NotAGruffling's page

My first stop in this book was straight to Chapter 4; Running a Mythic game. I don't care what the powers are, how awesome spells become, or how easy it becomes to Throw an Ankylosaurus At a T-Rex. I wanted advice to accommodate the scope and scale of how to run a Mythic game where the capabilities and powers of the Players would slide even more into their favor than the base game assumptions.

A couple things I immediately thought of when I landed on this thread and saw the general complaints of "too much power makes trivial things trivial" and "Broken CR is Broken".

The OP constantly references the Rare scope (Mythic Heroes in a Mundane World) of his desire for the game, when right next to it is the Limited scope. Don't like how powerful the players end up being in a mundane world? Take that power away. Do it with the power of Plot, but change the scale to the Limited Scope and you'll likely find that the chances for abusing that power are lessened. If you want there to be an economy to the Mythic Power, go with the suggestion (pg. 118) that you impose an economy to it.

Secondly, sidebar pg. 120 The Importance of Failure. check it out. Also known as, When Winning isn't Victory.

Thirdly, the structure to the ideas is very much based on the ideas of the classic Herculean mythos, but you have to accept that its going to be implemented by a bunch of gamers who at our best are like as not to grab the ring of power and put it on, instead of toss it into the fires of Mt. Doom. At our worst, we're munchkin trash looking to stuff every item of any perceived value (gold, jewels, 4'x6' Paintings of Obscure Chelish Nobles, Corpses of our closest friends still dripping with magic items) into one of our 5-9 bags of holding so we can plop it all down and ruin the local economy of the nearest capital city. Point is, if you give power out, you have to be prepared for that power to be used. You can't complain when that power is used irresponsibly.

Part of my base assumption to running a Mythic game, which I very much want to do, is to change the inherent context of running a "normal" game and scale it up to something that would be unforgivably ridiculous for a non-mythic campaign. Hercules strangled 2 deadly asps with his bare hands, while still naked in the crib. How will I use that example to fuel the gaming of my 4-6 Players is in part what this book/ruleset is supposed to answer. I think it provides fine guidelines for just that. Its not gonna run the game for you, but it will help provide you with a new idea of how the scope is meant to be drawn.

And Finally , I would HIGHLY recommend when going from any of the playtest rules to the finished product that any DM should take it upon themselves to provide some sort of reset to their game, either a reboot or a good ol' fashioned sit down Meta conversation with the players about what the plans are and how to adjust everything to meet whatever kind of expectations there are. This coming from a guy that tried (and somewhat succeeded) in running the original RotRL (in 3.5 o' vision) with the PF Beta rules, and transitioned into the final product, with never less than 5 players.

Fantastic customizations all around. I'm 2/3 through Wake, and am kicking myself that I didn't reinforce more narratives as you have from the outset.

One thing I did have the foresight to do is include a reoccurring villain figure from very nearly the outset. A Halfling Ninja/Illusionist (specialized in disguises) apprentice to Auren Vrood, "gifted" by the WW into undeath as a JuJu zombie. "Vrood's Child" has made appearances as follows;

I level him up to match the group at each stage, so he doesn't get totally gibbed, and has the chance to do what he's built to do, escape and return later to further annoy. He's not deadly, but he did give the group something tangible to hate about the Whispering Way, since they're not particularly not adroit at investigation games, and I wanted the name Vrood to stand out early and often.

As it comes to XP and all that, I like to use the larger group size as an opportunity to flex my design chops, and to break up some of the themes of each book. If I don't design a slightly off path area with neat creepy monsters, I'll simply add something Big And Scary to each major or poignent encounter spot (Like a Bloody Flaming Hill Giant Skeleton with a Greatclub) and occasionally max the HP of a fun monster, to preserve it into round 3. My Players aren't real good at investigations, but they murder up baddies real fast.

Good luck with your campaign!

even though both chars may be exactly the same.

