Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

You have what you hold: A Proposed Territorial Charter for an Incomplete Game

Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly he's asking us to agree that claims be entirely based around having a holding in a hex and that unclaimable hexes are permanent no man's lands treated as every man (or group) for themselves with minimal political repercussions.

I see. My understanding (which I have always had) is more along the lines of claim what you want, but don't expect anything like: everyone will stay out, just because. The flip side of that is that most everyone knows what to expect FROM us if we spot them doing things where we have clearly let them know we do not want to see them doing those things.

We still have to back that up at every opportunity. I may be being dense but all three of us, everyone in fact, seems to be saying the same thing.

While I'm pretty sure our thoughts are aligned in that regard I am not sure they are actually meshing up with the OP. He would have to clarify, my current opinion is that he disagrees with our mentality to some degree.
Bringslite
If the proposal is that we simply do not make "claims" on any monster or monster home hexes, then the reply is NO.

It is more valuable and more important to Us that people know what to expect from us. We don't want to be random player killers. When We have to fight and maybe "kill" players, we want there to be a clearly understood reason for it.

Now if no other groups were cutting off single occurrences of resources through their own claims, we would probably not feel like we need to as well to be competitive. Not pointing fingers or laying blame. This is a game where territory is important and control of resources could be pretty damn important.

There is also supposed to be conflict. If we all just share everything, where will that come from?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yeah, there is definitely a clash of ideologies here. This is good cause it causes people to interact and not stay sheltered in their own worlds.

I aint gonna speak for the OP, but i can safely say yeah, we reject the notion that some of the lawful factions who say they can automatically lay claim to hexes you cant put holdings in. If it aint got a hex it dont count as a claim unless you back it up through battle or diplomacy.

Obviously there is gonna be some disagreement but there is a third option besides one side trying to force their views on the other or flat out war.

That is being neighborly to one another. If for example there is a monster hex that more than one faction could make a reasonable claim to then both sides for the sake of diplomacy can work out some mutually beneficial areangement rather than immediately having one side say "NO! MY HEX!" and the other going "NUH-UH!" I personally will say that anyone who minds their manners is far more likely to get me to warm up to their wishes (note, not a guarantee, but will certainly help). Those who dont do so are far more likely to get me pissed off instead.

We dont always need to take the hard liner stance guys, and it isnt always a weakness to do that. There is a time for both.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bringslite
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Yeah, there is definitely a clash of ideologies here. This is good cause it causes people to interact and not stay sheltered in their own worlds.

I aint gonna speak for the OP, but i can safely say yeah, we reject the notion that some of the lawful factions who say they can automatically lay claim to hexes you cant put holdings in. If it aint got a hex it dont count as a claim.

Obviously there is gonna be some disagreement but there is a third option besides one side trying to force their views on the other or flat out war.

That is being neighborly to one another. If for example there is a monster hex that more than one faction could make a reasonable claim to then both sides for the sake of diplomacy can work out some mutually beneficial areangement rather than immediately having one side say "NO! MY HEX!" and the other going "NUH-UH!" I personally will say that anyone who minds their manners is far more likely to get me to warm up to their wishes (note, not a guarantee, but will certainly help). Those who dont do so are far more likely to get me pissed off instead.

We dont always need to take the hard liner stance guys, and it isnt always a weakness to do that. There is a time for both.

Nothing different was ever expected. We certainly did not believe that those who have clearly stated they respect no boundaries without holdings, to suddenly change their minds because of a post! lol

We do consider those that participate in these forum discussions or external discussions to have been warned. That is all we meant to do.

Edit: I should add that those who do respect territorial claims will find it pretty easy to get past that to harvest or hunt. It seems like most everyone with such claims operates that way.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Paddy Fitzpatrick
That is fine Brings, and i do respect where you are coming from dont get me wrong, but the point i am trying to hint at is not just what you said but a fundamental core difference in philosophy. There are serious implications for both sides.

There is a difference between "we have been warned and accept the consequences of ignoring your warnings in your claimed hexes" and "this hex claim is not and nevwr was valid in the first place and thus you have no authority or jurisdiction here anyway." The first one concedes to the belief that you have a valid claim and thus have the right to defend and enforce what is yours (and we would be the aggressors). The second one is saying this is not a valid claim and the rights of a sovereign nation to protect and enforce it dont apply here. You have no right to this hex and until something changes you are overstepping the bounds of authority and thus the one who is trying to push others out is also an aggressor (this doesnt make the other party a defender tho, both can be aggressors in this case).

Either one can be argued for and different groups have different takes, nothing wrong with that. It is just two different paradigms. I aint here to make this an attack on ya and if i did im sorry cause thats not the goal. It is just a sort of putting ourselves in the other ones shoes thing.

All sides are (lets not lie to ourselves) jockeying for political positioning influence and power. So that is where these two paradigms start to really get interesting. When political power gets into the mix which claims you recognize and dont recognize, along with who you choose to be neighborly with has far reaching ramifications. So a disputed hex becomes more than just a friendly disagreement or philosophical debate but who has more power over the other to enforce said claim. There will be winners and losers in either diplomatic intrigue or flat out fights. It is something i look forward to really. No faction is an island, everyone plays the politics game.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Decius
You Have What You Hold. Say What You Will, I Live Free.

