Whenever You Ask for a Realistic World, a Puppy Dies


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I know the idea of a "realistic" world sounds good. I know. Everyone wants to really live a fantasy life. I get that.

But you won't get one, no matter how hard you push for it. Historically, "realism" in MMOs has not had a positive correlation with fun factor, or with sociability. That's mostly because the "realistic" stuff people are pushing for is really dreadfully boring. Horses that don't despawn? Cattle farming? Enormous open world spaces with nothing resembling unique content to justify them?

Worse, many of these requests will do real harm to your average user's ability to enjoy the game.

You're getting an MMO. You need to understand that MMOs face certain realities (see how dreadful a word that is?). Stop coming up with suggestions to try and make this into the most realistic medieval disease propagation simulator, and start coming up with ways to make the game a really fun MMORPG.

Discuss.


I agree some of the realism aspects being suggested (tracking ammunition, starvation rules for PC's, etc) are just going to bog the game down and make it less fun.

On the other hand, some aspects of 'realism' such as actually having a minimally metagame environment, being able to do what you choose (while facing the consequences of those actions) as opposed to being restricted to 'certain servers or arenas,' and promoting a player driven economy are all things I personally feel would add to the game, rather than detract from it.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
On the other hand, some aspects of 'realism' such as actually having a minimally metagame environment,

The metagame is largely responsible for fostering social interaction between players, and that interaction is of critical importance to the success of an MMO.

Quote:
and promoting a player driven economy

Most MMOs end up with a player-driven economy, thanks to auction house-style features.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the right word is immersive! All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief), climb anything, improved and complex crafting, pet, eating, sleeping, farming, breeding animals, fishing, hunting...


Eating and sleeping are probably a 'little' too far, barring mechanical effects thereof (recovering stamina and similar resources with rest and/or food as you see in other videogames sometimes.)

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

If we will be capable of building our fiefs the big, empty spaces are a necessity.

So what we need is the capacity of fast travel through big, empty spaces if we want to bypass the area,
At the same time we need the capacity to explore the same area in detail, to find the resources present in the territory and to decide were we want to build our castle/city/wizard tower.

The solution to that problem will start another chain of problems solutions.

For example:
Fast travel:

- possible solution: teleportation to specific locations
- problem: it bypass the player controlled territories, making them less important, it avoid PVP with player bandits

- another possible solution: travelling on a road multiply your travelling speed
- problem: players will try to build in a way to block roads use for the other players, they become chocking point, ideal for ambushes by player bandits.

At some point the developers need to decide if the "problems" are real problems or game features. Both of the above problems can be either.

The Exchange

For travel faster there are several solutions: mounts, vehicles, teleport (paid). Imagine a journey of airship! Depending on the engine and the response of ambient, only that, it would a beautiful challenge.

Goblin Squad Member

Dexther wrote:
All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief)

I don't. The ability to steal from anyone, in my mind, is just too abusable as a method to torture weaker characters.

The other parts just seem more boring than immersive. Eating is a enjoyable experience, but watching a digital character eat isn't really. I like sleeping, but I am not drawn into a game by waiting for my character to rest.

Goblin Squad Member

Dexther wrote:
I think the right word is immersive! All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief), climb anything, improved and complex crafting, pet, eating, sleeping, farming, breeding animals, fishing, hunting...

No, we don't all want that. In fact, I think that should be avoided at all costs.

Goblin Squad Member

I want a game where my actions can impact the world in meaningful ways. It doesn't have to be realistic, but it does have to be interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:

...In my opinion this move to ever easier, less "realistic" (and on the surface, more fun, mechanics) is exactly why there are so many people waiting around for the next best thing...and why most here are reminiscing about how great what we played 10-15 years ago was.

This is of course only my opinion, by no means will Goblinworks miss my $15USD/month, but the opinion is equal in what it is to yours...so I just wanted to put it on the table.

It confounds me that people can keep dumbing down their activities in the name of convenience or fun...and wonder why nothing is satisfying. I like playing the tabletop because I have to think about my actions, because there are consequences such as character death. Then, not only do I loose my character but I get to sit the rest for the session and not interact...but this risk is exactly what makes the game worth playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dexther wrote:
I think the right word is immersive! All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief), climb anything, improved and complex crafting, pet, eating, sleeping, farming, breeding animals, fishing, hunting...