This is one of most flawed assumptions, and one that's endemic in this thread. The only way this could possibly be true is if you completely eliminate the entirety of the process of getting to that end assumption (aka playing the game for well nigh 4-5 years). If you dip, at any point, from one path to another, you change the equation. You gain access to abilities outside of the scope of the path, and you gain what is arguably the most defining quality of characters in PFO, and that's versatility. If process A is different from process B, the equations are not equal, even if the result appears the same (and even then only by the most reductionist, un-nuanced logic)

Hitomi, I think you're missing my point entirely. It isn't punishment to force consequences for choices, particularly if there's little difference between option A and option B.

So "preserve" wasn't the best choice of term, since we're so focused on being precise, I'll rephrase. The design choice to gift a dedicated path vs a non-dedicated path is not punishment . You are allowed to do either, and accept the consequences of that choice. One results in slightly less options at the conclusion of nearly 5 years of gameplay. By slightly, we really are talking about at most 2-4 options, based on the still as of yet un-detailed limits on capstones.

I'm sorry if you think you're going to feel punished by that, but in the grander scheme of things, i take issue with a generalization using such language. If you're forced to make a choice, and you think your preference would be served by not having to make that choice, its simply not punishment. Its just a design choice. Punishment would be taking away an earned thing. Punishment is not limiting potential by fractional difference.

My personal view, the difference between the two options is minimal, and easily ameliorated by having an alt character. I realize that's not a perfect solution for everyone, but for me it would be fine. I also can't really state if its an important choice or not, as the details that are so crucial to this judgement call haven't even been put to paper yet.

To Support Grumpy's comment, and paraphrased from the Thornkeep book;

Advancement at the table: You gain a level and then spells/abilities/skills pop into your head.

Adv. in PFO: you train skills, and at the completion of the proper array, you gain a merit badge (roughly equivalent to a level)

Just this paradigm shift alone is enough to make your head spin, and of course generates more questions than answers, but that's to be expected at this stage of development.

I think at this point Mbando has the best answer; barring specific details about this beyond "could be cool" but "maybe not that super cool" we can't really do more than debate the possibilities. Basically, its gotta be a hard choice, and more importantly, the devs need to accurately and succinctly provide players with the proper information to make this choice. Its about communication really.

I don't know capstone to me seems less of a balancing feature and more of an extra slap in the face to people who are ADD in their skill training / a disincentive to multiclass.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves in all the internets, and it is endemic of forums about games. I'm sorry to call you out Andius, but they're your words...

No player is getting "slapped in the face" and they never will by a game, or by its Devs. I know its a popular turn of the phrase, but frankly, its exactly the wrong tone of Dev vs Players that i believe has no place in any constructive discussion. Its not an insult if they decide to do "that thing" regardless what that is. Its their game, and we're lucky to have such a level of influence as has been presented to us now. There's absolutely no place for this type of language.

To back up Nihimon with a similar perspective, in PFO you'll never need to "unspend" points in order to go down a new path. If you're interested in a different path of advancement, will not give up the skills you've already acquired, you'll just continually add to your knowledge base.

Why does the Noob get a faster rate of training? Just because he knows someone with more time in the game? How do you prevent that Longterm player from just using that longtime character to train his alternates faster?

The big problem with this system is the sort of logical analogy between time spent training, and XP gained in other systems. In other systems, its huge perk and a gateway to rapid advancement in levels, which allows you to compete in "end-game" stuff and compete in PvP more effectively. A very basic level of training should allow players in PFO to compete, so there's less of a power gap found in XP/Level based systems. Arbitrarily advancing some people due to some arbitrary relationship just doesn't seem like a good mechanic.

Everyone in this type of system should have a static rate of advance. Time. For every minute spent on a skill training, you should earn a minute of a skill. I don't see the advantages for the overall populace if some people advance faster, solely on some social structure.