The fiat claims are simply giving people information about what areas people intend to hold. Territory is held by someone to the extent that they can control what others do on it. Just making the claim is sufficient to control what some groups do, but not sufficient to control what other groups do. Putting holdings down is likewise sufficient for some groups and not sufficient for all groups. Threatening retaliation works sometimes.
Bringslite
Paddy Fitzpatrick
That is fine Brings, and i do respect where you are coming from dont get me wrong, but the point i am trying to hint at is not just what you said but a fundamental core difference in philosophy. There are serious implications for both sides.

There is a difference between "we have been warned and accept the consequences of ignoring your warnings in your claimed hexes" and "this hex claim is not and nevwr was valid in the first place and thus you have no authority or jurisdiction here anyway." The first one concedes to the belief that you have a valid claim and thus have the right to defend and enforce what is yours (and we would be the aggressors). The second one is saying this is not a valid claim and the rights of a sovereign nation to protect and enforce it dont apply here. You have no right to this hex and until something changes you are overstepping the bounds of authority and thus the one who is trying to push others out is also an aggressor (this doesnt make the other party a defender tho, both can be aggressors in this case).

Either one can be argued for and different groups have different takes, nothing wrong with that. It is just two different paradigms. I aint here to make this an attack on ya and if i did im sorry cause thats not the goal. It is just a sort of putting ourselves in the other ones shoes thing.

All sides are (lets not lie to ourselves) jockeying for political positioning influence and power. So that is where these two paradigms start to really get interesting. When political power gets into the mix which claims you recognize and dont recognize, along with who you choose to be neighborly with has far reaching ramifications. So a disputed hex becomes more than just a friendly disagreement or philosophical debate but who has more power over the other to enforce said claim. There will be winners and losers in either diplomatic intrigue or flat out fights. It is something i look forward to really. No faction is an island, everyone plays the politics game.

Completely agree. That is one way that leads to conflict. You Have What You Hold doesn't mean anything if no one says they are holding anything.

I get the idea, from all sides, that some will recognize territory and some will not. Of course I understand that some of those people do not recognize because they don't believe that anyone can claim those hexes. Some may not care, may claim their own and also still raid other people's claimed stuff. Always have understood all of that. The results are the same no matter what.

It's called "Game On" in a territory control game.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Maxen
Bringslite
It is well laid out Maxen. I am just puzzled because what you describe was what I have always felt is already going on. There isn't anyway to keep anyone out of ANY hex anywhere, already.

I would be a bit surprised if anyone that publically declared territory believed any different or that everyone would stay out because of a forum post or word of mouth. Declaring that robbery is illegal and will be punished doesn't stop robbery from happening. All it does is keep SOME people from robbing and let others know that there will be consequences if caught. It is the same for any "claims" on hexes.

@ Duffy

Am I failing my reading comprehension check? I will reread it.

Bringslite,

I agree that a lot of this is going on. I just felt a need to put it on e-paper for others to consider and discuss. I've played Pathfinder Kingmaker tabletop for a number of years and this game is very much based on that. It's about acquiring, controlling and defending territory. An online Kingmaker is really the end state of PfO. We just need Goblinworks/New Corp to make the magic happen.
Maxen
Bringslite
"Similarly, monster home and crater hexes cannot be claimed. If they fall within the borders of claimed hexes, they can certainly be called part of the sovereign lands of that settlement. But since the settlement cannot lay claim to the hex, it is theirs to defend, but they should not consider it entitled land. If another group is intruding on a settlement’s sovereignty, that settlement certainly has the right to defend it. They will either be victorious or defeated. You have what you hold."

Who feels entitled? Who believes that GW will keep other players out of anything that they claim, with a game mechanic?

I think some players feel that because a monster or crater hex falls within their borders, they own them. I'm simply suggesting because they can't be mechanically claimed, they are open to anyone. Bands of adventurers should be free to adventure in them. If someone wants to defend them as their own, that's just another aspect of the PvP experience.
Maxen
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite
Duffy Swiftshadow
@Bringslite

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly he's asking us to agree that claims be entirely based around having a holding in a hex and that unclaimable hexes are permanent no man's lands treated as every man (or group) for themselves with minimal political repercussions.

I see. My understanding (which I have always had) is more along the lines of claim what you want, but don't expect anything like: everyone will stay out, just because. The flip side of that is that most everyone knows what to expect FROM us if we spot them doing things where we have clearly let them know we do not want to see them doing those things.

We still have to back that up at every opportunity. I may be being dense but all three of us, everyone in fact, seems to be saying the same thing.

While I'm pretty sure our thoughts are aligned in that regard I am not sure they are actually meshing up with the OP. He would have to clarify, my current opinion is that he disagrees with our mentality to some degree.
Duffy,

The entire point of my post was simply this: you have what you hold. If you want to take and own hexes, there are game mechanics to do it. And nothing in the game mechanics or otherwise declared through some sort of pronouncement prevents anyone from playing the game the way they want.

I was merely suggesting that there is a degree of sovereignty that hex owners should expect and that in the spirit of role playing alignments, players should respect that. But if hex owners don't have the muscle to back it up, they have what they hold. And I fully believe that monster and crater hexes are open to all. Adventure where you may, but be prepared to deal with the consequences if you're caught poaching.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post