Will it not being 'Pathfinder' mechanically matter?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

It would appear that this game will be Pathfinder in background only. While Paizo has excelled at creating a world, players expect things to behave in a certain way, i.e. the d20 mechanics of PF. While this may be a good game, it won't be Pathfinder as the PnP crowd know it.

Obviously this means that if you are expecting a Pathfinder experience in-silico you will be sorely disappointed even if it turns out to be the next big thing in MMORPG's.

Does this matter to you?

Goblin Squad Member

no


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it will matter to me.


I'm with JMecha. Doesn't matter--I might prefer that they use the PFRPG rules, but Mr Wertz has already said that the legality of using the OGL, and thus the OGL-derivative PFRPG rules, is murky. Rather than have the project work on an adaptation of the PFRPG rules for an MMO and then get sued by WotC, then folding because they don't have the money to fend off the lawsuit, or having to start over from scratch if it's determined that they can't use the OGL-derived PFRPG rules, I'd rather they do something different and minimize the risk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be clear: I mean 'based on' not 'exactly as' -- I'm good with it getting something like the balder's gate series on playstation (I'm more familiar with the games that were on the playstation than the others in the series) or some of the other video games that have been based off of D&D in the past, I just don't want to see a complete break from all that is pathfinder.


Play DDO Free-to-play and it feels like DnD or play NWN1 PW (CoPAP which seems to be still around but the servers are starting to fade away). It has to feel like Pathfinder or your old school Pathfinder computer gamers will not play or play it for long. Then again, maybe Paizo is not targeting the old timers but the other factions which is a great marketing move for the company to make. Sure we may not be the largest niche, but we are a niche that may not help fulfill the goals of Paizo.

Most kids do not play PnP, at least not like we use to, so perhaps this is targeting them and PnP PF is really for us old timers who still like imagining on all levels instead of just the screen in front of us?


Ansha wrote:
I'm with JMecha. Doesn't matter--I might prefer that they use the PFRPG rules, but Mr Wertz has already said that the legality of using the OGL, and thus the OGL-derivative PFRPG rules, is murky. Rather than have the project work on an adaptation of the PFRPG rules for an MMO and then get sued by WotC, then folding because they don't have the money to fend off the lawsuit, or having to start over from scratch if it's determined that they can't use the OGL-derived PFRPG rules, I'd rather they do something different and minimize the risk.

There's nothing murky about the OGL. It specifically considers translation into computer languages. The question is whether the code that controls the game constitutes a game mechanic that can be openly distributed. There are two ways to qualify for being a game mechanic. The first is for the content to be openly declared buy the Gamemaker as OGL content. Answer: don't claim the control code is OGL. The second way is to be an enhancement over the prior art of the OGL and not part of the “Product Identity”.

Pretty much everything you could imagine about a video game is protected by the OGL. Characters, spells, plots, storylines, themes, equipment, and even supernatural abilities are protected. The question arises what to call the control code that handles the logic of the game so it is identified as Product Identity. Since descriptions of characters, personas, creatures, and equipment are protected, the existence in computer memory and in data packets of any character at any particular time is protected as product identity.

The best exception is the first one in Product Identity “trade dress.” Trade dress is basically anything that lets a customer know that a product belongs to specific seller. If the code on the computer is used arrange the data in a way so that you know the game your are playing is Pathfinder Online and not World of Warcraft, it's trade dress. If you were to change the game mechanic of the OGL or add to it, the description of that mechanic would be part of the OGL, but exact method you used to present it would not be.

The only person who can have standing to sue over this is Wizards of the Coast. Piazo sold the rights to Goblinworks. Either Piazo, Goblinworks or both should write a letter to WotC saying we think we can make a video game, you have 30 days to give your reasons why you disagree or give up the right to sue us. That's totally unmurkified! Not knowing should never be a permanent excuse for anything.

No person should consider this legal advice and should consult appropriate counsel concerning their own situation.