In the place of more rapid advancement, I'm in favor of a system more like EVEs where access to new skills is gated by those capable of training them. This might translate to; to train past Basic Melee 4 into Great Axes (which requires bm4 maxed), you need a training manual to even get started on Great Axes 1. And so, Someone has to write that manual, and it thusly becomes a commodity to be traded or sold. In this way, social structures can build up allowing the teacher/apprentice, and you also get some extra economic pressures on the markets (trust me, a good thing).

once again, ignoring the charisma debate (for now), forcing players into an even more narrow form factor than just a race is just bad game design. it limits the creativity to imply a very narrow expectation of skills/capabilities vs appearance. A yoked dude that is huge "must" have a high str, and can't possibly be dexterous. This isn't immersion supporting or breaking, its just stereotyping. Yes it would make it easier to scan a field of characters and pick out who does what, but that expectation not really even based in reality, much less in anything other than very stereotypical archetypes. I am more interested in seeing a MMO that has as much freedom to design a character as the tabletop. There is no rule saying STR requires a robust form factor. if it were so, a halfing could never compete with any of the other base races for pure strength. As the rules are written, they can actually achieve similar levels of strength, despite having at most a third the body mass of a generic human. A half-orc can have 20 STR & 18 CON, and still be a beanpole, wiry and unbreakable. A noble fop can have dirt for CHA and still desire to wear the most desirable and elaborately expensive clothes he can pay for.

Its about freedom to the player. Its not about argumentative reductionism and absolutes, like arguing an elf can dial in the appearance of a dwarf. No one is arguing that, and to suggest it is quite disingenuous to the discussion.

Now to the CHA debacle (an argument as old and as stale as alignment IMHO): There's nothing saying a low CHA person need be limited in anyway in fashion or appearance. the second this person opens their mouth in a social situation, they're likely to show off a terrible ability to communicate, or convince others of his sense of self worth. This person can be gorgeous to behold, and completely incapable of a convincing lie, intimidation, or any sort of social interaction. Obviously this is designed as an abstraction. Most gamers are not accomplished politicians or diplomats, capable of persuading 9 of 10 enemies to lay down arms for a reasonable discussion. Many gamers have decided they want to play that kind of character, so the rules abstractions of CHA have been used to prevent awkward bumbling communicators from having to embarrass themselves in front of a table full of other gamers.

In the MMO space, there can't really be an easy way to convince other players that YOU the player are any more or less charismatic than the avatar you're piloting. You the player are completely in charge of all the aspect of communications that will dictate how other players react to you. Your avatar might have sway with NPCs, but even this sort of mechanic won't translate well from the table to the MMO.

...Personal Anecdotes...

You're missing the point pretty dramatically. The "Gamer Culture" is one that is openly, proudly misogynistic, and at the very very least, chauvinistic. In an MMO, that is prevalent in everything from how the game is designed, to the verbal abuses that can dominate any public channel. To pretend this isn't the case is naive, and to pretend that the anonymity that exists on the Interwebs won't continue to foster the vomit of low self esteem men is also naive.

When Goblinworks (and to a certain degree of separation Paizo) say they want to have high standards to the language and flavor in use, its not on a puritanical whim. Its in the hope and desire to make an inclusive game that brings as many people to the table as possible, both as a philosophical goal, and as sound business sense. No manner of systemic or customer service based controls will eliminate the inherent misogyny of the internet. But, if they state a high standard up front, and stick to it diligently, they'll have done far more than most MMOs to allow for a diversity of Players.

The Shades of Grey reference wasn't (as i read it) a direct reference to BDSM, which everyone can agree will be well outside of the spectrum of public acceptability. It was in reference to the power and control oriented manipulations and abuses that are so prevalent. My girlfriend (an avid MMO player) and I chat about this about as frequently as it rears its ugly head in our gaming space, and while its not every week, it is at least 1 out of every 4.

While i don't think girl gamers need protection, or coddling (in itself a pervasive and subtle form of sexism), I do applaude PFO's goal of providing the policy and the tools to allow all types/flavors/genres of players to take action against the sincerely offensive.

