From what little I've skimmed over the PFO forums, it seems that PFO will be substantially different than Pathfinder.
Is this correct?
I mean, I know Paizo isn't developing the game themselves, but I figured that the game would use an engine derived from the Pathfinder Rules, the same way Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd Ed and Neverwinter Nights was based on 3rd Ed.
Why the changes?
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are many, many blog posts on the GoblinWorks site dedicated to how the game has evolved to its current state, but the basics of it is that this is a MMO utilizing the Golarion setting. As such, it is not a CRPG as was Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. The game mechanics are derived to best support the MMO model as well as the settlement management/conflict that will be central to the overall game.
|
The idea here is that TTops are simplifying all mechanics to allow for maximum storytelling, but in a sandbox the tools can be as complicated as a flight to Mars as long as the PCs never have to directly interface with them, only interact with them.
The Pathfinder Online MMO is more of a Pathfinder Brand MMO, than it is any kind of extension of the ruleset or mechanics of the tabletop because... well it doesn't have to be, on top of the GRADE A reason that it would be VERY tricky to simply import the TTop rules from a legal standpoint since the PRD, and the OGL (Open Gaming License, the lifeblood of what the Pathefinder TTop is) don't apply to software.
Expect something more like Golarion Online than D&D 3.75 Online.
I hope that begins to help answer your question.
I for one am disappointed it won't use Pathfinder rules. If it was based on the rules of the game, and would let you explore the different regions of Avistan I would have been very excited about it. Alas pretty much everything I read about this game lessens my expectations :-/
All great points, but all missing the crux of the matter.
The OGL (which Pathfinder is licensed under, as part of the d20 system) gives WotC exclusive rights to use the d20 rules in electronic gaming.
PfO can't use the Pathfinder rules.
As I said. Very disappointing, and I would say this makes PFO kinda pointless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I would say this makes PFO kinda pointless.
While I'm sure you're not alone in feeling this way, I personally am very much looking forward to playing an MMO based on the spirit of Pathfinder, that is heavily influenced by Lisa Stevens and the rest of the good folks at Paizo.
One of my most memorable PFRPG moments was the simple act of rolling up a new Paladin and being overwhelmed (in a very good way!) with all the Alternate Archetype choices, especially the Warrior of the Holy Light which so closely matches my own personal vision of a Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point, out, though, that the SRD disallows the use of d20 content by anyone besides WOTC - but only that which is covered in the SRD.
Now, however you have 18 classes which are exclusive to Pathfinder. Between those 18 classes and various modifications you can make to the system that already exist as variant rules (armor as DR, etc.) and effectively switching out mechanics for more computer-possible ones (such as making all checks a %-based chance using RNGs, and Skills adding +5% chance of success per Rank or something, making classes gain a hard number of HP each Level instead of their normal HD, etc.) - there are enough workarounds that you would be able to nearly replicate Pathfinder in video game form without actually using the d20 system.
I could understand some differences, but this seems like the MMO has as much in common with Pathfinder the game as a D&D 5th Ed "Magic the Gathering" Campaign Setting would have to Magic the card game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be honest there are two big issues recreating pathfinder TT in a new MMO.
1) D&D based MMOs have been done over and over and over. NWN could even be set to display the dice rolls. Pathfinder rules are pretty much a very minor variation on D&D 3.5 . Some controversial stuff like spiked chains and OP battle Clerics etc were changed and a few basic core dynamics adjusted but its the same game. It would be bringing nothing new to the table.
2) TT D&D/Pathfinder rules have never been overly suitable to a MMO for a number of reasons:
- TT gaming can often involve several minutes of tactical discussion (GM willing) per 6 second round. The TT rules are designed around this.
- TT gaming played properly instead of a dungeon bash involves a lot of role player and has class like bard's built around that
- There is far more combat in 10 minutes of online gaming then you would get in several hours of TT. Things like 'daily spells' just do not work.
- TT gaming is not designed for PvP content. (in a sense you have PvP in TT in the the form of party versus DM but that is not the same).
