based on a RPG TT game, that some day down the road, once the game has legs, providing a little love for role-players doesn't seem to be asking for much. If the game really takes off with role-players, I suspect they (more than many player groups) would likely be willing to pay for a handful of beloved features. In fact, put these in the cash shop and watch how much role-players put their money where their mouths are.
Given that the game will focus on settlement conflict, made possible or at least augmented by PvP, crafting, escalations, etc., I doubt anyone is asking for anything similar in number to all the commands and animations available to PvPers or even crafters. The lists I've seen posted here are pretty short, and some (such as skins and dyes) have been mentioned in other threads.
Also worth mentioning, the things we are asking for are not only usable by role-players, but will hopefully make the world feel more real, and thus more entertaining, for any player.
Let me add one thought. Whenever RP is mentioned in the same breath as all the other provided activities in an MMO, there is the tendency to portray it as a social pass-time, as if it is something you do separate from other activities, or worse yet, while you're waiting for other activities to take place. For instance, he's planning to do a little PvP by ambushing a caravan, to go kill monsters in an escalation, to craft some items, or go role-play. Worse than "or"...he's waiting for an escalation or that item to pop out of the crafting hopper...so he might as well role-play while he's waiting, as if role-play were simply a way to pass the time.
For some of us, role-play isn't an aside to the game, it's something we do while playing every other part of the game. If I'm hunting monsters, I'm still role-playing Hobs. Hobs will still act like Hobs (not me), he will still interact with the world based on what Hobs (the character) sees, hears, understands, etc. There won't be "Hobs' player while playing PFO" and then "Hobs' player while Role-playing in PFO". There will just be "Hobs in PFO".
I think the temptation to view all role-players as doing their own thing off in the corner, away from the rest of the player body, is to assume that all role-play is some form of minigame within the larger game environment. True, historically there have been some RP communities that worked that way and have brought that judgement upon themselves and, unfortunately, the rest of we role-players. However, for those of us who wrap up everything we do in-game within a skin of role-play, it is even more vital to have the world feel more real for our characters, because we are interacting with that world in the same way every other player does, plus trying to experience it through our character's eyes. So when a chair doesn't work as a chair, we're forced back into the role of a player watching a particular mass of pixels go where we tell it to go.
As for me, I plan to play PFO as fully as any other player. The only possible difference - I'll be doing so in-character. I don't plan to be any less effective of a harvester, merchant, healer, etc. because I also role-play my character. I'm not going to be spending hours huddled with other role-players "imagining" together in some corner of a tavern. Rather, I intend to squeeze every bit of game enjoyment out of PFO that the developers put in it for any other play-style...and then, like a big, tasty MMO sundae, I'll place the cherry that is role-play squarely on the top.
You don't need Ryan or the team at GW to come hold your hand every time you want to RP.
No one is asking to be hand held. As I stated earlier, if - as you keep asserting - all you needed to feel immersed in your RP within a game was your imagination, then we really wouldn't need PFO at all. Unfortunately, you continue to push to the extremes of an argument (and often insultingly so) to make your case.
BECAUSE RP'ing relies much more on player imagination, they don't need NEARLY as much to enjoy a rich gaming experience
It's the "NEARLY" part that we're really discussing here. Can GW not afford at least a modicum of programming/code/etc. for a portion of its player base?
Let me approach this from a money & PR standpoint. For a game that likely hopes to make a portion of its revenue by luring Pathfinder players into an MMO at least loosely based on the table top namesake, I would think it a worthwhile expenditure of time and money to throw the RP community a small bone or two and make those TT veterans feel a bit more at home in the new setting. Or is it that any time at all taken away from PvP development is being viewed as a total waste, as if GW should cater exclusively to PvPers?
Before anyone accuses me of not knowing what PFO is about, I (and I believe other RPers in this thread) are not asking to turn the game into an RP-fest. Within the existing context of the game, we're simply brainstorming ideas of how to add a touch of realism and creativity.
