Backers

pledged of $50,000 goal

Damn... over 300K.  Pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by Traugar

Originally posted by dontadow

So why have pvp at all if its , again , just a side effect. Why not find a more DnD like way to resolve player versus player conflict. This goes back me saying create a new game.  Stop copying off the old game. PVP, what else can u do with a game?  What about a war engine? a diplomacy engine, a trade engine?  Why develope these caveman conflict resolution intiiatives that gamers (en masse) just don't like. 

PVP is literally anti DnD.  Any DM will tell you, you want to slow down a session of a game. You want to create real life conflict in your group. Allow players to attack one another, steal from one another and grief one another.  Quickest campaign you'll ever run. 

How does that equal the quickest campaign you will ever run?  I've been running a campaign for years that has migrated through several edition changes, and is currently on Pathfinder rules that allows all that.  The only rule I have is that I don't allow new players to create an evil character, and that is because most new players don't have any imagination on how an evil character would actually be ran.  If someone chooses to do that why stop them?  The rest of the party is the ones that have to decide to either continue adventuring with them or not.  They are the ones that have to be able to justify IC'ly that they continue to travel with someone that they know is robbing them blind or something.  I also don't force my players to a specific railroad set of actions.  If I have spent a great deal of time coming up with a plot that has a big shiny clue that the orcs are attacking from the north for example, and they completely miss it and go south then I get to wing the session because most of what I prepared is useless.  I guess I may just be more freeform than other DMs though, but I have never had any issues as a result of my way of running a game. 

For the people who feel that PvP is a 12 year olds way of resolving conflict let me ask you a question.  Let's pretend you have a low int/wis half orc barbarian.  Is it so hard to believe that his way of resolving an arguement is to take a swing at the other person?  

I understand that you have modified the rules of the game, but as per the rules of game players should be within one alignment of each other. It's also quite unbelievable for good players to party or travel with evil players for any length of time. Dnd was designed as a cooperative game, so actions against other players are against the design of the game. 

I can only speak to the hundreds of players I've dm'd, and few would want to be apart of a campaign that was consistently derailed because the DM is not following the rules and restricting alighnment.  

Say you have that orc.  Following pathfinder rules his ability score isn't lower than a 7, which is smart enough to know right from wrong.  Run your game how you want, but if you're breaking rules to allow your dm style that's on you.  If you have a player constantly derailing the campaign, trust me, your other players don't like it.  

Please explain how I have modified the rules of the game.  According to the alignment section of the pathfinder srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules I am following the rules.  I allow all alignments except you have to get my permission to play evil.  That is exactly by the rules.  No modification needed.  The only place that anyone has to be within one alignment of something is a cleric has to be within one step of their deity.  I do modify things in my campaigns though, but that isn't one of them.   I don't have players derailing the game.  I do have players RPing their conflict.  Two very different things.  I come up with the general setting/background/plot, but the story is a coop experience.  Everyone plays a part in crafting it with their actions.  They don't always get along, but they do work out their differences.  Very rarely has it ever come to violence, but I don't stop it if it does.  Just like in real life two friends can get in a fight, but afterward still maintain their friendship.  All that being said I do have mature players, and we have all been roleplaying for many years so I guess that may have something to do with it working. 

Originally posted by Nevulus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Are you saying if i put up a kickstart page saying all the right buzz words (sandbox, community, pvp, dynamic events, player inputs) then you are going to give me your money disregarding how small the chance of the eventual project happening?

Last time I checked you do not have an award-winning, industry-leading tabletop RPG system

May be i should try that. I pledge to raise 200k to fund a pitch to get a kickstarter pitch going .. i promise when it is done, it will be the most glorious sandbox ever created for mankind with FULL matrix virtual world like features. Now start giving me money!

Goblinwork's business model and approach to tabletop RPGs proved to be a smashing success. When you have something like that on your resume, with a super-talented team behind you, THEN and only then can you go ahead with your kickstarter dreams, until then "keep hatin'"   :)

 

 So? Richard Garret was the RPG god in the 80s and crashed and burnt with Tabula Rasa.

Raph Koster has no MMO for a long time.

Plus, knowing table top RPG has very little to do with MMOs.

Bioware .. with great track record .. made TOR.

Am I going to bet money on people who have some gaming track record just because they ask me? Not a chance. And they are just promising to produce a pitch .. not even a real game. My money goes to actual games that i can play now.

There is no shortage of fun games. Funding pipe dreams .. well .. don't complain when you get burn and when i tell u "I told u so".

Originally posted by BlackUhuru
TableTop RPG's are the reason we have mmo's, they have everything to do with mmo's.

Richard Garriot was the god of RPG's in the 80's and still has UO as the ultimate proof, and by far a better game 14 years later then TOR is.

Raph Koster same story, SWG hands down better then TOR, he also worked on UO.

Two Developers with better track records then TOR which hasn't even lasted 6 months.

good game development gets taken for granted.

Originally posted by BlackUhuru
TableTop RPG's are the reason we have mmo's, they have everything to do with mmo's.

Richard Garriot was the god of RPG's in the 80's and still has UO as the ultimate proof, and by far a better game 14 years later then TOR is.

Raph Koster same story, SWG hands down better then TOR, he also worked on UO.

Two Developers with better track records then TOR which hasn't even lasted 6 months.

UO is not a good game. Horrible ganging .. uninteresting combat mecahnics. No wonder it was eclipsed by EQ once EQ was out. Plus, Richard Garriot made Tabula Rasa .. which failed HORRIBLY. Either he is a bad game designer, or he lost all integrity and let other people put his name on a bad game.

Either way, he should just focus on his hobbies .. like paying millions to play astronaunt, and stay away from making games.

LOL .. people who know how to make table top RPGs know how to make MMOs? That is just illogical and silly. Wizard of the Coast is a MMO maker?

Originally posted by DeaconX

 

4,212

Backers

 

$307,843

pledged of $50,000 goal

 

Damn... over 300K.  Pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

Not really... more like disappointing in my book.

I backed Pathfinder online but that number is really nothing for a Technology Demo to impress a publisher.

You know a Board Game of Zombies (fucking board game) got $800,000+ from Kickstarter. You would think a sandbox MMO would get more?

But I know why people weren't as excited about it.. it's because we're backing up a "technology demo" that MIGHT interest a publisher which MAY publish the game.

After watching Curt's 38S and his game fail... I give this game a 1% success chance and I forked $50 on it.

Originally posted by yewsef

Originally posted by DeaconX

 

4,212

Backers

 

$307,843

pledged of $50,000 goal

 

Damn... over 300K.  Pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

 

Not really... more like disappointing in my book.

I backed Pathfinder online but that number is really nothing for a Technology Demo to impress a publisher.

You know a Board Game of Zombies (fucking board game) got $800,000+ from Kickstarter. You would think a sandbox MMO would get more?

But I know why people weren't as excited about it.. it's because we're backing up a "technology demo" that MIGHT interest a publisher which MAY publish the game.

After watching Curt's 38S and his game fail... I give this game a 1% success chance and I forked $50 on it.

I think those numbers are better than "market research says we have a market that is x size... therefore we will get y sales" ie nothing like already having some sales in the bag for pitching to investors. So it improves the pitch. I guess we'll have to see how the demo pans for the rest of it.

I'm more excited to see a mmorpg target a specific audience and succeed for those people, that's what I'd like to see with PfO.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

I'm more excited to see a mmorpg target a specific audience and succeed for those people, that's what I'd like to see with PfO.

There is no MMORPG. There is not even a pitch for one. There is only a promise to work on a pitch.

Be excited when you actually see the MMORPG. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Nevulus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Are you saying if i put up a kickstart page saying all the right buzz words (sandbox, community, pvp, dynamic events, player inputs) then you are going to give me your money disregarding how small the chance of the eventual project happening?

Last time I checked you do not have an award-winning, industry-leading tabletop RPG system

May be i should try that. I pledge to raise 200k to fund a pitch to get a kickstarter pitch going .. i promise when it is done, it will be the most glorious sandbox ever created for mankind with FULL matrix virtual world like features. Now start giving me money!

Goblinwork's business model and approach to tabletop RPGs proved to be a smashing success. When you have something like that on your resume, with a super-talented team behind you, THEN and only then can you go ahead with your kickstarter dreams, until then "keep hatin'"   :)

 

 So? Richard Garret was the RPG god in the 80s and crashed and burnt with Tabula Rasa.

Raph Koster has no MMO for a long time.

Plus, knowing table top RPG has very little to do with MMOs.

Bioware .. with great track record .. made TOR.

Am I going to bet money on people who have some gaming track record just because they ask me? Not a chance. And they are just promising to produce a pitch .. not even a real game. My money goes to actual games that i can play now.

There is no shortage of fun games. Funding pipe dreams .. well .. don't complain when you get burn and when i tell u "I told u so".

 

You implied that PFO was some sort of scam, that they were just looking to take peoples money. It's entirely appropriate for us to point out that this venture is associated with people who have legitimate game companies with a long history of satisfying thier fan base. In other words...you got called on your BS.

Whether the game ultimately succeeds or fails or is good or not remains to be determined. Personaly, I've been very enthused by the plans I've read about on thier boards/blogs and the people associated with the project. On thing is abundantly clear, this is legitmate attempt at making an MMO. One can judge that by the reputations and the history of the entities associated with the project. You, on the other hand, have no reputation or history of legitimate business practices (that we know about) which is why the analogy you made is absurd.