I don't see pooping on that list. What kind of verisimilitude-hating 4E Blizzard of the Coast fanboy are you?

Goblin Squad Member

Ettin wrote:
Dexther wrote:
I think the right word is immersive! All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief), climb anything, improved and complex crafting, pet, eating, sleeping, farming, breeding animals, fishing, hunting...
I don't see pooping on that list. What kind of verisimilitude-hating 4E Blizzard of the Coast fanboy are you?

If peoples' need to poop actually added content to society that someone would want to fulfill, I would argue your sarcasm is actually logically correct. Likely it doesn't that I can think of, carpenters can still build houses and doors and the such without demand for outhouses.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm drunk and will pursue this in the morning.

But for now: Life is fun and rewarding because it's difficult, and at times, boring. Sex with a prostitute is instant gratification for money. I'm not here for that.

I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world. Not to have sex with a prostitute on my computer.

Enormous spaces exist because that is how geography works. Horses do not despawn because that is impossible. Cattle farming is a necessity in order to farm cattle.

Just because I want my car to become a statue in my pocket, my wife to house a 'on/off' switch and my job to be something that I can decide as to whether I will turn up to or not; such a scenario would strip life of its ultimate fruits, as would it strip my gaming of its fruits. Stop trying to ruin my fruits. I've had carrot on a stick and I don't want it anymore.

Up until World of Warcraft, MMORPGs offered players an enormous learning curve and longitivity in introducing players into an online world. Today, they offer nothing but simple gameplay and require no more than an entry level of experience to end game, to which they require an inch more. Guess which era I enjoyed more? Realism has established the strongest communities in any MMO to date which continue to exist in every arena in which they were made and the players will remain; carrot on a stick is going to die, the players forgotten, only the title will live on.

Summation: We play Pathfinder because it offers a realistic and enjoyable system to recreate believable fantasty settings. Such consistency with reality is required for immersion. Gravity applies.


Coldman wrote:
I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world. Not to have sex with a prostitute on my computer.

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
But for now: Life is fun and rewarding because it's difficult, and at times, boring.

And that's great for life. We're talking about a game. I award you zero points, because this whole argument boils down to, "Games are more fun when they're boring, and difficult for its own sake."

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
Just because I want my car to become a statue in my pocket, my wife to house a 'on/off' switch and my job to be something that I can decide as to whether I will turn up to or not; such a scenario would strip life of its ultimate fruits.

Speak for yourself, mate.

That sounds friggin awesome to me.


Who wouldn't want an 'on/off' switch for their mate?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We play games that we enjoy. We also make the assumption that because we enjoy something, that makes it a good whatever it is. This is a poor assumption. It's quite obvious from what I've read (and from common sense) that there are games I like to play that many others do not (this is no new revelation). But from a purely selfish standpoint, I'd like PFO to be a game I'll like. This hypothetical game may be terrible (from whatever objective standard determines that kind of thing), but if I like it then I'll play it. From the standpoint of wanting Paizo to be successful, I want them to make a game which will both get them lots of acclaim and lots of profit.

The way I balance these conflicting desires is taking the more easily produced of the two. I think the hypothetical game I'd like to play is easier to produce than the one that gets them lots of acclaim and lots of profit. And there might be the possibility (however remote that is), that producing my desired product will also get them the "Paizo being successful" option. Maybe I'm a jerk for this selfish desire. I don't think I am, because most consumers' wish is that someone will produce the product they want, even if it's not profitable.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coldman wrote:

I'm drunk and will pursue this in the morning.

But for now: Life is fun and rewarding because it's difficult, and at times, boring. Sex with a prostitute is instant gratification for money. I'm not here for that.

I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world. Not to have sex with a prostitute on my computer.

Enormous spaces exist because that is how geography works. Horses do not despawn because that is impossible. Cattle farming is a necessity in order to farm cattle.