I still think not having the Pathfinder rules would be disappointing. There are reasons it sells in hardback.


Pathfinder rules as printed are rather bad for the kind of game they are designing. It is set up to help a bunch of friends adventure together against reasonable challenges by the DM. Not player organizations banding together to fight off and undercut each other constantly in a fully simulated economy and polity. Not that most Pathfinder fans necessarily want that kind of game, but I think their intentions are clear.

I am personally interested in more details on the legal question, but I'll bet that this angle was not pushed that far in the first place because it would jeopardize the vision of the kind of MMO they want to make.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

The OGL does not extend to electronic entertainment. Pathfinder is based on the OGL. thus...

Goblin Squad Member

Anderlorn wrote:
It has to feel like Pathfinder or your old school Pathfinder computer gamers will not play or play it for long.

A market this small, of such rigid taste, and of such fickle loyalty is not a solid market to base an extended service on.

Goblin Squad Member

In response to the thread's prompt, yes, it does matter to me.

I don't think I would find a lot to like, mechanically, about the Pathfinder rules ported over to a massively multiplayer world. I will feel much better about the project if it doesn't place a lot of importance on mechanical faithfulness. And it doesn't sound like the team will, so everything is fine.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

When I first saw the announcement about the mmo, I was excited that there was going to be a pf video game.:D When I read it will not be based on the rules for pf I was sad.:`(


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm much more interested in the Golarion flavor than the Pathfinder rules. What works on the table isn't the same as what works on the screen.


No. I do not mind that PFO mechanics differ from the Pathfinder TTRPG mechanics. In fact, I prefer it. NWN1 was a GREAT game, but, one of the things that annoyed me the most about it was that it was, basically, D&D 3.0 rules without the free form creativity that exists in Table-Top. Nor were there enough character options to support my concept and how I wanted to play the game. Granted, that was some time ago and the mechanics of the NWN series has greatly improved over the years.

When I play a computer game, I want a different experience than when I play table-top. I want PFO to provide new ways of doing things and give me options that that allow me to achieve something that I could not accomplish in a TTRPG dungeon crawl.

I also do not want Paizo/Goblinworks to be sued. If they can achieve this by dropping the OGL mechanics, then so be it. Besides, it gives them more freedom to change the “WoW defines the perfect MMO” mentality of the general populace.


Viktyr Korimir wrote:
I'm much more interested in the Golarion flavor than the Pathfinder rules. What works on the table isn't the same as what works on the screen.

THIS. ^^


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The OGL does not extend to electronic entertainment. Pathfinder is based on the OGL. thus...

from OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a on page 569 of my PATHFINDER ROLEPLAYING GAME CORE RULEBOOK:

section 1(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations(including translations into other computer languages)...

section 1(c)"Open Game Content"...and means any work covered by this License, including derivative works and translations...

OGL does not prohibit use for video games.

Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

Yes it matters a great deal to me. I would like to take the core rulebook and see very close parallels to it on the computer game. I don’t expect it to be exactly the same, but close enough. For example, character class levels, vancian spells, base attack bonus, saving throws, feats, etc.

I am interested in seeing a game that has both Paizo's rich story elements, and the excellent mechanics of the Pathfinder game.

I already have a couple of years invested in WOW, and for the all the games faults, I do enjoy it. If the Pathfinder Online game is similar in mechanics to the Pathfinder core rule book, and I can see directly how they are working, and the game has some of the top notch story telling that Paizo excels at, then I would leave WOW in a heart beat.

If they do PVP, and it looks like they are, I would be interested in playing in servers that are not PVP oriented but PVE and role-playing oriented. If the PVP is confined to specific areas, that are segregated off as "battlegrounds" great. If you can challenge another player and then do PVP that’s fine, as long as the other party has the option of turning down the challenge.

I am not interested in seeing Eve online redressed with swords spears and fireballs.