- it is not intended for you to die regularly in a TT game it is sort of expected in a MMO
- TT gaming is very much 4 or 5 super heroes take on the world. MMOs involve many many more players than that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I love TT Pathfinder (I have several PFS characters and am a 2 Star GM in that realm), but also love what they are doing here.
The TT game is so detailed and robust that it leaves me with endless possibilities to roleplay and create crazy shenanigan characters like my Dalek-summoning Gnome Oracle/Sorcerer. PFO will never be able to touch that. But at the same time, TT Pathfinder has limits because of its Table Top nature and because it relies on human brains to do all the computing.
What GW- with heavy collaboration from Paizo, if I am not mistaken- is doing here is recreating the same great game we love, but with the added benefit of having a computer at the helm instead of a collective of human brains (creepy mental image). I say "collective" here because, lets be honest, no Pathfinder game ever truly has just 1 GM.
I would add that in certain ways I think PFO offers far more flexibility to create your own character, story and destiny than the TT game can often allow- especially if you just run in the PFS play like I do (granted, said Dalek "summoner" is a PFS character - EXTERMINATE!!).
For example, say you really just want to make a bartender- the most epic bartender the River Kingdoms have ever seen- but still just a bartender. In TT Pathfinder, you could do that, but your roleplay options would be highly limited to what your GM and fellow players are willing to entertain.
In PFO, you could not only create a bartender, but roleplay that bartender to your heart's content without ever even having to set foot outside the walls of your settlement.
Personally, I am looking forward to making a Ranger (or the closest approximation currently available) and then delving into the woods, hills and valleys around Blackfeather Keep and discovering what is there- no dice rolls, no trying to convince the GM of anything or negotiate what I might find. Just me, an open world, and whatever the server brings me :) Plus a few broken goblin skulls along the way.
Really, PFTT and PFO are the same thing, just different systems. I'll bet if you played it you'd like it. *Grin* Wanna Alpha invite?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am disappointed it won't use Pathfinder rules. If it was based on the rules of the game, and would let you explore the different regions of Avistan I would have been very excited about it. Alas pretty much everything I read about this game lessens my expectations :-/
I feel a major and integral consideration is being ignored.
Mere rules do not a game make. The play itself, and the players (with the DM) will make the game in either pathfinder or PFO.
The representation of Golarion, the relationships of factions (such as the Pathfinder Society, et alia), and the mechanics of things form the rules and the dice-rolling is all computerized. In that sense the rules are there in the workings of the world. The gods will be present, the populations will be represented (albeit abstractly), and what is left is up to us, the players, exactly as it is around a table only this table can be immeasurably huge.
Eventually even the representation of the DM will be made possible, if all goes well, when GW provides to those of us who are interested and capable to build our own envisioning of stories and encounters using GW-supplied tools and assets to build dungeons and lairs and hopefully leave a trail of clues out in the wider world for our players to enjoy.
It isn't the rules that make pathfinder, it is the play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I said. Very disappointing, and I would say this makes PFO kinda pointless.
Surprising statement. Might as well say not using Pathfinder rules makes Call of Cthulu useless, or Fate, or Savage Worlds. I understand brand loyalty, obviously, if you look at my subscriptions, but Paizo has never operated that way. Paizo has always taken inspiration from a number of rule systems and mythologies, and are quite open about other systems they game with on their own time. I find Paizo and Goblinworks willingness to put the type of story and gameplay they want ahead of adhering to the math of their tabletop rules (even if it was legal) both liberating and exciting for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what little I've skimmed over the PFO forums, it seems that PFO will be substantially different than Pathfinder.
Is this correct?
I mean, I know Paizo isn't developing the game themselves, but I figured that the game would use an engine derived from the Pathfinder Rules, the same way Baldur's Gate was based on 2nd Ed and Neverwinter Nights was based on 3rd Ed.
Why the changes?
Baldur's Gate and NWN did a good job of recreating the TT into a single-player type computer game. Because it was just one player or several in multiplayer they could make a campaign for you to play. The whole purpose for the PC game could be to recreate a TT campaign .
But the MMO is a different creature , imagine 1000 people trying to sit down at a table and play a TT game at the same time. The theme parks try to do that and it can be fun. PFO won't be a game like that ,instead of quests for content it will be the actions of other players that create the possibilities for your own choices of what to do.