MicMan wrote:

If an opponent can slice all the way right through the heart of your empire, why should he stop there instead of taking everything?

1. The attacker will almost certainly be expending resources for each hex they conquer, so they might just run out of resources.

2. The attacker may be interested not in destroying the defender's nation, but rather in acquiring some valuable hexes.

3. If the attacker is trying to hold the territory and build their own Settlements, they might need to consolidate their strength to defend themselves during that time, rather than spreading themselves too thin just to wipe out their foe.

I'm sure there are some other valid reasons, too.

On a lark (and in no small part due to the campaign I'm running in Ustalav), this post made me think of how it could be interesting if constant war over a hex changed its qualities, in a similar way to how the french country side changed circa 1916. Maybe too technically challenging to actually reduce the forests to shattered stumps and the ground to muddy trenches, but if the proliferation of the fallen's remnants (the husks of a monthlong campaign could stack thigh high) changed the quality and type of resources within.

Nihimon wrote:

Nukruh wrote:

I think you [Ryan] might be underestimating how large or zerg guilds... can probably skip this whole system and still get territory.

It seems more like you [Nukruh] are underestimating GW's ability to make the game work exactly the way they want it to. If Ryan decides that an 8 person squad with Cohesion can easily overpower 200 individual characters, do you think he won't be able to make that happen?

They can do that but it sort of defeats the purpose of balancing PvP. Making a game work how you want it to on a mechanical level is one thing, that game actually being an acceptable play experience once you drop in thousands of players is another. You can only code in so much expectation before reality of how the game performs kicks in.

A couple of tidbits to assuage the fears/assumptions that there will be performance issues. With a limited number of seats at launch, performance concerns at launch will be moderated and the amount of hardware requirements will be well understood. You wont see 1 million subscribers in the first week crash every server, because that's not the model proposed. Even if the initial 4500 subscribers decide to all at once dive into a single valley in an unlikely effort to trash the connectivity of everyone at once, then basically they'll get what they expect, a server reset. Then everyone goes back to playing the game. As the subscriber base increases, so will the cash flow, and so will the capacity of the hardware. Now, of course this can be defeated (eg. server crashed) by some mythical mass grouping of people with the single goal of doing so, but eventually even arguments of pure theory have to give way to reasonable expectations.

I know his track record but that still doesn't mean that he is always right or that even if he has been mostly right in the past that it would continue in the future. I just see too many flaws in this system to make it actually work. I could go on about all the little things that compose the cogs of the mass PvP wheel but at this point it might seem pointless as he seems to have this system set in stone. It is one thing to sound good on paper but another to actually work in practice. That is is where I think these concepts will fail to be able to be executed no matter how well the intention was.

The flaws you "see" in a system incompletely described should be formed as questions, in the spirit of providing the developer's useful feedback. Flatly stating this that or the other won't work is somewhat disingenuous. Backing out of your arguments by saying you don't think you'll be listened to is also a bit strange. Many of us have been arguing our points back and forth for a while, and although we often have many different viewpoints, and logical conclusions, no one is served in this process by censoring themselves.

By the way how much input does a Chief Marketing Officer really have in relation to how EVE was designed or implemented?

easy answer: By walking from one cubicle to another to ask the designer what formed the ideas behind what his goals were.

I played on the most populated server up until the decline of the game due to 3 or so gigantic zerg guilds flooding the server happened. Even at that point our guild of 20-40 people still held our own due to the fact that the zerg only relied on the zerg tactic. what we did was use other smaller sized guilds to strategic advantage for flanking and so on. I would say that those guilds had far more casual players than a guild like mine did and our superiority with a lack of numbers only reinforced that. GW2 is trying to stress the skill over numbers aspect of PvP which I hope they pull off and that it is anywhere close to how Warhammer was for the visceral feeling that real mass PvP brings.