Put another way, I don't have to role-play that I hit you with a sword. I can do it. You can tell I did it. It is a visible reality to both of us, complete with effects (spattering blood, armor damage, you fall over dead...). Neither of us need to imagine anything to feel that my action happened. The game provides all the evidence we need. But if I stand next to a noninteractive chair, emoting that I'm sitting, not only doesn't that seem real within the context of the game, but it's the kind of work-around in a less than RP friendly environment that causes nonrole-players to look at us and ask, "What's with that guy?"
In that nearly every other consideration in game development is being made for PvP, settlement conflict, etc., is having a chair that works like a chair really that much to ask?
If it's all in our head, then we would do it without the game and GW would have had far less kickstarter support.
Given his first statement, I have the impression that Ryan's definition of roleplaying is likely as simple as, "You're role-playing because you're controlling an avatar that is not yourself and doing things you cant' really do." If that's all that role-playing is, you're technically role-playing in a single player console game, though I suspect most role-players would not agree. If that's all that role-play is, I would have been satisfied with EVE, but it takes more than the equivalent of "spreadsheets in space" to pique my interest in a game, let alone call it role-play.
If I have Ryan's definition wrong, I'd be happy to hear his thoughts.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I wish I understood better the value proposition of things like books you can write in or chairs you can sit in from a "roleplaying perspective".
That would depend upon what you value. Role-players want their world to be more than a limited number of interactive buttons and toggles utilized strictly for numerical gain of one form or another. We want the world, as much as possible, to feel real - even down to something as simple as sitting in a chair. It's often about the ability to manipulate your surroundings such that those surroundings don't feel like static props and backdrops on someone else's stage. Would you rather have your character walk into a two dimensional representation of a tavern - flat and noninteractive - or a fully realized tavern, complete with usable chairs so you can sit with friends and feel at home? Would you rather have a painting of a bookcase, or one stocked with real books filled with player writing - the history of your CC, settlement policies, secret messages, poetry, clues to a player designed quest, etc.
I am just one guy though.
Nope. I'll agree with you. :)
I would find it very odd if the best items don't require settlements for their creation. Like many have already posted, I was under the assumption that starter towns would have the basics for new characters, but anything advanced - training, crafting, etc. - was going to belong to settlements.
I don't chime in on PvP threads often, but I think the ongoing argument about crafters (or any non-PvP oriented settlement member) learning to do a smidgeon of combat skills has - like far too many topics on these forums - been stretched to extremes. If the training system is to mirror Eve's, then the earliest levels of training will take minutes, hours, or a day at most. Given that those serious about playing PFO are looking at years of game-time investment, I doubt minutes/hours/a day will be an irrecoverable loss to a crafter's training schedule.
As Jiminy points out, a few points in archery might allow a crafter to launch an arrow or two into a fight, possibly weakening an invader enough to help their settlement militia save the day. This is not about forcing anyone to to PvP on a regular basis, but rather, in the most dire circumstances, asking that every hand is on deck, even with the slightest of combat skills (which could also include healing the combatants). Now, if they allow crafters with the appropriate skills to repair walls that are being bombarded, toss buckets of water on burning houses, etc., then I would expect crafters to being doing those tasks so that skilled PvPers can attend to the battle.
However, there comes a time (hopefully not often) when the protection of your coveted crafting station comes down to using that smithy's hammer for bonking other things than pieces of metal. If you're not willing to have spent a few proactive skill points for these most dire circumstances, than I question your devotion to your settlement and whether you deserve the use of that smithy that others are risking so much to provide you.
...so if Hobs agrees, does that constitute being
Ryan Dancey wrote:
called on to take one for the team
or will his commitment be put into question if he simply
Puts on "Green Hat of Fire Resistance"
to avoid a chaotic act and maintain his own reputation score...
Thanks, Shane. It is a holiday weekend, so maybe they are too busy, don't like to write, or have other more important things to spend their valuable online time doing...I know how that is. Also, some may not care for how green hats in general (see all the different comments in my first post) are tied to some people's notion of PvPing someone for a particular item, like the Pants Monday that I believe Murder Herd used to do. My hope was that if you didn't like someone else's interpretation, you could attach your own and sort of "crowdforge" where the lore was headed. We'll see. :)
If you go back to the original reason for the "Fresh Start" meetings, one of the purposes was to allow people to discuss ideas in real time and then post those collective ideas on the forum. True, we may not have much in the way of hard facts to discuss, but except for last evening, the discussions have been a productive outlet for idea crafting that might even be helpful to the devs. As shown in Harad's supplied recordings, we haven't attempted to say that any of our propositions are best, nor have I see anyone become so invested in these propositions as to bring it back here and treat them like gospel.
Note, I wouldn't say that the last portion of last evening's discussion was contentious, but it did mainly feature two players from diametrically opposing camps. Even then, the discussion was far less heated than on the boards, which, if you look at the original post of this thread, was also one of the reasons for the "Fresh Start" discussions.
In short, people who have participated have seemed to enjoy the get-together and no one seems to have put too much stock in the product, except the product of a more civil discussion.
The effects of lightning on stealth would be interesting. WoW had footprint trails in snow that could also be a pain when trying to sneak about.
Rain storms hitting right in the middle of a siege...
Windstorm when trying to traverse sandy/desert areas...
Could cliff or mountain climbing cause rock-slides that hurt both you and the people below/behind you? Could they be triggered on purpose...
Could rutted, choppy land have a chance of not only slowing down mounted movement, but causing your mount to be temporarily lame (say 1 in 20 tiles of rutted space might have a "twist ankle" trigger)...
I would hope, for training and teaching purposes, that there will be a mechanism for people to accept PvP without Rep and alignment consequences. I know Ryan dislikes duel mechanics (and wants to avoid the annoying "Dude, duel me," players that follow you about), but perhaps a party feature for those not in the same company/settlement/etc. and a toggle for those who are. A whole settlement being able to practice defense at once would be very helpful, I would think.
I'm sure there are those move versed in PvP and how to exploit such systems as I loosely describe above, who can work out the bugs of such a system better than I. I just don't think we can have a game so rooted in PvP with no way to train attacking/defending/raiding/etc.
I believe reputation needs to be actively gained, not passively gifted, so I'm not expecting to be compensated for what I do outside the game, no matter how beneficial it might be to the game or the community. True, I don't plan to either PvP (with Hobs) or do things that will cost me reputation, so I'm one of the few people who will likely be a null rep player.
But I did not say you were killing them because you didn't like them. I quoted your own words..."for instance if I killed anyone who aggravated me on the forums."
From a positive, community building standpoint, I don't believe attacking a player's character as payback for aggravating you on the forums does much for fostering an atmosphere where posters feel free to voice their opinions and disagree with one another in a productive manner. More likely (because it has happened in nearly every other game), it will increase the toxicity of the forums, rather than help diminish them.
I'm not being naive here. I'm fully aware that many people who intend to play PFO have no intention of role-playing or keeping in-game and out-of-game separate. But as the head of one of the larger guilds, a community leader, and one of the more prolific posters on this forum, I think there is a relevant distinction to be made. After all, we aren't talking about killing toxic, Goon Swarm-ish style players here. If you plan on targeting people from the forums, you're potentially talking about players who have an equally vested interest in the PFO community and may have been as productively active on the forums as yourself. Their only crime and the reason for their character's death...as a player, they aggravate you. What meaning does this have in-game? How is this truly any more meaningful in the context of the game than someone who kills simply because they feel like it?
Recently, there has been an attempt - not always successful, but noticeable - to reduce the toxicity of the forums by keeping arguments focused on the topic, rather than on the posters - to respect a fellow player, even if you greatly dislike their position on a given subject. So when the context of our behavior as players changes from the forum to the game itself, will you be playing the game for the game - responding to game events/actions/etc. while still respecting the players behind the character - or will you be using it as a vehicle for getting back at players who aggravate you out-of-game? To do the latter nearly sounds like killing another's character simply to get back at the player by making their game experience miserable...
But what you describe is alignment, which is a role-played metric. Reputation is measuring player behavior. Are we now saying that if I'm usually well behaved, it isn't as bad if I act badly? That seems to be giving licence to high rep players to kill whomever they wish, for whatever reason, as long as they don't do it too often. Strikes me as rewarding good behavior with the ability to act poorly.
The fact that you may have high Rep already allows you to drop every now and again. Charging high Rep players less for their poor behavior seems likely to prompt even more bad behavior.
I was not questioning your intended Rep guidelines for TEO or what level of Rep a character needs to have to afford being able to kill people simply because those people tick them off.
My question was about what you included as a reason for killing someone in-game - that they aggravated you on the forums.
In that you have seemed to be a very vocal supporter for meaningful PvP and meaningful killing in-game, that you seemed to be suggesting that being ticked off by posts on the forum was an acceptable reason for killing someone's character struck me as rather odd.
I would agree with those who believe that characters should begin the game with 0 Reputation. First, not all new characters are played by new players. Giving new characters 750 positive Reputation points to potentially burn through with undesired behavior seems contrary to the purpose of the Reputation system. If Reputation represents a visible measurement of player behavior (at least those that can be tracked by the game), I want positive Reputation to be generated by performing positive actions in-game. Gifting new characters with that much positive Reputation strikes me as both getting something for nothing and providing a false representation of that player. Seeing 750 Rep on a character because their actions are that positive means something completely different from seeing 750 Rep on a new player, but unless new players are marked as such, no one will know the differences. Put another way, the player who earned their 750 Rep will be much more trustworthy, at least based on their game-tracked behavior. The New player's 750 Rep doesn't tell me a thing about their play style.
Furthermore, by starting at 0 Reputation, players must make good choices about their actions right off the bat, lest they fall into the negative range. They should need to build up that positive buffer that allows for a bad actions once in a blue moon. Those bad action shouldn't be occurring so often we need a buffer on day one of rolling a new character.
First, my bolding for emphasis. Also, I included the last part because it seems to reference your whole post (including the first quoted portion above), which would lead me to believe that the first portion above is not a hypothetical, but your possible intended action.
Question - are you saying you intend to potentially kill people in-game because they aggravate you on the forums?
Hang on there, Mr. Harbinger...
I've already been cast as Simon for the PFO version of Lord of the Flies, which, if memory recalls, means I end up torn apart by my peers.
Now I'm a "martyr, Patron Saint and Grand Marshall'?
No disrespect meant, but do I detect a slight theme here...?
Somehow, your fun keeps ending with me pushing up daisies.
When looking back at nearly a year of the most contentious topics - those subjects that truly spawned the largest number of disparate viewpoints - one stands above all others...the green hat. Seldom has any item (in meta space) spawned so many different uses, with so many alternative meanings, fostering such diverse emotional states, or so much pure, unadulterated befuddlement as the green hat.
For your reading pleasure, I give you the definitive PFO Forums Green Hat collection:
Nihimon has tipped his green hat at both myself and Bluudwolf. Diella wore her green hat in support of a blog, Proxima sin wants to dye hats green, and green hats are something Tigari is wary of. Andius sees a connection between green hats on Tuesday and shooting oneself in the foot or having one's head split in two with a meat cleaver. Goodfellow apparently fears intimidating, passive people in green hats, yet sometimes, just wants to kill the first green hat wearer he sees, though we hope for his sake that it isn't the green top hat wearing Godzilla that Papaver spotted. An entrepreneurial Cyneric looks forward to taking people's green hats and opening his own green hat supply store. Feydred believes green hats are a sure sign of bloodthirsty, indiscriminate killers, which might be why Lam seems uncertain if an approaching character in a green hat is a friend or foe. Qallz believes there will be no rep loss for green hat Tuesday, which may be why he plans to distribute them to newbies. Yet, for all this negativity, Jazzlvraz wants messages about green hats carved in stone at major crossroads. Urman believes that green hats are items that newbies will have at the start of the game, though Banasama knows a guy who sells them ten to a box for only ten gold, which strikes me as rather odd, since I have them patented. I also tip mine often at others, wear it when playing referee between Nihimon and Bluudwolf, and drag it disappointedly off into jungles when I have to be Simon and die before EE. KitNix advises against wearing them with matching cloaks, Phyllain is advertising an order for all your face stabbing/green hat wearing needs (a promotional +1 green hat of face stabbing included), and Lahn learned that dragging a thread off topic is punishable by being hit with a green hat. Lahn also enjoys jumping over green hats, contributing to green hat packs, apparently knows someone named Bob from the Green Hat Trading Co., believes green hats are something to be doled out, likes to think of them as "Don't PK me please" hats, and suggests demanding that people hand over their green hats and with their pants. Banesama actually thinks green hats could provide sanctuary from combat, while Alk Caskenflagon ponders about green velvet hats in the Talking Head Tavern. Finally, though DeciusBrutus believes green hat killing should reduce notoriety, Areks believes that green hats on Tuesday have the ability to actually transcend the game. You can read all about it in his upcoming novel, "The Green Hat Diaries."
In a class (and paragraph) by himself is Bluddwolf, coiner of the phrase, but oddly enough, the one who seems most confused about the whole thing. Though he plans to kill people wearing green hats or SAD them triple the usual amount, he also receives them as gifts from little old ladies. Even though he believes that green hats will be the item of choice at the Haberdasher's Ball, leading to server wide truces, he is ready to fight people at the drop of a green hat. As much as he doesn't think advertising the sale of QL 250 green hats warrants shouting across a hex, he concedes that they are acceptable rewards for grinding, even if making green hats is on par with basket weaving. Odder still are his views about what one does while wearing green hats, from carrying books out of bars, forgetting about alignment and reputation, skipping off into sunsets, and self-deletion. In trying to understand this rather convoluted obsession with green hats, we have it from a reliable source that Bluddwolf's nanny may have hung herself while wearing a green a hat. If this should prove to be untrue, we will be looking to borrow his "Green Hat of Fire Protection."
(This is a compilation of all the posts containing the mention of green hats - 5 pages worth - by the morning of 11/26/13 on the PFO forums. If I missed yours, please forgive the oversight. *apologetically tips green hat*)
Before I get to the meat of this post, I would like to tell a story. We can call it, "Story Time with Hobs." *Puts on his green hat of storytelling*
In one of the sculpture classes I've taken, I met a young (20-ish) student who liked to blend performance art with his pieces. For his metal casting project he decided to cast a 2' x 3' solid aluminum door. He framed this with a welded steel door frame, then proceeded to weld the door to the frame so that it could never be opened. He then welded on metal rods so that the door could be laid upon the ground and driven into the soil using the rods protruding from the back of the door. However, he didn't want to just drive it into the ground, he planned to dig holes and sink the rods into cement so that there would be little chance of anyone ever prying the door off the ground. After giving it an acceptable, tarnished patina, he and a buddy embedded the door alongside a busy expressway, complete with a bike path, thus ensuring that people would see the door. His plan was that passersby would wonder at the door leading underground. He was certain that some would attempt to make sense of the door, at it's possible use, where it led, etc. Over time, those guesses would give rise to assertions, which over the course of time, would lead to the stuff of urban legend. Thus, on one hand, his door had no real meaning or purpose. On the other, the stories that were generated (though totally wrong) were the point.
Meat of Post --->
Before I wrote this post, I actually researched for any reference of green hats in Pathfinder RPG. Much to my pleasure, I found nothing. I was pleased because the green hat, with all its sundry uses/meanings/etc. as illustrated above, is not game generated content. Rather, this one is all ours. it has evolved from all us. It belongs to this community. The twisted, borrowed, morphed metaphor that is the green hat is what we have made it and keep making it with every mention.
Come OE, the green hat will have taken on its own life. We who are here now will be in on the joke, but those new to PFO will have no clue. As much as we know this began with Bluud's attempt to claim that a seemingly random act of PvP could have meaning for the killer, it has grown far beyond his original intent. So let's have fun with this. Let it be like the sculpture student's door and create our own lore that will spill into the game and be the stuff of PFO River Kingdom urban legend. As an outlet for creativity and a somewhat silly yet fun way to bring us together as a community, I challenge each of you to add a post with your own lore for the green hat. What does it really mean, how has the meaning changed over time, where did it come from, who should or shouldn't wear it and why?
*waves you off like Ferris Beuller at the end of the movie*
Are you still here? Go on. Get outta here. Go make some lore.