Goblin Squad Member
|
So Ryan once asked our opinion whether in the future, once the minimum viable game area has been completed and we are all playing, how should they expand the playable area? Should they expand using a portal system to other areas of Golarion or continue incrementing on the borders of what we will initially have to start.
The portal idea seems neat because we would be able to reach different terrain types quickly and easily, and the current area in the River Kingdoms extends quite a ways without much change. No mountains to speak of, no real oceanic areas for expanding into naval engagement are really nearby.
On the other hand incrementing the play area at the borders is attractive as well, in that it should lead to a more unified playerbase. If the advanced players are all off beyond a high-level portal the basis area might become rather unpopulated, drastically reducing the opportunity for player interaction.
Or we could ask them to do both, in a manner of speaking. On the current borders add some portals, but also expand the land area around those portals in a manner that makes them subject to blockade.
I'm still not satisfied that we have fully explored these potentials, and thought I would bring it up again for comment.
Either could work.
The issue with portals might be camping them, but that's a solvable problem.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just as a completely off-the-top-of-my-head response: That river looks a suitable way to extend the map as a major source of shipping traffic wherever it flows to?
I agree with this. I would much rather have GW dedicate their early resources towards making our stater area of the map, completely usable. That means, using the rivers:
Rivers not just for fast travel, but for standard travel, for trade, for combat, for fishing and other resources, and most of all... for piracy!!
Once they have a system that uses water surface in the same ways that land service is used, then expansion is easy. It is easy to do, and easy to explain how we get there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True. The rivers of the River Lands are pretty big, and in many cases deep. Even utilizing flat bottom or shallow keeled boats/ship, naval warfare could be implemented.
A quick look at the map of the River Kingdoms shows that there is a good amount of room to expand before GW would come close to being too near any established nations. Yes, none of the areas would include mountains, but is it imperative to have every terrain possible in PfO, at least for a while? The use of portals should be to lead to exotic, far off areas barely touched by any existing PFRPG AP's or modules. If you want mountains, at some point maybe a powerful spellcaster might appear one day (a GM run NPC) and open one up to the mountains east of Brevoy. Frozen, arctic areas like the northern shores of the Lake of Mists and Veils could have portals to them/it.
However, there is room left in the immediate area of the starting hexes to allow for expansion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to see a cataclysmic event(s) change portions of the River Kingdoms to make those environments. It would upseat whatever organization (NPC) held the area and change the landscape.
The rivers are at least 10mi wide at all areas and sometimes up to 25mi wide based off of the Inner Sea map. That's big enough for naval combat for me.
I just don't want portals popping up all over the place. Half the fun on Everquest was getting to where you were going. I want to experience that again... minus the 30 min wait for boats. Change that to 10min and I'd be fine. Again, PVP might change things a bit, I just don't like the idea of "portals" to different places. Not unless I can destroy it or control it... and that'd make for a sucky PvP experience IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had mentioned this in a TL;DR type post about expansion. I do want mountains eventually. In lieu of the River Kingdons having a cataclysmic volcano erupting in the middle of an otherwise flat plain, portals could work. Easily worked in to the story (wizards, demigods fighting, World Wound being brought closer to the Crusaders as an "offense is the best defense" type scenario....all sorts of possibilities are available).
But GW and Paizo do not necessarily have to stick strictly to the current River Kingdoms geography. They have lots of room to work with and can adapt as they deem necessary.
Personally I wouldn't objest to seeing an expansion to the west side of the the West Sellen River to encompass the Southeastern portion of Ustalav or north to include Southwestern Numeria. Both of those options have their own problems though...
There is a nice chunky bit of very mountainous terrain in the far Northeastern corner of the River Kingdoms. Maybe some important quest or pilgrimage site was found in the mountains and a portal gets opened up to create a sort of shortcut from the starting areas to a gate near the base of the mountain(s) in the East.
Here's the map link from someone else's post a while back: Map of Golarian
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I am against a bunch of portals all over, the cavern system sounds cool.
Portals and fast travel can really kill games. LotRO was fun because your travels meant something. There weren't portals all over transporting you to a completely different land.
WoW introduced portals (Burning Crusade was a bit different and that one made sense) after Lich King and it radically changed player behavior. Once the portal system opened up where you could get to almost any city from one spot, that spot was heavily camped. Other cities died. I played Alliance and Ironforge and Darnassas were ghost towns (Exodar was always desolate). Except for leveling no one went to Outland.
GW2 had waypoints everywhere which made what would have been a large world very small indeed. I hated that.
But the underground thing could certainly work. A vast underground cavern complex with multiple exits into other areas of the River Kingdoms…that has possibilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No portals.
We should be clear about what we're actually talking about.
There are two very distinct ways that "Portals" can be implemented:
- Portals dot the map, and connect to one or more other portals on the same map. These portals provide an alternate method of getting from point A to point B, which can also be done on foot or on horseback.
- Portals exist at specific locations on the edge of the map, and lead to one and only one other portal on the edge of another map. These portals provide the only method of getting from point A to point B.
PFO is considering using the latter for expanded map areas, and I don't see any problem with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Portals exist at specific locations on the edge of the map, and lead to one and only one other portal on the edge of another map. These portals provide the only method of getting from point A to point B.[/list] PFO is considering using the latter for expanded map areas, and I don't see any problem with that.
Lore-wise, this makes sense. There are portals all over Golarion leading not only to spots far distant on planet, but also to pretty much every other planet and moon in it's solar system.
My only caveat is that there should be three portals that go to one specific point of the map on both the main area of the River Kingdoms and the map for whatever the new zone is. (Three to match the number of starter cities.) This makes it harder for a faction to camp the portal and block all access to the new zones
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only caveat is that there should be three portals that go to one specific point of the map on both the main area of the River Kingdoms and the map for whatever the new zone is. (Three to match the number of starter cities.) This makes it harder for a faction to camp the portal and block all access to the new zones
I don't think that's necessary.
I think it would be more likely that the hex with the Portal in it would be considered an NPC hex, and have rapid response from the Marshals. That would do a much better job of making sure it wasn't controlled by any particular faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only caveat is that there should be three portals that go to one specific point of the map on both the main area of the River Kingdoms and the map for whatever the new zone is. (Three to match the number of starter cities.) This makes it harder for a faction to camp the portal and block all access to the new zonesI don't think that's necessary.
I think it would be more likely that the hex with the Portal in it would be considered an NPC hex, and have rapid response from the Marshals. That would do a much better job of making sure it wasn't controlled by any particular faction.
Not to mention that anyone attempting to do so would draw the ire of a number of different PC groups.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Note also that portals need not be lore-magic. If you gain passage downriver to the inner sea at a dock, the dock qualifies as a portal for the purposes of this discussion.
That said, I'd rather see the worldwound's effects spread south, such that there are literal portals to and from it. That would provide an interesting source of new content and a justification for either new mechanics or the relaxing of existing restrictions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would hope that some time down the road (in an advanced iteration of PFO) the World Wound would be involved to some degree in the story. After all, the is ostensibly the reason we are all converging on the River Kingdoms. I'm thinking 6-8 years down the road. I should be getting closer to my Social Security checks by then (if there is any loot left in the king's treasury.....and I am not optimistic).
I am good with the above mentioned portal system (not fast travel) to new lands as long there is not a way to camp the site(s).
I'm not in favor of portals. Not in the sense that they dot the land going here and there. I would much rather see the map grow from its edges. If portals are to be added, I'd rather see one portal leading to one destination situated in an NPC controlled hex. That way people would still have to journey to the portal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I scanned the River Kingdom Map from my copy of Guide to the River Kingdoms. The area possible before we hit the Protectorate of the Black Marquis, Lamberth, or Daggermark is almost 90 miles across and 120 miles north-south. There is plenty of land into which GW can expand. I think that deep in the Echo Woods there could be some really tall hills if not near mountains. I don't think that portals will be necessary except for possible high level dungeons that teleport characters to closed distant regions.
Of course, couldn't anybody trying to control the portals just control who gets to enter the NPC settlement?
Yup. Definitely a challenge. I think it is a bit of a risk, though. I personally wouldn't mind--it'd make things interesting. The question is, does GW want such a large area to be sealable by a single blockade?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One question even on the pre-existing map that I wonder about (possibly a good reason to keep settlement potentials of war/production more regular?) is the "doughnut effect", of inner hex settlements becoming production centres and the outer ring of hexes the warlike hexes. Not sure that's a great result over the long-term, or not?