To an extent you're describing the type of gameplay these Unit mechanics are aiming for, but at the same time complaining that "complicated systems will break under load"? Is it perhaps that you're being presented with a new thing, that doesn't fit into a previous experience, or a narrow expectation? So far, i've seen no indication that mechanical advantages for Unit Cohesion can't be utilized, displayed, managed and successful (in terms of games mechanics). I also haven't seen any blanket statements backed by Developer's that THIS IS HOW YOU MUST PLAY. To be clear, its been quite the opposite. If you want your barbarian zerg, independent operator style of gameplay, you'll be happy to know you'll be able to gather as many people to your banner as you can, and still play the game the way you want. You might not be victorious in the face of Cohesive Units, but then again, you might. At this point, we can only guess, and do what we can to provide logical and reasonable feedback on what they propose.

...Your final line is just a slap in the face of what should be done with PvP.

This type of rhetoric is just silly. A slap in the face is a violent measure of disdain and an assault. That they're proposing something that doesn't meet your expectations is not that. No one said "you must do this to hold territory" or that zerg tactics won't be useful for grabbing territory. If the dev's decide it won't be the most efficient, that doesn't mean it won't be effective. Absolutism just doesn't apply to this type of sandbox gaming.

And at the end of the day, If there's a system in place that can further expand the number of niches players can have, isn't that a good thing? More successful niches equals more happy players, more money, and a successful MMO with longevity. This is what we're looking for, and something that has proven to be very rare in the current market.

I like the idea of paizo writers creating events that have a reactionary quality to player's actions. Exciting thought to see how they move new and unexpected plots in response to each module's "conclusion", like chapters in a big side-plot to the player's actions. The development of Thornkeep for the Kickstarter somewhat fits with this idea.

From a mechanical point of view, these events if they happened on a fairly rapid cycle (3-6 months) but didn't overly ramp in difficulty, would be a fun and interesting way to destabilize and reinvigorate any stagnation in the economy. Introduction of new high end PvE could also provide new resources, and with that a new wave of itemization. Might also be a sneaky way to introduce some of the more advanced features that weren't ready by launch.

The idea of a flood of goblins, coming at me in wave after wave until i loose my mind or have to run away from my keyboard for a bio-break is humorously awesome. If I let every 5th goblin get away to get more buddies, and there's still more back at the camp, I say let the behavior roll. That would be high-larious. Now if i choose to bail out, because its simply too much or they come in a wave too great to laugh at, I don't think they should chase me forever, but far enough to keep me thinking (sidenote: training a goblin tribe back to town would also be priceless). What i think should happen is a mob type will react to a stressful situation as makes sense for that creature. A Goblin should run, hide, drown in a bucket even when NOT under stress. A Hobgoblin should retreat, in formation, and rearm and reengage en force. Orcs might run, but in a random direction, Ogres might not run at all, Trolls should retreat to heal, etc etc.

Regarding the "Millions Killed" concept: While this might end up being true (eventually), in most themepark MMOs this is the requirement because you have to kill to get xp, xp to level, level to "have fun". In PFO killing stuff will have a purpose divested from progress on a personal level. You might want to kill goblins because their ears have bounties, their camp sits on some choice rare herbs, or they populate enough to cause drag on a local effort to build a Fort or Watchtower. You might wage war on a thousand Hobgoblins, but only because you and your alliance discovered that they've overrun an untouched Hex. It shouldn't feel like a grind, because it will have a purpose, some purpose greater than "I get some abstract advancement points".

Noticed there was some interest in another thread regarding the establishment of close proximity kingdoms (or settlements as referred in the blog), so I wanted to break that discussion out into its own thread. Specifically aiming at discussing the top end Settlements and the strategic and logistical implications, I went to the blog and re-read some of this:

Settlements—In order to create a player settlement, a fort must be advanced using a special settlement construction process. Before this can begin, the hex must be cleared of any watchtowers or forts owned by any character not a signatory of the settlement's charter. Building a settlement requires massive amounts of resources and extensive amounts of time.

The features of a settlement are varied and warrant their own separate dev blog. Since we do not expect the first player settlements to be introduced into the game until well after launch, we'll reserve those details for now.

and also this blog regarding the production of goods, but specifically the Settlement Input and Settlement Output portions as the various types of inputs and outputs are divided up by Easy-gather, and PvE-sourced categories.

i've been left pondering what sort of ramifications exist at the fusion of these two concepts. Given the size of a hex, how large/small a group can we realistically expect to control an entire hex. From an archived thread we find the area of a hex breaks down to about .51, with the sides of about .71 miles. Even when you consider the 15 seconds to a minute timeframe (for travel and time passage, not actual gameplay), It seems to me a rather considerable number of people would be required to completely secure a hex. Being able to protect your borders would be a challenge, much less invading a neighboring hex and waging war with another settlement (even if Fort sized or smaller).

Anyone else have some thoughts on the matter?

I would again like to point out, in the most urgent way i can;

THE DISCUSSION OF PVP HAS FAR OUTWEIGHED THE INTENT OF THE GAME TO FOCUS UPON IT. JUST BECAUSE ITS A HIGH HIT FORUM THREAD, DOES NOT MEAN PFO WILL BE GANKFEST THE GRIEFENING

Please look to some of the other threads, and even if you're not interested in PvP, we're all here to discuss the various things we DO want in a game. Some contributed some to the Kickstarter, and now you realize the game has one aspect you don't like. Why should that stop you from contributing in a reasonable way to the discussion of things you DO like? Some "hate" PvP for whatever reason, but those reasons are all associated with OTHER GAMES, and many of these other games haven't made a single wise choice.

Instead of going Nuclear and saying "if PvP, then Bye Bye" tell us, in some level of detail, what you dislike about PvP. Is it the surprise attack by intelligent unwanted foes, is it the sense of surprise, or is it a sense of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming and malicious opposition. We're hopefully here to contribute to the betterment of a game still early in development, not endlessly complain and bemoan systems not yet implemented in the broadest of terms.

Erik the Printer's Everflowing Scriptorium Scriptor
Aura moderate necromancy; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 162,000 gp; Weight 1 lbs.
Description
This dessicated hand has a locked grip about an fountain pen of the finest craftsmanship. When a command word is spoken, this hand will begin levitating several inches above paper upon a flat surface, and then begin to periodically sip and swoop to the page below writing up to 9 characters (including spaces) over and over. Once activated the hand proceeds to write for 24 hours non stop. The pen never runs out of ink, and a Strength check (DC 52) is required to prevent the completion its task.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Symbol of Pain, Create Undead, Create Water ; Cost 81,000 gp

This might be an example of a tabletop thing that doesn't translate well. With the tabletop, having one thing you can level up with you is an awesome convenience, but with PFO having a primarily player driven economy, stuff (weapons, armor, consumables) need to be degrading pretty consistently over time so that there is a constant demand for the production of new items, keeping the flow of money going.

Usually when there's a place not "meant" to be traveled to is due to an underdeveloped part of the world. More development time spent earlier on a complete and completely accessible game world is a preferred approach for a true sandbox anyway. Also, if its an exploit for 1 player, its an exploit for all players... not really an exploit anymore. I've been hoping/advocating for a climbing skill, as well as a highly varied, detailed and fully developed world.

I guess i'll just stand alone by my little flag that says no unduly severe penalties for death. Aside from the affection for religious flavor = mechanical disadvantage, I'm not really sure of what fun is served by some of these proposed systems. Death in this game won't be just about how much you owe a god (what if you don't choose one), or whether or not another player nuked you and took a slice of your stuff (for reasons you can't imagine but it must have been bad, right?). It also means if you explore into an encampment of monsters you can't defeat, you die. It also means if you screw up a key stroke and idiotically leap from a bridge to a slab of rock... or wear plate while trying to take a dip... etc etc.