Just because I want my car to become a statue in my pocket, my wife to house a 'on/off' switch and my job to be something that I can decide as to whether I will turn up to or not; such a scenario would strip life of its ultimate fruits, as would it strip my gaming of its fruits. Stop trying to ruin my fruits. I've had carrot on a stick and I don't want it anymore.

Well, my friend, look no further! Such a game exists, and it's as easy as opening your front door!

Hi, I'm Davor. You may remember me from such threads as "Intensify Magic Missile" and "AM BARBARIAN build", and I'm here to tell you about a new game that's just hit the market!

Are you tired of instant gratification? Is all that fast-paced, high energy action getting you down? Do you need a break from all that wealth and fame? Then boy, do I have the game for you!

It's called "Real Life"! That's right, "Real Life"! Why spend all those hours slaying monsters when you could be doing your taxes! Who needs epic weapons of mass destruction and busty waitresses when you could enjoy mopping up the urine stain of your very own, fully interactive house cat!

Now, you may be asking, "Davor, this sounds amazing! How can I get involved?" The answer will astound you. Simply turn off the computer, stand up, and turn around, and suddenly, you'll be in a world unlike any digital one you've experienced, complete with car payments, data entry, AND EVEN WASTE RECYCLING! Even better, you can get your friends involved too!

It's the ultimate interactive experience, and for a meager cost of a full years wages, you too can enjoy the epic thrill ride that is "Real Life!"

WARNING! "Real Life" may not actually be exciting and epic, and is likely filled with pointless grinds and mindless chores that contribute in no way to your character growth or development. Some side effects may include boredom, depression, and general lack of self worth. For treatment, visit your local game retailer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Davor you're forgetting something.

Coldman wrote:


I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world.

Add magic and elves and such to real life and set it in a half-ass imitation of ancient/medieval/renaissance time periods mashed together.

Scarab Sages

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Davor you're forgetting something.

Coldman wrote:


I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world.
Add magic and elves and such to real life and set it in a half-ass imitation of ancient/medieval/renaissance time periods mashed together.

But wait, there's more! Now, for a limited time, feel free to purchase the "Ears & Beards" bonus content to "Real Life"!

With this simple kit, you can create a genuine fantasy experience right in your own home! Simply apply the Elf Ears and Dwarf Beards to your friends, or even yourself (insert HILARIOUS laugh track here), and you'll be playing in your very own FANTASY simulation of the hit game, "Real Life"!

WARNING! "Ears & Beards" is not compatible with all users. Players utilizing the "Ears & Beards" bonus content will likely be unable to easily interact with players without this content in any meaningful way. NOTE: Dwarf Beards may not be accessible to female players.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A bunch of members of my guild get together every year from all over the country (and Canada and Britain) and reminisce about 'the old days,' and, inevitably, someone drunkenly waxes nostalgic about how awesome it was in the days of EverQuest, when you could lose everything your character owned if you couldn't recover your corpse, and lose four or five levels in a single night attempting to 'break Fear' or whatever and how *awesome* that was, because it was all 'real' and 'had risk.'

And then someone else points out that pretty much every game since then has abandoned that, and that WoW, which is *vastly* less 'real' and 'risky' and much more 'fun' and 'casual' has a hundred times more subscribers and it's developers are rolling around in gold-plated bathtubs filled with money because they *didn't* decide to make their game unfun and tedious and 'realistic.' The free market hath spoken. Lot's of people will pay for entertainment. A much smaller subset will pay to be repeatedly bored, discouraged and frustrated.

I get all the unfun, tedious and 'realistic' I need at work (and, yes, given the people I work with and the circumstances that crop up, 'realistic' very much deserves to be in air-quotes). I pays my subscription fees to various MMO designers, etc. to get away from that crap.

I don't mind games having tedious options (such as crafting, which I haven't done since Dark Ages of Camelot, with my Hunter crafting his own bows and arrows), but tedious requirements, not so much.

Goblin Squad Member

The free market also demands X Factor, McDonalds and Barack Obama. Who's side are you on?

Goblin Squad Member

Davor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Davor you're forgetting something.

Coldman wrote:


I want an alternate experience in a fantasy world.
Add magic and elves and such to real life and set it in a half-ass imitation of ancient/medieval/renaissance time periods mashed together.

But wait, there's more! Now, for a limited time, feel free to purchase the "Ears & Beards" bonus content to "Real Life"!

With this simple kit, you can create a genuine fantasy experience right in your own home! Simply apply the Elf Ears and Dwarf Beards to your friends, or even yourself (insert HILARIOUS laugh track here), and you'll be playing in your very own FANTASY simulation of the hit game, "Real Life"!

WARNING! "Ears & Beards" is not compatible with all users. Players utilizing the "Ears & Beards" bonus content will likely be unable to easily interact with players without this content in any meaningful way. NOTE: Dwarf Beards may not be accessible to female players.

While I am on the other side of the argument, this made me laugh.

@Set I hope the game caters to all of us because we are obviously after different things. Fro me the crafting and being able to build stuff is the most exciting part. When I try a new game, if it has poor crafting, I know there is no reason to stay. Obviously I hope PFO has a fabulous crafting system, but I hope it has what you are looking for too. On the other hand, if it has a working economy, those who do not want to craft should not need to.

Scarab Sages

Coldman wrote:
The free market also demands X Factor, McDonalds and Barack Obama. Who's side are you on?

The side that's gonna make Paizo money so they can keep publishing amazing RPG's and hopefully more video games that can afford to take risks.

Goblin Squad Member

Davor wrote:
Coldman wrote:
The free market also demands X Factor, McDonalds and Barack Obama. Who's side are you on?
The side that's gonna make Paizo money so they can keep publishing amazing RPG's and hopefully more video games that can afford to take risks.

*Growls* FINE!


Coldman wrote:
The free market also demands X Factor, McDonalds and Barack Obama. Don't blame me if I spend the rest of my life demanding the opposite.

The free market didn't pick Obama...

But... the free market actually caters to a wide variety. That's why we have McDonalds, but also Burger King, and Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it bears repeating - it is a viable strategy to provide what the most customers in the market want. You get a larger customer base, but you also get less market power because that's where all the competition is. It is ALSO a viable strategy to find a part of the customer base that isn't being served, and serve them. Chances are it will be a smaller group. But you'll have more market power.

The free market doesn't just go with whatever the majority wants. It also serves smaller segments, sometimes at a higher price.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I generally agree with this thread. I think realism is really best used as a good source of game ideas for making the world deeper, more interesting, and more interactive between players. I would judge any particular idea based on how it makes the game more fun, not on how realistic it is.

Regardless, I think we're going to have a much more realistic feel than the current market leaders. Everything from art style to the world being driven by player actions is going to feel more realistic. There will be harsh edges, but (I hope) ultimately a more satisfying experience.

Goblin Squad Member

Mark Kalmes wrote:

I generally agree with this thread. I think realism is really best used as a good source of game ideas for making the world deeper, more interesting, and more interactive between players. I would judge any particular idea based on how it makes the game more fun, not on how realistic it is.

Regardless, I think we're going to have a much more realistic feel than the current market leaders. Everything from art style to the world being driven by player actions is going to feel more realistic. There will be harsh edges, but (I hope) ultimately a more satisfying experience.

Then I for one will just wait and watch to see where you go with it. Thanks for the clarification of direction.


Kill the puppies on some servers, and not on others, let people play the way THEY want to play by choosing which server they want to play on...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I'm somewhat ambivalent on the puppycide idea, I sure do as hell hope that PFO will allow players to play a game of Killgull :)

Goblin Squad Member

Gorbacz wrote:
While I'm somewhat ambivalent on the puppycide idea, I sure do as hell hope that PFO will allow players to play a game of Killgull :)

Not half as much as I hope we see some Blood Pig action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want realism, I want believability. If something breaks immersion, then it's not fun to me anymore.

Goblin Squad Member

Pixel Cube wrote:
I don't want realism, I want believability.

Yeah, these two are often mixed up.

Also realism is often quoted when "risk" comes into play, but risk really has nothing with realism.

In early DAoC you had to wait between 5 and 15 minutes after a PvP death in another factions realm to be able to port over and start killing again.