So I look at who is making the game and hope that they can take what they have to work with and create something that satisfies the type of interest I have. The possibilities of what you can do in PFO will be so far above what you could do in Baldur's Gate that PFO will be the game that more closely recreates the gameplay that the TT rules were made for. But it all depends on all the other players and what they do.
So I don't believe that a cut and paste of the rules from TT to PC recreates the fun of the original ,it just makes you feel like you are making the same character that you could have made. That is part of the fun , but the wide open choices of what you can do in PFO is the part of the TT game that also needs to be recreated for a huge crowd to enjoy at the same time.
So PFO could be very satisfying or a huge disappointment ,like an mmo in a galaxy far ,far away was after I followed it's hype for 4 years. It seems that it isn't the IP that matters ,it is the people that make the game and what it is that they are trying to do. I believe GW is trying to make a game that appeals to people who love the TT type gameplay, not recreate the gameplay itself but recreate what is satisfying about doing it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think the crucial point that many responses here are touching on is that TT and MMO are fundamentally different creatures, and it is not possible to duplicate the TT experience in an MMO.
I have been playing in the PFO Alpha environment and while it is true and fair to say it differs from TT Pathfinder in some significant ways, I have found it to be exciting and worthwhile in its own right. And it definitely retains enough of the flavor of "Pathfinder" to be worthy of the name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have played the Kingmaker Adventure Path. The premise of both games is the same. The players are carving out kingdoms in the volatile River Kingdoms. As for discrete details, I don't remember the Hellknights and there was something about the fae in the later modules. I don't know where PFO is in relation to Kingmaker in the Golarion canon either. But, PFO's relation to Kingmaker is what attracted me to the game initially.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised no one had said that the D20 system is not granular enough and is broken at high levels of play. Not to mention the way Armor class works is goofy at best, and completely unrepairable and illogical at worst.
*ducks flung rulebooks*
*Takes aim at First0f0ne*
Did I hit?
Seriously, though, I think we may have run them off with our barrage of reasonably written complete disagreements (with them). This was actually the most common complaint of folks who felt their voice wasn't being heard on the survey I did (results coming later in the week, btw).
Edit: All though usually people seemed to feel like their ideas were more forcibly put down than this was.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, to be honest, I still don't understand how the gaming industry hasn't figured out how to make a gazillion $$ off the NWN model. Sell the mods and the modules, just like the books...duh.
If you mean when NWN tried marketed mini modules a few years ago, they were basically repackaged user made mini-adventures previously made for free and the community were not over happy with them.
The successful model for onselling add-ons (as opposed to the current trend towards micro-transactions) is the SIMS. People buy the game and then pay almost the same money a month later to add a pet dog or the abilty to have their hair styled.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many misconceptions about the OGL and it's applicability to computer games in this thread.
First, the d20 license and the OGL are two different things. The OGL covers game mechanics and other open game content, while the d20 license was primarily a license to use Wizards of the Coast's d20 *brand*. You could not make a computer game using the d20 license because it specifically forbid the creation of "Interactive Games." These days, that's a moot point: Wizards of the Coast apparently no longer offers the d20 license.
The OGL—which is the license that we actually care about for this discussion—does *not* limit the types of media with which it may be used. However, it does contain this sentence: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."
A lot of software (but by no means all of it) involves middleware licenses or other mandated licensing terms that may collide rather badly with this statement. Determining exactly when that restriction might apply to a particular middleware or distribution license is a potential minefield, and a situation that Paizo has generally chosen to avoid.
That said, even if we knew we *could* convert the Pathfinder RPG rules directly into an MMO, we really wouldn't want to. There are basic mechanics that are essential to the RPG that just don't translate to the MMO environment, such as six-second combat rounds (combat in less than real time would make for an incredibly frustrating experience in an MMO) and gaining experience and leveling up your character (diehard players would run through so many encounters so fast that they'd hit level 20 in a matter of days, effectively running themselves out of character advancement options in no time). And those are just two problems of many.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to jump in here real quick.
The problem with the OGL is not that it excludes all electronic games from being created. There is no such limitation in the OGL.
The problem with the OGL is that is has an exclusionary license. By that I mean that Open Game Content can only be licensed with the OGL, and cannot be encumbered by any other terms.
That causes several problems.
First, most computer software is derived by combining lots of code together and that code all has licenses which describe how those combinations are made legal and which bind the recipients of the final software to certain terms and conditions. All of that would be incompatible with the OGL. That means that a piece of software either has to be written from scratch so that there are no entangling licenses, or it has to be structured in such a way that the Open Game Content used with that software is wholly separate from the other licenses which encumber the code. In practice that means that OGL licensed software is practically, but not legally, impossible outside of a very narrow range of utilities.
Second, most commercial computer software is licensed to end users, not sold. Those licenses carry all sorts of restrictions against copying, disassembly, etc. Even "Open Source" licenses like the GPL have terms which are binding on the recipients to protect the integrity of the "copyleft" mechanisms that they use to license the copyrights embodied in the work. All of those licenses are incompatible with the OGL.
Third, MMOs in particular also require terms of service which prohibit all sorts of activities like harassment, cheating, reverse engineering the protocols used to communicate between client and server, disrupting the server, failing to pay for subscriptions, etc. None of those terms would be compatible with the OGL.
This makes it both practically and legally impossible to make an MMO that uses Open Game Content. Which means that we cannot make Pathfinder Online use the D20 game system used in the Pathfinder Tabletop RPG, even if we wanted to.
But we don't actually want to, because that game system is designed to simulate the actions of small parties of heroic adventurers. Pathfinder Online is a superset of those kinds of actions and characters. Pathfinder Online has to be able to handle all sorts of characters and interactions which are usually hidden off stage in tabletop RPGs, or are abstracted to the point of near invisibility. Plus the D20 System is designed for asymmetric gameplay where people can take practically as long as they wish to figure out what their characters will do in 6 seconds, whereas an MMO has to have a 1:1 relationship between actions and inputs. The D20 System is also scaled to the idea that you have a very very small number of encounters before your characters become more powerful - the number of encounters required to advance a character from 1st to 20th level could easily be achieved in a long weekend of gaming in an MMO. And there are issues with the fact that the D20 System is actually 4 different RPGs in one - the game fundamentally alters at 6th, 11th, and 16th level. The kind of technology required to support the planeswalking demigods of 16th+ level D20 is simply beyond us at this juncture.
Thank you for the explanation Ryan Dancey and Nic Wertz.
So basically anything using OGL content has to be completely stand alone, legally speaking. It can't have any other licenses attached to it or even be associated with other licenses in the same product. Is that correct?
Is this to protect the OGL content from being repacked and resold by someone else?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for the explanation Ryan Dancey and Nic Wertz.
So basically anything using OGL content has to be completely stand alone, legally speaking. It can't have any other licenses attached to it or even be associated with other licenses in the same product. Is that correct?
Is this to protect the OGL content from being repacked and resold by someone else?
This is very much Ryan's area dating back to when he worked for Wizards and was actually involved in creating the OGL - but my understanding was OGL originally was meant to "legitimize" fan created add on content to 3rd edition D&D without conflicting with Wizards IP rights or profits.
The idea at the time seemed to be that an active community creating lots of extra content would help rather than hinder the parent game. Wizards have changed their position on this but are sort of "stuck" with the old OGL they agreed to.
The change in approach can also be seen in the difference between Pathfinder Society organized play where the content is created by Piazo and the old 3.5 Living Greyhawk organised play under Wizards RPGA where modules for each region where written by members of the player community (I had two published myself).
Personally, I love TT Pathfinder (I have several PFS characters and am a 2 Star GM in that realm), but also love what they are doing here.
The TT game is so detailed and robust that it leaves me with endless possibilities to roleplay and create crazy shenanigan characters like my Dalek-summoning Gnome Oracle/Sorcerer. PFO will never be able to touch that. But at the same time, TT Pathfinder has limits because of its Table Top nature and because it relies on human brains to do all the computing.