Eve does not have a good reputation. Granted I haven't played it myself, but from what I have heard from my friends who have tried and played EVE, its full of sociopathic bullying behavior...and I’m not interested in that.

While I do like idea that the further you wander from civilization, the more dangerous it is, I am interested in PVE, not PVP. I would also like the idea of truly randomly generated wandering monsters….ie, if there is a hill giant on the wandering monster table, you might run into him at 1st level. You might have to run away, but there could be a hill giant. I don’t know if this can be incorporated, but I liked that, in previous gams like Baldur’s gate, you needed to rest for the night, to regain your spells, and there was a chance for a wandering monster to stumble into your tent.

One of the reasons I stuck with paizo, was the backwards compatibility to 3.5. The excellent story telling made me want to stay. Similarly, I hope that the Pathfinder online game will be very close to the Pathfinder Role playing game.

So in short I am not interested in seeing Eve online redressed in a fantasy game.

I might try the “free to play” option to try the game out, but if I have to learn an entirely new system, and I find my characters dead at the hands of other players, I will go back to wow and Pathfinder online, will have missed the chance to get another customer.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Uleaum wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The OGL does not extend to electronic entertainment. Pathfinder is based on the OGL. thus...

from OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a on page 569 of my PATHFINDER ROLEPLAYING GAME CORE RULEBOOK:

section 1(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations(including translations into other computer languages)...

section 1(c)"Open Game Content"...and means any work covered by this License, including derivative works and translations...

OGL does not prohibit use for video games.

It does not prohibit and it does not explicitly allow. "Translation into other computer languages" is a horribly unclear term. It certainly does mean stuff like Hero Lab or D20Pro, where OGL rules are translated into computer code as a means of their presentation. But computer games, where said OGL mechanics would be interwoven with non-OGL stuff? And how do you even handle Section 15 for a computer game?

It's copyright law, which is about the most murky, unclear, vague and difficult area of law nowadays. In particular in common law countries.

So far, (with tiny indie exceptions) there were no OGL-based computer games. Every D&D game insofar was made on explicit license from WotC. I guess that nobody wants to risk sinking $$$ into development of something that's based on vague legal basis only to be hit by a lawsuit at the least opportune moment.

And since we're talking about the company that just knocked WotC out of the top spot, I can fully understand Paizo not willing to take any risks that take them remotely within a lawsuit zone. Remember, in the US the lawsuit can kill you before it even reaches a conclusion (proceedings costs and lawyer fees ahoy).

PS. I know everybody writes IANAL in such posts, but I can't, given my education and profession :)


Scott Betts wrote:
Anderlorn wrote:
It has to feel like Pathfinder or your old school Pathfinder computer gamers will not play or play it for long.
A market this small, of such rigid taste, and of such fickle loyalty is not a solid market to base an extended service on.

There is a way to make the game appeal to everyone without being a mirror image of WoW with Pathfinder lingo.

Any time a group is segregated, it is market share that Goblinworks will lose and the game will fail to those more well established MMOs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Pathfinder rules like the ones they are descended from were built for turn-based paper and dice play. Those mechanics don't translate at all to real-time video game play, whether it's MMORG or single player.

So no matter what Paizo or anyone else chooses to implement, it's going to be different. Frame your expectations appropriately.

Goblin Squad Member

As someone who modded a currently running custom campaign world to the PF ruleset (aka, not in Golarion), I don't see how this game has anything to with PF. To me...PF is a ruleset, not a campaign.

I am also not sure what is meant when people keep stating the mechanics do not translate well...what you need when you build any program are clear rules for implementation. I am not sure how much more clear one can get than PF's fabulous rulebooks and occasional errata. It is as good a foundation as any, and in my opinion better than most (which is why I play with the PF RULESET).

I will try this Golarion game when it comes out, but it will not replace the time I enjoy playing Pathfinder.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
As someone who modded a currently running custom campaign world to the PF ruleset (aka, not in Golarion), I don't see how this game has anything to with PF. To me...PF is a ruleset, not a campaign.