The scale and breadth of such an ubiquitous mechanic really will make or break the gameplay for a lot of people. A number of people are heavily turned off by the limited looting as described. To add layer and layer of penalty on top of this... I just don't see the upside.

Pardon the rambley nature of this, my coffee hasn't really broken the lack of sleep yet.

I'd love to see a hybrid system that can double as an anti-inflation device as well. Perhaps merchants make the best gear, but there is also an Auction House system (I like one in each major city, and not linked), but the Auction Houses apply a significant bump to the buyer's side of the equation instead of the seller's. Reason for Auction Houses to have any sort of mark up is economic, but not for the sake of the AH which is of course completely automated. The real point is to delete wealth from the economy (tons of other ways this usually happens as well) as an anti-inflationary mechanic. Anyway, the point being the bargain hunters will be able to shop around at the various merchants, the merchants will be able to manage their shops and wares and still have a reason to exist in the face of Auction House convenience, and pure consumers with wealth to spare will have the instant access to the goods they want without the frustration of jumping through the consumer hoops they might face in the real world. Additional benefits might include a sort of price cap on any sellable product or commodity (this is actually good for the overall economy).

I think having the AH as a premium service with its own internal markup put to the buyer rather than the seller would accommodate all the angles without putting any one style of play at too much of a disadvantage.

the quote that one person's inconvenience can be another person's gameplay, while perfectly valid, also reveals itself as literally taking away from one person's enjoyment to apply towards another... this sort of zero sum of mechanics is what i'd hope to see removed from the economic aspects of PFO.

Pardon this delayed response, I also suffered from a technical outage to the site (silly paizo internet upgrades)

I guess one of the problems I have in understanding the retreat/surrender/yield option as an actual mechanic of the game, is I assume that everyone will get access to it. If so, then my guess is the option to retreat at the first sign of true danger will trump the desire to put down your attacker. Its always easier to run off than to engage in a bit of surprise PvP or wander monster battles. To my mind this seems like a hedge against death and the summary potential to lose everything in your bags. Nothing makes gamers less happy (in my tabletop experience anyway) than the perception that you've taken away their stuff. I've had people honestly profess a preference to perma-death in a game than to having a massive disjunction nuke all the pretty gear.

I wonder if there was no looting of other players, this emphasis on an escape mechanic would be felt.

My expectation has been from moment one of reading the blogs, that death and so on would be essentially unavoidable. I support some of the ideas of attempting retreat and so on, but I'm hesitant at contemplating a mechanical option, rather than a simple turn and bail out. If for example there was no mechanic, and everyone had approximately the same speed (heavy armor notwithstanding for this example) If the retreater were to quickly assess the situation and decide to bail out, only extraordinary persistence or fully surrounding with superior numbers would result in that person actually getting caught/dead.

Any thoughts? Am I off base in some of these assumptions?

Europeans think 200 Kilometers is a long distance. Americans think 200 years is a long time.

when you're on foot, one might seem like the other.

3.5 Private Sanctuary has a podcast interview with Mr Dancey wherein he discusses this and other details somewhat obliquely. My take from the posts, podcasts and responses are that very very little mechanical overflow will take place.

Simply put, what works as a turn based abstraction of our heroes romping around in our imaginations simply won't be applicable to a rendered 3D environ. Take one of the basic assumptions of the tabletop game: Facing (the lack thereof specifically). In the tabletop game, your character is assumed to more or less know whats going on around him/her/it at all times regardless of almost any condition (4 Ogre Barbarians attempting to smash your face while your buddy 100 feet away deals with a lonely goblin; No Problem, you can even advise him tactics). In a rendered environment where your avatar is facing a given direction based purely on the simulation of space and the dependence on a virtual camera following you around, there can be no abstraction. A player will either a) notice, or b) be too distracted to care.