View Poll Results: Which issue with kingdom management frustrates you the most?

Voters
182. You may not vote on this poll
  • There are too many events and projects happening at the same time

    19 10.44%
  • Events and projects take too much time to complete

    54 29.67%
  • Having only up to 10 advisors at the same time is not enough

    5 2.75%
  • Having 3 NPC candidates available per each of the 10 advisor roles is not enough

    61 33.52%
  • There is not enough information about kingdom management in the game

    18 9.89%
  • It is too hard to decrease your kingdom's Unrest levels

    13 7.14%
  • It is too hard to get more BPs / There is always too little BPs available

    12 6.59%
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 95 of 95
  1. #91
    Community Manager k0tarsis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    246
    You claim there are 3 for each role which is not true unless you follow a guide.
    That sounds a bit weird. Yes, there are 3 advisors total for every role. We didn't claim that every player would have 3 available to them -just that this is the potential maximum. You might not be able to get all of them in one playthrough, unless you really try. Maybe that had something to do with the fact none of us here are English natives, so we're not the best when it comes to explaining things in English...
    you cant even truely roleplay because then you might end up with no advisors for certain slots.
    Well, what's your definition of "true roleplay", then? Our ideology was that roleplaying decisions should have consequences. You kill someone - the world changes in reaction to this. If the game stays the same no matter what choices you make, do the choices even matter?
    Also, roleplaying (at least to me personally) does not absolve you from overcoming challenges. Ruling a kingdom is a challenge, and so is being a leader. An evil character and a good character must both come up with ways of dealing with said challenges. Often, it means that they have to actually think before they act and make concessions, just like in real life. Say, you'd like to kill every last one of these advisors, but you know you'll end up in a very rough spot politically, so you sigh and let them live... for now. Or, if you can't control your impulses, you kill off all of them, and end up in the said critical "government shutdown" situation.
    The same happened to me in a good playthrough, by the way - I didn't like the way Ekun was dealing with some of the issues as the Warden, but I also knew that other advisors that I could put in his place would be even harsher in that situation. So I had to accept the things as they are and let him do his job.
    Last edited by k0tarsis; 05-14-2019 at 02:13 PM.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by k0tarsis View Post
    An evil character and a good character must both come up with ways of dealing with said challenges. Often, it means that they have to actually think before they act and make concessions, just like in real life. Say, you'd like to kill every last one of these advisors, but you know you'll end up in a very rough spot politically, so you sigh and let them live... for now. Or, if you can't control your impulses, you kill off all of them, and end up in the said critical "government shutdown" situation.
    A neat idea, shoddy execution. Main problems with the system are that
    - Alignment bias in terms of choices: The game is very much leaning against non-good alignment PCs, even non-CE ones who don't tend to kill everyone on sight. Good-aligned or at least decently moral barons get much more leeway in this regard.
    - Gameplay effect of losing advisors: Losing all advisors for a certain role can pretty much end up being a permanent game-ending event.

    Alignment bias

    Many advisors are blind choices, like picking the envoy at the start with no way to know what roles they're able to fulfill or even getting to know them properly as characters first. Or to recruit NPCs with more dubious morals like Tsanna and Bartholomew you have to jump through certain hoops or face permanently losing them, possibly without ever knowing they're even recruitable. Miss both Tsanna and Shandra? You're stuck with Tristian for the rest of the game for Councilor role, so good luck in regard to main quest if your PC is not of the understanding and forgiving kind.

    Or in many cases you're otherwise shooting yourself in the foot for no gain, such as vassalizing the trolls to receive practically nothing, no noticeable gameplay effect on kingdom management, while the price is permanently losing Ekun who could potentially fill two advisor roles, possibly before you've even unlocked either of those roles. At this point you should be asking yourself as game developers what the gameplay purpose of having such a choice in the game is even supposed to be. I guess you get a merchant who sells an unique bow out of the deal, but knowing this fact relies on metagaming knowledge and you quite literally just lost the Ranger who would've benefited from it. Even disregarding the fact that a good bow doesn't help you in kingdom management, does this not strike as a bit backwards?

    We're not even necessarily talking about the game punishing "kill everyone on sight or tell them to feck off" approach of Chaotic Evil, we're talking about the difficulty of recruiting non-good people as a non-good ruler without metagaming knowledge whereas the same issue doesn't really pop up anywhere near as much with a nice PC trying to recruit nice people. In fact, I can't really recall any good-leaning advisors who require you to jump through as many hoops or certain choices as the aforementioned NPCs just to make sure you have at least someone, anyone capable of filling a certain role. I want to stress yet again that the same thing isn't nearly as much of an issue if you're playing a good-aligned baron since your own party and first free NPC advisors already consist mostly of decent people by default, and later on in truly logic defying fashion good-aligned PCs are often posed to gain more evil advisors than actual evil PCs!

    As I recall, there's literally only one evil advisor who is recruited through direct and plain evil dialogue choices, and even if you can't recruit Vordekai you still get a good-aligned Maegar Varn out of the deal anyways. The consistent pattern throughout the game is that good-natured advisors are handed out through normal progression like candy and generally being a nice person whereas ones leaning towards the bleaker end of the morality scale often require very specific, often blind choices to not permanently miss out on their services. This is where the alignment bias exists.