Pathfinder was a campaign setting before it was a ruleset. So, I mean, you can certainly hold that position, but it's a little revisionist.

Quote:
I am also not sure what is meant when people keep stating the mechanics do not translate well...

We mean that the mechanics do not translate well.

Quote:
what you need when you build any program are clear rules for implementation.

You need a lot of things, one of which is a set of clear rules.

Quote:
I am not sure how much more clear one can get than PF's fabulous rulebooks and occasional errata.

Pathfinder's rulebooks are far from the tightest set of rules in the tabletop roleplaying world.

Quote:
It is as good a foundation as any,

No, it's not.

Quote:
and in my opinion better than most (which is why I play with the PF RULESET).

For an example of a set of rules that is more mechanically cohesive, you might consider taking a look at D&D 4e. (Which, by the way, despite being an easier set of rules to implement than Pathfinder's, would still be a poor choice of rules for an MMO.)

Quote:
I will try this Golarion game when it comes out, but it will not replace the time I enjoy playing Pathfinder.

This is an MMO. It is not designed to replace the Pathfinder tabletop game. No one is trying to make you give up playing the Pathfinder tabletop game. No one wants that.


KitNyx wrote:

As someone who modded a currently running custom campaign world to the PF ruleset (aka, not in Golarion), I don't see how this game has anything to with PF. To me...PF is a ruleset, not a campaign.

I am also not sure what is meant when people keep stating the mechanics do not translate well...what you need when you build any program are clear rules for implementation. I am not sure how much more clear one can get than PF's fabulous rulebooks and occasional errata.

It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.

Goblin Squad Member

Omelite wrote:
It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.

Easily solved. Give each action a time cost. Just like every other game, this, in combination with a server sequencing of action selection, gives you a relatively real-time simulation. I am not saying some rules will have to be bent...or even broken in an MMO adaptation, I am just answering the question of the thread from the perspective that an attempt could be made to stay as close to the Pathfinder ruleset as possible.


I have no problem with Pathfinder MMO not using Pathfinder RPG rules.
There is no real possibility of making true open sandbox game with d20 rules anyway.

I would not mind some Pathfinder RPG based game as well, as long as it would be real cRPG instead of MMO. Also, I prefer skill-based systems to class/level based systems.

Grand Lodge

Provos wrote:
When I first saw the announcement about the mmo, I was excited that there was going to be a pf video game.:D When I read it will not be based on the rules for pf I was sad.:`(

Matters and also makes me sad

Goblin Squad Member

Gorbacz wrote:
Uleaum wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The OGL does not extend to electronic entertainment. Pathfinder is based on the OGL. thus...

OGL does not prohibit use for video games.

It does not prohibit and it does not explicitly allow. "Translation into other computer languages" is a horribly unclear term. ...

Actually, it's pretty cut and dried.

Per the OGL FAQ:

Quote:

Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?

A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.

One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.

Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasn't studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used.

See the Software FAQ for more information.

And that OGL software FAQ says in part:

Quote:

Q: So I could make a game?

A: Sure. Remember though, you cannot use any Product Identity with the OGL or claim compatibility with anything. So you can't say your game is a d20 System game or uses D&D rules or call it Elminster's Undermountain Crawl.

IANAL but I can read...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

FAQs aren't law. And certainly aren't something that you can use in a courtroom. What you can use is the license, and it is unclear on the matter.

And again, marking out OGC in a computer game would be *horribly* messy. Especially in a MMO, where most of the data is server-side. How do you designate that as open content?

Remember, like I wrote earlier, a lawsuit can kill you before even you will have a chance to present your case. Even doubly so with a MMO, because a temporary injunction that says "stop running your game until the court rules on the matter" is a death sentence.

Goblin Squad Member

If it's Golarion but not very Pathfinder, I will be very disappointed.