You free to spend your dime however you like. As for me, right now there are no games out there that are worth spending my dime on. GoblinWorks, however, are working on a game that I am highly interested in......and I feel like using my dime to help them realize that goal. Frankly I've already gotten more entertainment and enjoyment from that idea and reading about thier game then I would have gotten from a years subscription of playing TOR or most of the other MMO's that are out there to play. So it's ALREADY money well spent for me.

If you want to start a Kickstarter project that has some potential, you might consider one aimed at teaching you to utilize the word "YOU" when writing rather then using "U".  That's a project I might actualy consider donating something toward.

I don't see a problem with people putting their faith in people.

I don't see a problem with people arguing that the hivemind feels very vulnerable to falling for a scam or a pipedream.

What this really comes down to is a debate over whether people are getting hyped because they have made a rational judgement or whether people are rationalizing a judgement because they have gotten caught up in the hype.

Originally posted by BlackUhuru
Oh and I forgot to add that Bioware has no track record with mmo's, they tried to make one with a quarter billion and failed.

Is it just me or does the development budget for SWTOR increase everytime someone mentions it on these forums?

I am totally new to this kickstarter thing but omg its amazing, I swear some of those guys backing stuff must be billionaires I saw someone that had over 10k projects backed.

Originally posted by Traugar

Originally posted by dontadow

Originally posted by Traugar

Originally posted by dontadow

So why have pvp at all if its , again , just a side effect. Why not find a more DnD like way to resolve player versus player conflict. This goes back me saying create a new game.  Stop copying off the old game. PVP, what else can u do with a game?  What about a war engine? a diplomacy engine, a trade engine?  Why develope these caveman conflict resolution intiiatives that gamers (en masse) just don't like. 

PVP is literally anti DnD.  Any DM will tell you, you want to slow down a session of a game. You want to create real life conflict in your group. Allow players to attack one another, steal from one another and grief one another.  Quickest campaign you'll ever run. 

How does that equal the quickest campaign you will ever run?  I've been running a campaign for years that has migrated through several edition changes, and is currently on Pathfinder rules that allows all that.  The only rule I have is that I don't allow new players to create an evil character, and that is because most new players don't have any imagination on how an evil character would actually be ran.  If someone chooses to do that why stop them?  The rest of the party is the ones that have to decide to either continue adventuring with them or not.  They are the ones that have to be able to justify IC'ly that they continue to travel with someone that they know is robbing them blind or something.  I also don't force my players to a specific railroad set of actions.  If I have spent a great deal of time coming up with a plot that has a big shiny clue that the orcs are attacking from the north for example, and they completely miss it and go south then I get to wing the session because most of what I prepared is useless.  I guess I may just be more freeform than other DMs though, but I have never had any issues as a result of my way of running a game. 

For the people who feel that PvP is a 12 year olds way of resolving conflict let me ask you a question.  Let's pretend you have a low int/wis half orc barbarian.  Is it so hard to believe that his way of resolving an arguement is to take a swing at the other person?  

I understand that you have modified the rules of the game, but as per the rules of game players should be within one alignment of each other. It's also quite unbelievable for good players to party or travel with evil players for any length of time. Dnd was designed as a cooperative game, so actions against other players are against the design of the game. 

I can only speak to the hundreds of players I've dm'd, and few would want to be apart of a campaign that was consistently derailed because the DM is not following the rules and restricting alighnment.  

Say you have that orc.  Following pathfinder rules his ability score isn't lower than a 7, which is smart enough to know right from wrong.  Run your game how you want, but if you're breaking rules to allow your dm style that's on you.  If you have a player constantly derailing the campaign, trust me, your other players don't like it.  

Please explain how I have modified the rules of the game.  According to the alignment section of the pathfinder srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules I am following the rules.  I allow all alignments except you have to get my permission to play evil.  That is exactly by the rules.  No modification needed.  The only place that anyone has to be within one alignment of something is a cleric has to be within one step of their deity.  I do modify things in my campaigns though, but that isn't one of them.   I don't have players derailing the game.  I do have players RPing their conflict.  Two very different things.  I come up with the general setting/background/plot, but the story is a coop experience.  Everyone plays a part in crafting it with their actions.  They don't always get along, but they do work out their differences.  Very rarely has it ever come to violence, but I don't stop it if it does.  Just like in real life two friends can get in a fight, but afterward still maintain their friendship.  All that being said I do have mature players, and we have all been roleplaying for many years so I guess that may have something to do with it working. 

In the Gamemasters manual it speicifies that campaigns should have characters be within one step of alignment in order to maintain campaign balance.  So if you have players RPing their conflict, it still backs my oriignal statement thatp layer versus player violence has no place in an RPG. 

I can't wait for this game. PFO is being made by Goblinworks and if back by Paizo which makes the current PnP RPG that problably has players spending a lot more money a month than a MMO gamer does. They are also the company the made most of the compaign settings for DnD before 4.0 and has currently took the spot from DnD as the best fantasy PnP out today.

They are basing the game off the world they run most of the campaigns in and I bet the story lines are going to be amazing. Thier world has so much depth that you should be able to play for years and not touch the surface and if they stick to 2yrs to get to lvl 20 that is going to rock. MMOs are not about max level they are about content and I hope they give us the content that they are known for.

One of the things that excites me about Pathfinder Online is the simple fact that its core design is being worked on by a Pen and Paper RPG developer. As opposed to the primary focus and direction being driven by a video / console game developer.

Its what we need the biggest failing in my opinion that is facing MMORPGs to date is the emphasis on FPS style game play and console portability. So much effort is being made to "balance" classes for PvP and to simply the command structure.

Monty Haul style rewards where a new weapon item becomes worthless 5 minutes after you get it. I am really hoping for some good solid structure in this. A feeling that levels are somehing that just happens as your enjoying the world and not the whole purpose. A game where when you get that cool item it remains cool for at least a few weeks if not longer.

I want to be able to FAIL and in failing know it has conaequences.

These are all elements that a Pen and Paper game offers and hopefully there is a chance that this game will in the years it will take to develop be able to deliver.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Nevulus

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Are you saying if i put up a kickstart page saying all the right buzz words (sandbox, community, pvp, dynamic events, player inputs) then you are going to give me your money disregarding how small the chance of the eventual project happening?

Last time I checked you do not have an award-winning, industry-leading tabletop RPG system

May be i should try that. I pledge to raise 200k to fund a pitch to get a kickstarter pitch going .. i promise when it is done, it will be the most glorious sandbox ever created for mankind with FULL matrix virtual world like features. Now start giving me money!

Goblinwork's business model and approach to tabletop RPGs proved to be a smashing success. When you have something like that on your resume, with a super-talented team behind you, THEN and only then can you go ahead with your kickstarter dreams, until then "keep hatin'"   :)

 

 So? Richard Garret was the RPG god in the 80s and crashed and burnt with Tabula Rasa.

Raph Koster has no MMO for a long time.

Plus, knowing table top RPG has very little to do with MMOs.

Bioware .. with great track record .. made TOR.

Am I going to bet money on people who have some gaming track record just because they ask me? Not a chance. And they are just promising to produce a pitch .. not even a real game. My money goes to actual games that i can play now.

There is no shortage of fun games. Funding pipe dreams .. well .. don't complain when you get burn and when i tell u "I told u so".

 

You implied that PFO was some sort of scam, that they were just looking to take peoples money. It's entirely appropriate for us to point out that this venture is associated with people who have legitimate game companies with a long history of satisfying thier fan base. In other words...you got called on your BS.

Whether the game ultimately succeeds or fails or is good or not remains to be determined. Personaly, I've been very enthused by the plans I've read about on thier boards/blogs and the people associated with the project. On thing is abundantly clear, this is legitmate attempt at making an MMO. One can judge that by the reputations and the history of the entities associated with the project. You, on the other hand, have no reputation or history of legitimate business practices (that we know about) which is why the analogy you made is absurd.

You free to spend your dime however you like. As for me, right now there are no games out there that are worth spending my dime on. GoblinWorks, however, are working on a game that I am highly interested in......and I feel like using my dime to help them realize that goal. Frankly I've already gotten more entertainment and enjoyment from that idea and reading about thier game then I would have gotten from a years subscription of playing TOR or most of the other MMO's that are out there to play. So it's ALREADY money well spent for me.

If you want to start a Kickstarter project that has some potential, you might consider one aimed at teaching you to utilize the word "YOU" when writing rather then using "U".  That's a project I might actualy consider donating something toward.

They don't have to scam you on purpose. Half baked business plans, with no ill intentions, "scam" more people than con artists.

If you want to throw your money at a mirage, it is your perogative. However, it is entirely appropriate for me to air my opinion.

And there are plenty of good entertainment option out there. The list of good fun (for me) games is too long (heck i am still on Arkham Asylum .. having finishing it yet before jumping to Diablo 3). There is really no need to buy a promise to pitch a game.

Hmm .. you do know what "sarcasm" means, right? I won't waste my time on kickstarter.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by BlackUhuru
Oh and I forgot to add that Bioware has no track record with mmo's, they tried to make one with a quarter billion and failed.

Is it just me or does the development budget for SWTOR increase everytime someone mentions it on these forums?

At least Bioware have some experiences with VIDEO GAMES. Now think about how worse it can be if Bioware only has TABLETOP RPG experience.