What GW- with heavy collaboration from Paizo, if I am not mistaken- is doing here is recreating the same great game we love, but with the added benefit of having a computer at the helm instead of a collective of human brains (creepy mental image). I say "collective" here because, lets be honest, no Pathfinder game ever truly has just 1 GM.
I would add that in certain ways I think PFO offers far more flexibility to create your own character, story and destiny than the TT game can often allow- especially if you just run in the PFS play like I do (granted, said Dalek "summoner" is a PFS character - EXTERMINATE!!).
For example, say you really just want to make a bartender- the most epic bartender the River Kingdoms have ever seen- but still just a bartender. In TT Pathfinder, you could do that, but your roleplay options would be highly limited to what your GM and fellow players are willing to entertain.
In PFO, you could not only create a bartender, but roleplay that bartender to your heart's content without ever even having to set foot outside the walls of your settlement.
Personally, I am looking forward to making a Ranger (or the closest approximation currently available) and then delving into the woods, hills and valleys around Blackfeather Keep and discovering what is there- no dice rolls, no trying to convince the GM of anything or negotiate what I might find. Just me, an open world, and whatever the server brings me :) Plus a few broken goblin skulls along the way.
Really, PFTT and PFO are...
I think that it'll be interesting to see how serious people take characters. Even if people don't roleplay, if they respect someone's character that's good. I could see Mr Epic Bartender (unless he paid the x amount to get the lore), being kind of a fizzle depending. Obviously, you'd have to have some use, too.
I made a cook in Mortal Online (lol) and was very happy with it. Everyone laughed at me at first, but once they saw I was making stuff that no one else had (after a couple months of experimentation), they were all coming to me and I made much money until I got bored and quit the game.
I think in order to be a successful bartender even in a pathfinder based game, you'd have to have something on that level. Something that even the people who don't role play can latch onto. As I explained before, once the world goes on long enough, everyone will be forced to pseudo roleplay because things will be as they are. Certain guilds will be the most powerful. Same with bartending or cooking ( I still need to make my cooking thread...), if you got the best booze and there is some worthwhile gain to that, then people will come to you. It's funny to see even the GET STOMPED NUB people like o can I has ur stuff?
Otherwise, you could be playing to a very small audience. Which may not be bad, but it depends on how aggressive the wars become.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the time we did the OGL there were complex internal politics with Hasbro regarding computer game licensing and it was made clear to me very early on that we needed to avoid a situation where we could be perceived as trying to subvert Hasbro's right to do computer game licensing. So the OGL was written in a way that practically excluded anyone from using it to make a videogame without having to write an explicit prohibition about videogames into the license.
In fact, I did not want an explicit prohibition because I thought there were a lot of utilities like character creators that could be and should be possible and it would be too hard to write a term that excluded something like Baldur's Gate while enabling something like PCGen.
The lack of a smooth way to integrate videogames into Open Game Content is the biggest flaw in the OGL and it's an intentional one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I did not want an explicit prohibition because I thought there were a lot of utilities like character creators that could be and should be possible and it would be too hard to write a term that excluded something like Baldur's Gate while enabling something like PCGen.
Which is why we explicitly state that the data files for PCGen are covered under the OGL and are OGC. And that the program itself is NOT OGC. :)
And Yea! Ryan mentioned us!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised no one had said that the D20 system is not granular enough and is broken at high levels of play. Not to mention the way Armor class works is goofy at best, and completely unrepairable and illogical at worst.
*ducks flung rulebooks*
Hey, at least -5 isn't a better AC than 8 any more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey, at least -5 isn't a better AC than 8 any more.I'm surprised no one had said that the D20 system is not granular enough and is broken at high levels of play. Not to mention the way Armor class works is goofy at best, and completely unrepairable and illogical at worst.
*ducks flung rulebooks*
Hey what was wrong with THACO :P
Thank god I am too young for all that :P I although I did have to hassle with it in the BG series...
I think that is my cue to go to PFS tonight, then :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bookmarked for inclusion in the soon to be updated EE FAQ thread; and for new people to add new insight to the topic on hand. :)
Good information on the OGL and why not used; I see this one asked many times...