Again if expanding the map, in one direction some settlements would be further away from the "new frontiers" to exploit. What effect does that have? I'm in general preference of contiguous expansion of the map, but that would be one concern, that sort of "doughnut" effect?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That runs the risk of all attacks coming from one direction. Once one of the perimeter settments falls the attacked has free reign (access to the chewy caramel center!). But this will have to be to some degree...you can't afford to militarize every hex. Therefore, a standing army will have to be available to provide a mobile defense, versus always hiding behind the walls of a fortress.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Id rather not have a portal system in place in general. While there are ways to do it well, it usually breaks 'world-immersion' to one degree or another, with the possible exception of 'ships-as-portals' where you are crossing rivers/seas/oceans to get to another port/harbor.
As far as expansion goes, I think they have some good options available. Ustalav to the west and Galt to the south provide some darker areas to explore with some rockier/mountainous terrain. Razmiran to the southwest and Brevoy to the northeast provide some 'coastal' terrain.
To sum up, Id much rather the map grows organically from its edges, with the possible exception of adding a harbor-to-harbor transit option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Id rather not have a portal system in place in general. While there are ways to do it well, it usually breaks 'world-immersion' to one degree or another, with the possible exception of 'ships-as-portals' where you are crossing rivers/seas/oceans to get to another port/harbor.
I'm not sure you can call it "world-immersion breaking" if the setting already has them. You have Alseta, the goddess of doorways, and the Elf-gates.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know enough about Golarion, but are elf-gates conventional means of travel? I mean, with caravans rolling through them back and forth? As such thing as Crusader's Road exists, this seems unlikely. Gates are fine if they are open only at the full moon or after utilization of 1000-gp gem in their vicinity or whatever. But using them as in EVE will change whole world. Need a shortcut for your army - no problem! Want to smuggle these crates through the border - go ahead! This will break immersoion for me.
Another argument against any option to cut travel times is sandbox size. For existence of working economy and several successful organizations you will need a lot of distance, so bringing something somewhere will require effort, time and some risk along the way.
Just some of my thoughts about successful sandbox, ofc.
We're (Or at least, I am) talking about portals as ways to get to otherwise unaccessible places in different parts of Golarion, not as a way to shave time off a trip. A portal to jump three hundred miles to northern Varisia is a different thing than one to jump five miles from Thornkeep to Fort Riverwatch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elf Gates and Portals in Golarion. Neither are exactly common, but they are part of the lore. A stable elf gate could be used like the Bajoran wormhole in DS9 to link to an area that is geographically very different than the River Kingdoms. For example, if you want to play in a desert, jungle, beachfront, tundra, or mountain area, you have to travel VERY far from the Crusader Road. This would allow GW to let us play with those typs of terrain that cannot be done just by "Growing the Map", unless they vary widely from the already published world map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elf Gates and Portals in Golarion. Neither are exactly common, but they are part of the lore. A stable elf gate could be used like the Bajoran wormhole in DS9 to link to an area that is geographically very different than the River Kingdoms. For example, if you want to play in a desert, jungle, beachfront, tundra, or mountain area, you have to travel VERY far from the Crusader Road. This would allow GW to let us play with those typs of terrain that cannot be done just by "Growing the Map", unless they vary widely from the already published world map.
This ^^^^^^^^^
I stopped playing Skyrim because I got bored of the snow. You can't ask somebody to play a fantasy game for years without changes in the scenery. A very big part of the lure of Dungeons & Dragons et all is the variety of fantasy settings you adventure in.
There MUST be portals, deserts, swamps, mountains etc. There MUST be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elf Gates and Portals in Golarion. Neither are exactly common, but they are part of the lore. A stable elf gate could be used like the Bajoran wormhole in DS9 to link to an area that is geographically very different than the River Kingdoms. For example, if you want to play in a desert, jungle, beachfront, tundra, or mountain area, you have to travel VERY far from the Crusader Road. This would allow GW to let us play with those typs of terrain that cannot be done just by "Growing the Map", unless they vary widely from the already published world map.This ^^^^^^^^^
I stopped playing Skyrim because I got bored of the snow. You can't ask somebody to play a fantasy game for years without changes in the scenery. A very big part of the lure of Dungeons & Dragons et all is the variety of fantasy settings you adventure in.
There MUST be portals, deserts, swamps, mountains etc. There MUST be.