Goblin Squad Member

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
If it's Golarion but not very Pathfinder, I will be very disappointed.

Golarion is Pathfinder. Pathfinder was the name of the campaign setting and adventure product line before it was the name of a game system.

Goblinworks Founder

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
If it's Golarion but not very Pathfinder, I will be very disappointed.

Scott is right here.

Golarion and Pathfinder setting are the same thing.
The Pathfinder rules are merely an adaptation of the d20 OGL, they are not Pathfinder they are d20 OGL.

Paizo could have used d6 WEG rules or GURPS for the Pathfinder Setting. It would still be Pathfinder and it would still be Golarion.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:
If it's Golarion but not very Pathfinder, I will be very disappointed.
Golarion is Pathfinder. Pathfinder was the name of the campaign setting and adventure product line before it was the name of a game system.

I think you are splitting hairs here Scott. Pathfinder in this instance is obviously referring to the rule-set developed out of the 3.5e d20 system by WotC NOT the setting developed by Paizo. I think even Paizo make this difference in this day and age, PF is a generic fantasy d20 rule-set and Golarion is their proprietary setting for use with said rule-set.

In simple terms, people want to know their AM BARBARIAN will be as ridiculous in PF Online as it is in the PF PnP game.

S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. Flavour and setting has always been Paizo's stronger suit. A PvP MMO will also need much better balance than is inherent in the PVE Pathfinder RPG.

Goblin Squad Member

Gorbacz wrote:

FAQs aren't law. And certainly aren't something that you can use in a courtroom. What you can use is the license, and it is unclear on the matter.

And again, marking out OGC in a computer game would be *horribly* messy. Especially in a MMO, where most of the data is server-side. How do you designate that as open content?

Remember, like I wrote earlier, a lawsuit can kill you before even you will have a chance to present your case. Even doubly so with a MMO, because a temporary injunction that says "stop running your game until the court rules on the matter" is a death sentence.

Although I appreciate your ardor to not have the MMO use the Pathfinder rules,

1. You most certainly could use the clarifications that Wizards publishes on their own site about what the OGL means in court. About 1/100 of what's brought up in a civil trial is black-letter law.

2. It's actually fairly easy. It's complicated if you have *new* OGC in your game. But if you're using existing, just link to the SRD and say "this!".

But let me not interrupt the "it's impossible!" riff...

Dark Archive

Ernest Mueller wrote:

1. You most certainly could use the clarifications that Wizards publishes on their own site about what the OGL means in court. About 1/100 of what's brought up in a civil trial is black-letter law.

You could bring them up, but they'd mean little to nothing. The FAQs have no legal authority whatsoever to interpret the contract that a publisher enters into by using the OGL. Nothing of meaning comes up in a court room other than the law itself (including of course case law) and information that attempts to demonstrate whether or not the defendant's actions have run afoul of that law. Judge's don't just make up new ways of interpreting law based on their whims in that case.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Goblinworks CEO Ryan Dancey knows more about both the OGL and how Hasbro's internal legal department would be likely to interpret it than anyone else. Dancey created the OGL and put far more of his time, energy, and professional reputation than any other person. If he of all people has decided not to use it, then I have little doubt that it's a rational decision.

Quote:
But let me not interrupt the "it's impossible!" riff...

What is impossible is to do it any way that would absolutely shield Goblinworks from the threat of expensive legal action on the part of Hasbro. Constructing hypothetical interpretations whereby Goblinworks could win such a case is meaningless. All Hasbro has to have is enough of a case to get into court and they could make sure Goblinworks bankrupts long before a Pathfinder MMO ever comes into existence.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Uninvited Ghost wrote:
If it's Golarion but not very Pathfinder, I will be very disappointed.
Golarion is Pathfinder. Pathfinder was the name of the campaign setting and adventure product line before it was the name of a game system.
I think you are splitting hairs here Scott. Pathfinder in this instance is obviously referring to the rule-set developed out of the 3.5e d20 system by WotC NOT the setting developed by Paizo. I think even Paizo make this difference in this day and age, PF is a generic fantasy d20 rule-set and Golarion is their proprietary setting for use with said rule-set.

Thank you. :)

I love the fluff of Golarion, but if the crunch behind it was totally different, I and many others wouldn't be here.

Goblin Squad Member

Ernest Mueller wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

FAQs aren't law. And certainly aren't something that you can use in a courtroom. What you can use is the license, and it is unclear on the matter.

And again, marking out OGC in a computer game would be *horribly* messy. Especially in a MMO, where most of the data is server-side. How do you designate that as open content?

Remember, like I wrote earlier, a lawsuit can kill you before even you will have a chance to present your case. Even doubly so with a MMO, because a temporary injunction that says "stop running your game until the court rules on the matter" is a death sentence.

Although I appreciate your ardor to not have the MMO use the Pathfinder rules,

1. You most certainly could use the clarifications that Wizards publishes on their own site about what the OGL means in court. About 1/100 of what's brought up in a civil trial is black-letter law.

2. It's actually fairly easy. It's complicated if you have *new* OGC in your game. But if you're using existing, just link to the SRD and say "this!".

But let me not interrupt the "it's impossible!" riff...

Pretty sure he's a lawyer. Which doesn't make him right, but makes him worth listening to when it comes to what's legally relevant.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
I think you are splitting hairs here Scott.

I don't think I am.

Quote:
Pathfinder in this instance is obviously referring to the rule-set developed out of the 3.5e d20 system by WotC NOT the setting developed by Paizo.

And I'm saying it's ridiculous to say "It's not Pathfinder if it doesn't use the Pathfinder rules!"

By that logic, you could say "Rise of the Runelords isn't Pathfinder!" And, since that is demonstrably false, we can't call it very good logic, can we?

If you want to argue for the Pathfinder rule set, say "I don't want to play a Pathfinder Online that doesn't use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules because I am very rigid in my preferences!" because that's the real reason. Don't try and make your position seem more well-reasoned than it actually is by pulling a "This isn't real Pathfinder unless it's done the way I want it to be done!"

Quote:
I think even Paizo make this difference in this day and age, PF is a generic fantasy d20 rule-set and Golarion is their proprietary setting for use with said rule-set.

Nope. It's still the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. And the adventures are still the Pathfinder Adventure Path product line.

Hell, even their novels, which are totally rules-free, are called Pathfinder Tales.

So, again, Pathfinder was a campaign setting first, and a slightly-modified rules system second. And, when that rules system is likely eventually discarded in favor of a new one, the campaign setting will probably still be called Pathfinder.

Goblin Squad Member

Ernest Mueller wrote:
Although I appreciate your ardor to not have the MMO use the Pathfinder rules,

Any "ardor" that you're observing is the byproduct of an effort to curb the tide of over-enthusiastic backseat developers doing everything in their power to encourage the actual developers to turn PFO into a burning wreck of a project for the sake of their own "great ideas."

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Omelite wrote:
It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.

If its impossible to translate class/level based D20 into an MMO, how did DDO pull it off?

Not that this is the best system either; but it WAS accomplished; and for what it is - it's quite well done. Perhaps it's not compatible with the style of game that Goblinworks is wanting to develop, but it certain proved that you can have an MMO based on OGL D20 class/level based system.

Though I lost interest in DDO quickly early on when Free to Play wasn't even an option - but I lost interest not because of mechanics, but because there was no sandboxy flavor at all - I hated doing nothing but the same repetitive instance dungeons over and over.

But the graphics are great, the game plays well, the animation is good, and two things that I love about combat more than my favorite MMO (LotRO) is that you can raise up your shield to block incoming attacks, and you can tumble away. I wish LotRO had those options instead of just duking it out toe to toe.

Robert

Goblinworks Founder

Robert Brambley wrote:

If its impossible to translate class/level based D20 into an MMO, how did DDO pull it off?

Not that this is the best system either; but it WAS accomplished; and for what it is - it's quite well done. Perhaps it's not compatible with the style of game that Goblinworks is wanting to develop, but it certain proved that you can have an MMO based on OGL D20 class/level based system.

Though I lost interest in DDO quickly early on when Free to Play wasn't even an option - but I lost interest not because of mechanics, but because there was no sandboxy flavor at all - I hated doing nothing but the same repetitive instance dungeons over and over.

But the graphics are great, the game plays well, the animation is good, and two things that I love about combat more than my favorite MMO (LotRO) is that you can raise up your shield to block incoming attacks, and you can tumble away. I wish LotRO had those options instead of just duking it out toe to toe.

Robert

The only thing that turned me off DDO when it initially launched was the heavy use of instancing and complete lack of solo content.

One of the reasons I still play World of Warcraft to this day is because of it's hugely diverse selection of starting areas and their largely seamless world. There is nothing worse for me, than learning a new game, making multiple characters to find the one that feels the best to my play style and having to go through the exact same starting area every time regardless of race or creed.

The combat in DDO was quite enjoyable for me. I especially loved the active dodge, block and tumbling. The AI of the monsters were also much better than most MMO's I have played. A Kobold Archer would not move into melee if his line of sight was blocked, instead he would strafe until he found a better position to shoot from (Age of Conan also did this).

The Dungeons in DDO were some of my favorite dungeons of all time (in MMO's) Filled with traps, secret doors, multiple directions and multiple levels going up and/or down. They were some of the best designs I have seen in a game. Way more enjoyable than the linear steamroll dungeons that Blizzard currently offer.

So really, if DDO was set in a seamless world and had a better range of starting zones I think it would have done much better.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:

Nope. It's still the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. And the adventures are still the Pathfinder Adventure Path product line.

Hell, even their novels, which are totally rules-free, are called Pathfinder Tales.

So, again, Pathfinder was a campaign setting first, and a slightly-modified rules system second. And, when that rules system is likely eventually discarded in favor of a new one, the campaign setting will probably still be called Pathfinder.

I will put forward that as the OP (myself) used Pathfinder and Mechanics in the thread title that there is an implication that the Paizo modified d20 rules, i.e. the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, is the topic of discussion and not the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.

Can we agree that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is designed for use with the Pathfinder Campaign Setting? Both can be used independently of each other, however, the setting would have a lot of material not useful to someone using say Rolemaster as the mechanics for a game in the Pathfinder Setting. So we have established that the PF Online Game will use material from the setting (Exhibit A), what we are trying to now establish is IF the PF Online does not use as a basis the mechanics presented in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game will it color your decision to play the online game.

A lawyer you say...

Goblin Squad Member

Something I think people forget is that the whole tabletop game is basically a form of abstract roleplay. Fighters and Barbarians are both warriors, but are built differently, just like Rogues and Monks are both skirmishers, but are built differently (to use a rather grossly inefficient way of putting it.)

So long as the game stays true to the Golarion we have all come to know and love, I can't see the implementation of the coding being too jarring.

My take on the current 'skill' system (and I am no doubt horribly wrong here) but it seems to be the more of a certain skill(s) that you use, you level up by improving those skills. So I could be a two-handed medium-armored stealth-using minor-magical character. I can call myself a Ranger, dammit. Or I could call myself a Fighter/Cleric/Rogue Multiclass.

The thing is, we'll probably see a much looser interpretation of the rules, specifically the combat ones, but keeping the old flanking, attacks-of-opportunity and the like kept even as the 'Character Classes' are broken down and put away so that people have a greater freedom to build their 'ideal' character.

