Trusting the client.
This is freaking 2012. It's annoying enough seeing bots in PvE teleport around the map. Absolutely infuriating to see low-level speedhacks and teleporation hacks in WvW, much less the 'superman' incidents.
I don't know what else to say, really. We learned this like, a decade and a half ago. "Though shalt not trust the client." Almost like "2+2=4", except apparently it needs to be explicitly demanded, for some reason which I cannot fathom.
So count me in as demanding it.
Are you down?
Worried that when the armies of 'righteousness' gather, that there will be none to spit into their smug pretend face, matching them soldier for soldier?
Sure, we have a few organizations that are 'lawful neutral', but so far only a perfectly LEGitamate BREAdmaKING business is willing to do what is necessary to truly make the world a better place.
It's a big place, the world, full of simple people who think that it is all black and white.
They think such a thing as 'innocence' can exist.
They think that, when it comes to making the hard decisions necessary for rulership, that they are prepared.
They never expect to have to choose between what is best for those they claim to love, and what is best for their nation.
I have a name picked out - Anem Vora - but I am just gauging interest for now.
If you are familiar with the Scorpion Clan in Legend of the Five Rings, and how they are supposed to behave - then you have a pretty good idea of what I am looking for.
For those not familiar, the Scorpion prize loyalty above all else, and have no shame in doing what it takes to fulfill their goals. The Clan of Secrets and of Lies, they are also the most honest. They wear their masks publicly, for all to see, and if you have a problem, they are very happy to help.
They of course expect returns on such favors. They make valuable friends.
As for who I am, I run two of the most active play-by-post forums in the world. The biggest one is often just called 'E' and though I can't link it here, if you put 'roleplaying forum' into Google it shows in second place.
No, this won't be an 'adult' organization. But any members I bring to the table will be adults, experienced roleplayers and good writers. Regardless, I'm not in this alone, and I am very familiar with running large virtual communities.
This would be more than just a chartered company - it would be an actual attempt at creating a player nation. Wherein we play the villains. The Evil Empire complete with spies, assassins, and dreams of world conquest. All for the best interest of its future subjects, of course.
If there is interest, I will start fleshing out the structure more.
I'm wondering if the game's lack of physical scaling is going to be immersion breaking from another vantage point - trying to picture this region as compared with the rest of the world.
Heavily fortified territories tended to have forts for a given number of square miles, not forts per square mile. The thought of a fort in every hex where a hex is half a square mile seems ludicrous. I don't even want to consider the idea of that many separate settlements in such a small region.
Is there going to be some mechanism that prevents us from seeing such a small region become ridiculously overdeveloped?
That we could see, for example, expansive farming areas, woodlands, and other areas important for the support and vibrancy of a world rather than checkerboarding the map with everyone and their grandmother declaring themselves to be the god-kings of their own tiny realm. Maybe laying down a fort creates an exclusionary zone, or something, which might cover a larger area depending on terrain, and constructions in neighboring hexes would instead by tied to the owners of said hex, as 'outlying regions'.
You get to pick two alignment axii. Lawful and good, good and neutral, etc. If the alignments cross, TN gets added. This way most settlements have six alignments available. Or all would if the TN cross gets to add a corner, but such a construct would normally be a roleplaying one rather than a gamey one.
Kingdoms could be similar, having up to two axii and requiring all settlements to have one of them.
I think this would permit a wider and more vibrant array of communities.
I hate to say this, especially as my first post (a friend just introduced me to Pathfinder), but I currently do not find the ARG useful. The entire purpose of purchasing such a manual would be to be able to make new, balanced races, sometimes from the get-go. Especially with the way the base stats are purchased, which are confusing and make little sense. The system presented is not useful for balancing races, and trying to figure out costs for new abilities to fit in line only creates more of a headache - I am literally better off just eyeballing race design.
It doesn't help that it doesn't segue well into e.g. template creation.
So, here would be my proposal: Base everything off of its point buy value. Judge the worth of a racial feature or penalty by how many attribute points you would trade it for at character creation.
It won't be perfect, but it makes it a lot easier for GMs who wish to balance their game. They can give the players the option to spend a number of attribute points to pick a new race.
In addition, I am not going to start with the notion that races are balanced. This was expressly not true in OD&D where elves could don armor and cast spells with impunity while swinging a sword just as well as their equivalent-leveled human friends in either arena. It was expressly stated that the reason for this lack of balance was to convince people to play the demihumans.
I think we're past that.
Major Caveat: This will end up being more balanced at lower point buy totals for standard races (~20 and under) than higher ones. GMs running 30 point and up games should be aware of this and consider compensating lower race point totals accordingly.
A single floating racial bonus, such as a human's, is weighted as if they spent nine points in that attribute - 6 points for a +2, 14 points for a +4, 24 points for a +6, 36 points for a +8, 50 points for +10, and so on.
An additional floating racial bonus, or a fixed physical bonus, is weighted as if they spent five points in that attribute, +1 for each +2. 5 points for +2, 12 points for a +4, 21 points for a +6, 32 points for a +8, 45 points for a +10, and so on.
A fixed mental bonus, or a fifth/sixth floating bonus, is worth as if five points were allocated. 4/10/18/28/40
A penalty to a physical attribute is worth a negative number of points equal to 1.5x said penalty. -3 points for -2, -6 points for -4, -9 points for -6.
A penalty to int or wis is worth the raw penalty - -2/-4/-6. This should be halved if a GM does not trust a given player to play these scores, however.
A penalty to charisma is worth half of this - -1 for a -2, -2 for a -4, -3 for a -6. This might not be worth anything at all in some games.
So, stat allocation points per race:
Skills and proficiencies:
A single +2 'racial flavor' bonus to a non-perception skill under limited circumstances (Dwarven Greed, Elven Magic Spellcraft, etc) is not worth any points.
Base Land Speed:
40 feet: 5 points
Size: Size requires at least a given strength bonus or penalty, which must be purchased accordingly as part of the racial package - there is no 'discount' for getting more strength as Large.
Tiny: Requires -4 Str
A GM may wish to double these. Regardless, size bonuses and penalties are not considered to cost or provide any points.
Immortal/Immune to aging penalties: 4 points
Total racial breakdown
Thoughts/criticism/whatever welcome, I didn't agonize over the numbers, exactly.