That was great imho. I enjoyed it because it was a tool to make you care about death in PvP and allowed the winner to make a progress. It also made ressurrection important.

In WoW, if I am killed in a BG, I am back into buisness within seconds, which promotes all kinds of stupid suicide style attacks and makes BGs unfun for me.

BUT, the majority of people seems to prefer an endless string of basically riskless and therefore thrilless action to a limited amount of really great and immersive battles.


MicMan wrote:
In WoW, if I am killed in a BG, I am back into buisness within seconds, which promotes all kinds of stupid suicide style attacks and makes BGs unfun for me.

That seems rather self correcting. If running in and dying immediately and then respawning in a few seconds, having done nothing of worth, isn't fun, then don't play that way.


Blazej wrote:
Dexther wrote:
All of us want a game that can: Thievery anyone (skill challenge: target versus thief)

I don't. The ability to steal from anyone, in my mind, is just too abusable as a method to torture weaker characters.

The other parts just seem more boring than immersive. Eating is a enjoyable experience, but watching a digital character eat isn't really. I like sleeping, but I am not drawn into a game by waiting for my character to rest.

Actually, here's a good place to steal an idea from WoW- Rogues in that game could pickpocket any player or NPC and would gain a small amount of money/items that didn't correlate to the actual inventory- this allowed for silly items(porno mags, pet rocks, shiny coins) and was both fun and useful.

The Exchange

Realism no, immersion! Now choose the tools to get it ...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixel Cube wrote:
I don't want realism, I want believability. If something breaks immersion, then it's not fun to me anymore.

At the bare minimum, you're going to be playing in a world where most peoples' characters will have died dozens of times by the time you meet them. Will that break your immersion and make the game not fun to you anymore?

If so, might I suggest that maybe MMORPGs are not really your genre of game, and that you might enjoy a single player experience better.

If not, you probably have nothing to worry about. Commonplace resurrection is about as clear an "immersion"-killer as you can get, so if you can tolerate that you can tolerate just about anything.

Immersion sucks in an MMO when it comes at the expense of playability.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
In WoW, if I am killed in a BG, I am back into buisness within seconds, which promotes all kinds of stupid suicide style attacks and makes BGs unfun for me.

Managing respawning is part of battleground strategy.

Quote:
BUT, the majority of people seems to prefer an endless string of basically riskless and therefore thrilless action to a limited amount of really great and immersive battles.

What?

The risk is in potentially losing the game (the battleground), same as the risk in any game. If you win, you get some cool stuff. If you lose, you get a lot less cool stuff. The risk is in the difference between those two outcomes.

Are you sure you understand how games work?


Scott Betts wrote:


If so

No it's not "if so", stop making assumptions like you actually know what I have in mind better than me. Please.

In a magic-heavy setting like Golarion, resurrection is actually pretty common. Within the bounduaries of the setting, characters that constantly die and come back again won't be a big stretch compared to your average fantasy RPG. I can live with that. It won't break immersion for me because I actually expect the setting, and therefore the game, to work that way.
That doesn't mean that I could tolerate "pretty much anything" once I accept resurrection. I don't know where did you get that idea.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pixel Cube wrote:
No it's not "if so", stop making assumptions like you actually know what I have in mind better than me. Please.

What?

I provided two options. If so and If not. I purposefully worded my post in such a way that you could choose which one applies to you.

What in the world is going on with this sub-forum?

Quote:
In a magic-heavy setting like Golarion, resurrection is actually pretty common.

What? No, it's not. I mean, yeah, maybe it's "common" for wealthy, psychotic adventurers (and by "common," I mean maybe it happens on average once per adventurer), but this is already being pushed as a game where you can make a living crafting leather armor. And those people are still going to have died and come back to life. Probably dozens of times.


Clearly the wealth assumptions have to change Scott. People won't be carrying several tons of gold worth of crap around.

Instead of a resurrection costing 5,000 gold+casting, a Pathfinder Online Resurrection will probably cost something like 50 gold out of your character's funds (or maybe a debt mechanic, I saw somebody suggest that once and it seemed pretty feasible.)

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Clearly the wealth assumptions have to change Scott. People won't be carrying several tons of gold worth of crap around.

Instead of a resurrection costing 5,000 gold+casting, a Pathfinder Online Resurrection will probably cost something like 50 gold out of your character's funds (or maybe a debt mechanic, I saw somebody suggest that once and it seemed pretty feasible.)

Well, no, that's not really what I'm saying. Of course resurrection is going to have to be cheap. Significant death penalties suck.

What I'm saying is that all of the player characters you meet will have died dozens of times. This is an asymmetrical mechanic that affects PCs differently than NPCs - obviously, big-bad villains can't have access to the same resurrection technology that PCs do, or else you'd never feel like you accomplished anything ("Yay! We killed the Stag Lord! Wait, why is the Stag Lord standing over there on that resurrection platform?"). Similarly, your average townsfolk can't be expected to use that same system; why would anybody worry about little Suzie's horrible fever that can only be cured by harvesting extract of dragon-sphincter if she'll just respawn for a pittance of gold? No sense in making the trip all the way to Cold-as-Hell Mountain for that!

Easy, common resurrection has come to be seen as a necessary conceit in any MMORPG (even EVE features an insurance system - the least profitable insurance system ever conceived - to cover a substantial portion of your losses upon death).

Silver Crusade

I vaguely remember James Jacobs saying, somewhere, that resurrection was not that common. You know, since it is a high level spell and there are not a lot of high level divine casters just sitting around waiting for an adventurer (or beloved puppy) to die.

In no way, shape or form will resurrection be as common in Golarion as it is in a MMO (or an MMO Golarion). In game it is expensive, but in an MMO you get it for free. YMMV.

If an MMO is so realistic that when you die, you're dead and buried, or you have to spend half the game wondering where you're going to get your next meal before you starve to death. Well that is kind of boring and will only appeal to the hyper-realist gamers out there. (I have no real definition for what a hyper-realist gamer is, but it sounds extraordinarily real or something like that).

If you want as much realism as you can get, buy Fallout 3 and then add the mods that throw in all the new terrain and make it as close to a survivalist game that I know of at the moment.

Just accept that common resurrection and other "immersion-killer" elements are going to be part of the world of an MMO.

EDIT: No puppies were hurt during the writing of this post.


To answer your point about the big-bad villains I'm not really sure. Personally I'd like to see some mechanic in the game to make resurrections more difficult/expensive anyway. You see them here and there in Pathfinder and 3.0/3.5 and it's a pretty interesting concept.

If gaining that ability has an appropriate cost from your capabilities elsewhere, it would be cool.

To deal with the concern over fever and such, that's a pretty obvious answer. Resurrection doesn't heal people from natural deaths, including old age and disease (although cure disease is a lot cheaper, if it's available.)

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Instead of a resurrection costing 5,000 gold+casting, a Pathfinder Online Resurrection will probably cost something like 50 gold out of your character's funds (or maybe a debt mechanic, I saw somebody suggest that once and it seemed pretty feasible.)

I imagine people will be carrying about a fair bit of wealth once their mains begin to gain levels and traction in the game world. Starting off is something entirely different.

Resurrection should be free. I see no point in charging players for resurrection in a game where it is probably going to be fairly easy to die.


It's quite easy to die in every game that has death. Even the game of life (people are so tragically fragile.)

I agree Resurrection should be comparatively cheap, but free is a big turn off for me.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
To answer your point about the big-bad villains I'm not really sure. Personally I'd like to see some mechanic in the game to make resurrections more difficult/expensive anyway. You see them here and there in Pathfinder and 3.0/3.5 and it's a pretty interesting concept.

IMHO, that is a really bad idea and may only appeal to a very small number of players. Now, if it does happen, I promise not to start a "If there are expensive heals in PFO, I am not playing..." thread. I will still play.

Since there is no game to gawk at for the moment, I just see it as an unattractive option. This may be due to the MMOs that I play and my long time exposure to WoW. I think resurrections should be free.

However, my opinion may change when there is actually a game in existence.

1 to 50 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Whenever You Ask for a Realistic World, a Puppy Dies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.