This is true. But I'd prefer the River Kingdoms be made full use of first ie built up in complexity than start over from scratch again in a foreign clime. Include Rivers transport and ships, Mountain passes for trade: Local, Regional, National first before International.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is true. But I'd prefer the River Kingdoms be made full use of first ie built up in complexity than start over from scratch again in a foreign clime. Include Rivers transport and ships, Mountain passes for trade: Local, Regional, National first before International.
(Bolded for emphasis)
There are no mountains or passes in the River Kingdoms. In order to encounter mountains, you would need to go 100 miles west into Ustalav, 300 miles south through Kyonin into the Five Kings Mountains, or 500 miles northeast into Brevoy. If you want to encounter a desert you would need to go over 1000 miles south past the inner sea to Osirion or Qadira. The wastes surrounding the Worldwound are closer, but they aren't really a desert. For that matter, a lot of the story of the region focuses on the crusaders traveling to the Worldwound, it would be a shame if we didn't have the ability to go there. We would have to grow the map 300 miles north through Numeria do do so without a portal.
While there is no question that we will be in the River Kingdoms first and for the foreseeable future, if we ever want a setting other than Plains or Forest with low hills, then we need a way to go much farther than an incremental map growth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I think of Numeria, my mind goes back to Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Arthur's comment "No, on second thought, let's not go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place." Aliens, robots, and space ships. Yeah, I wouldn't be sad to jump right over Numeria.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can the devs not add some low mountains? Ranging anywhere from:
Massif Central (FRA) (highest: 1,886 m) < Apennines (ITA) (highest: 2,912 m) < Pyrenees (FRA/SPA/AND) (highest: 3,404 m)
If they start altering River Kingdom terrain away from the design, it is not really the River Kingdoms anymore. So, why keep to expanding the local area then. Gates or expansion, would make no difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they start altering River Kingdom terrain away from the design, it is not really the River Kingdoms anymore. So, why keep to expanding the local area then. Gates or expansion, would make no difference.Can the devs not add some low mountains? Ranging anywhere from:
Massif Central (FRA) (highest: 1,886 m) < Apennines (ITA) (highest: 2,912 m) < Pyrenees (FRA/SPA/AND) (highest: 3,404 m)
I can honestly see benefits both ways. But atst, I think making the most of the given area and if that includes expanding is the best idea to add more complexity to a given area. Eg include the rivers for ships.
The reason I keep playing like a broken record concerning mountains (very loose def: >1,000m) is I was under the impression that the River Kinggdoms was a sandbox area, so it is open to "interpretation"? Maybe that is the wrong impression I have? But if GW choose a sandbox area, I'd like to have water and elevation diversity at least to influence travel, trade and isolation vs connection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Outside the River Kingdoms, gameplay would be quite different. In a more settled country, towns declaring war on one another would quickly bring down the wrath of the national army.
Playing in a country with a strong central government would be more like EQ, WoW, or one of the other fantasy MMOs. Paizo has a long-standing and well-documented fondness for Varisia, but this game won't be set there. GoblinWorks choose the River Kingdoms for a reason: nation-building on a small scale happens there all the time. For this type of gameplay, it's ideal.
Portal travel wouldn't just take characters to different terrain types; it would effectively take them away from the settlement-expansion-warfare portion of the game. Some will cheer for that possibility, but that seems to be a major aspect of the game GW is making.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the quote for a small mountain was around 4, but that was before the hexes were subdivided. Also, the math in that post was suspect. Vic Wertz had better math a few posts down. The original hexes being discussed in that were about a half square mile, meaning a 4 hex mountain was only 2 sq miles, which seems on the small side to me. According to wikipedia, Mt Saint Helens has a 6 mile base diameter, for a total area of just over 28 sq miles, or approximately 56 hexes. Time 7 for the subdivision means that MSH would take up 392 subhexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thinking of it, if Mt. St. Helens would only occupy four hexes, then it seems to me the PFO map is considerably larger than the Philadelphia metro area. Not so large as New Jersey, but if centered on Philadelphia it would cover a big chunk of New Jersey.
I should try superimposing the PFO map on a map of Washington State by describing hexes...
Okay so I centered a map on Mt. St. Helens, WA and scrolled out to where I felt it would fit in four of Harad's hexes.
At the bottom of the map Portalnd was in view and well as the Dalles on the Columbia. On the North I estimated the edge would almost be up into Mt Rainier national forest.
That is a very large area.