You could build a plain straight Fighter if that is your wish, and I do hope that Arcane Casting, rather than being cancelled by a miscast in armor, is slowed down to a crawl, rather that people being able to run around in full plate-armor flinging Fireballs like ping-pong balls. Divine Magic, nominally, lacks the offensive 'Ooomph!' of the Arcane, thus it never seemed to require the armor limitation.

Goblinworks Founder

HalfOrcHeavyMetal wrote:


You could build a plain straight Fighter if that is your wish, and I do hope that Arcane Casting, rather than being cancelled by a miscast in armor, is slowed down to a crawl, rather that people being able to run around in full plate-armor flinging Fireballs like ping-pong balls. Divine Magic, nominally, lacks the offensive 'Ooomph!' of the Arcane, thus it never seemed to require the armor limitation.

This is something that might be worthy of it's own thread.

How would one penalize arcane magic in armor?
Miscast (not ideal in an online game)
Increased Casting time
Increased Cost
Action point reserve cost (Like Dragon Age or Titans Quest)

Additionally Magic may require one or two free hands.
Maybe Divine Magic requires a holy symbol in one hand for regular spells and two hands for the more powerful spells such as Raise the dead or Creeping Death.
Arcane could work in much the same way, one free hand for things such as Magic Missle and sleep or two hands for spells such as Burning hands, Fireball and Lightning bolt.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't have to slavishly use all the PF mechanics - but if it doesn't generally use the PF classes, and races, and iconic kinds of spells and whatnot, it'll be kind of pointless. If my character has different stats from the "big six," or there's complex ability trees not familiar-feeling to the game, it makes me a lot less interested.

With a fantasy gaming world like this, a lot of things about the world are kinda outgrowths of the game system. All I'm saying is that from an in game perspective, the MMO Golarion should look and act like the RPG Golarion, which prescribes a certain amount - but certainly not all that much of the details - mechanical similarity.

Goblin Squad Member

Stefan Hill wrote:
Can we agree that the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is designed for use with the Pathfinder Campaign Setting?

The game is designed for the setting, though it's cannot be said that the setting was designed for the game (given that the setting came first). And, speaking as someone who's made something of a habit of running adventures in the Pathfinder setting using other rules, I really don't think the setting loses anything when different mechanics are applied to it.

Quote:
A lawyer you say...

Ernest was talking about Gorbacz, not me.

I'm not a lawyer.

Yet.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:

I really don't think the setting loses anything when different mechanics are applied to it.

I'm not a lawyer.

Yet.

Only true when the setting material contents is system neutral information. From the Pathfinder Campaign material I have they aren't helping me mechanically at all to run a game using Runequest, but there seems to be an awful lot of mechanical support for the Pathfinder RPG line. While the board Campaign Setting concept can be divorced from the PF RPG, in principle the Setting draws on Mechanics (the reverse an also be said). So let's just keep the PF Setting and the PF RPG as separate entities - as they are on the Paizo website. Doing otherwise would be living in the past, and if we are doing that we should play 1e AD&D.

I wasn't confused, I was hinting I thought some of your lawyer training was leaking out. Having trained with lawyers on the examination of expert witnesses your avoidance of the underlying meaning because it didn't run parallel to your argument stood out.

S.

Goblin Squad Member

Stefan Hill wrote:


Does this matter to you?

A huge amount, but apparently some things are already set in stone. Since the OGL will cause them issues, they cannot use the game-system as published as their start. It will likely cause me to /ragequit in a year's time, but I'll play it at least till then, and they can budget my $220 right now as they see fit.

Goblin Squad Member

will the change of mechanics affect me, no. there are plenty of good crpg mechanics that would work better because thats what they are designed for. im more interested in the content than the mechanics anyway, i'll play a game with a good story even if it has controls i dont like.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

D&D, and therefore Pathfinder, is basically the story of "A fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard walk into a bar." The mechanics aren't the focus, the story and genre are. So I'm looking forward to this game regardless of the mechanics.

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Will it not being 'Pathfinder' mechanically matter? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.