    A capable game master could somehow attempt to fix such issues to fit a more morally dubious party, but alas we're in the railroad land of video games where such creativity is simply not possible due to the inherent limitations of the medium: in-game terms there's only three people in the entirety of Golarion capable of filling such roles. So when the railroading heavily favors certain alignments in regard to picking and choosing the advisors they happen to agree with is when we start having problems, especially combined with the next issue.

    The finality of lacking advisors for a role

    To add to this, these sort of blind or difficult choices could even be bearable if completely lacking an advisor for a role wasn't a literal game ending event. We're not talking about "making things more challenging for yourself", we're talking about a straight up soft game over due to being completely unable to solve problem cards that is an essential part of the management gameplay or being greatly forced to act out of character in consistent basic in order to retain basic gameplay functionality. This thread's poll shows more than enough it's pretty much considered the biggest issue with kingdom management right now and I find it a tad bit weird it's replied with "oh but it's actually working as intended and you just don't understand what we meant".

    I don't think anyone disagrees with your sentiment about how choices should have consequences, it's the fact that the choices are often heavily biased in favor of good-alignment in terms of ease of gameplay as if playing an evil character was an afterthought, combined with the fact that choices in all the other kingdom management mechanics aren't as game-ending as the lack of advisors. You're creating a video game, and you have to ask yourself how roleplaying and choices work in the context of a video game.

    All in all, this entire system is very shoddy since it incentivizes metagaming and resorting to out-game guides if you plan to roll a non-good PC, or leaving such an experience for a second playthrough where you already know when and who to recruit so your evil barony can have the bare minimum functionality to avert a permanent game over. I'm sure you as developers, who have thoroughly tested the game for countless hours already know the game inside out and are perfectly capable of planning the advisors for your current playthrough, but the same doesn't apply to actual players diving in blind. You have to look at how a new player, even ones familiar with the tabletop system might go out of their way to interact with the game world and how it affects gameplay.

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by k0tarsis View Post
    That sounds a bit weird. Yes, there are 3 advisors total for every role. We didn't claim that every player would have 3 available to them -just that this is the potential maximum. You might not be able to get all of them in one playthrough, unless you really try. Maybe that had something to do with the fact none of us here are English natives, so we're not the best when it comes to explaining things in English...

    Well, what's your definition of "true roleplay", then? Our ideology was that roleplaying decisions should have consequences. You kill someone - the world changes in reaction to this. If the game stays the same no matter what choices you make, do the choices even matter?
    Also, roleplaying (at least to me personally) does not absolve you from overcoming challenges. Ruling a kingdom is a challenge, and so is being a leader. An evil character and a good character must both come up with ways of dealing with said challenges. Often, it means that they have to actually think before they act and make concessions, just like in real life. Say, you'd like to kill every last one of these advisors, but you know you'll end up in a very rough spot politically, so you sigh and let them live... for now. Or, if you can't control your impulses, you kill off all of them, and end up in the said critical "government shutdown" situation.
    The same happened to me in a good playthrough, by the way - I didn't like the way Ekun was dealing with some of the issues as the Warden, but I also knew that other advisors that I could put in his place would be even harsher in that situation. So I had to accept the things as they are and let him do his job.


    Do you even play your own game? Please explain the me how you could get all possible options when in the first 15 minutes you already have to pick between 3?

  4. #94
    After spending a huge chunk of time in P:KM and the kingdom management.. I just kinda wished I know HOW the advisors are going to handle the task given.. Instead of just knowing their allignment and such (I tend to juggle them up anyway)
    More information, I guess.

    And for those new to the Pathfinder universe (like I was back then), I guess it'll help a bit if there are some small info (probably in a form of infographic/alignment/whatever) regarding other nations/factions that we're dealing with. Like Lastwall, priests of Milani, Steel Falcons, Order of the Pike, etc etc. Just to help with decision making.

    Just my 0.02 cents =p

  5. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by hera35 View Post
    You're stuck with Tristian for the rest of the game for Councilor role, so good luck in regard to main quest if your PC is not of the understanding and forgiving kind.
    Which happened to me in my first playthrough and made me have to start over. I had literally no options for Councilor. None.
    I just failed every event that needed them until I lost (other bugs made me want to start over anyway, so it wasn't the worst thing). That's just bad design. To take a character who is potentially the only option for a role, then make that person do something that might make the player kill them and then completely bone the player for role playing.
    The game needed (still needs imo) generic Advisers or more diversity in options. Someone, today, can have the same experience I had with my first playthrough. It's still a very easy thing to have happen. If you're playing Lawful Evil and don't randomly pick the right person early on, you will probably lose (or have to go invulnerable kingdom or whatever). Because of a blind choice you didn't know you had to make in Act 1.

    The Tristian Problem is still the biggest problem in the game. There NEEDS to be another option for that role and there isn't one.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •