Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[pemerton]

But in a case where the only XP to be had is by defeating the monsters in combat, much of the player's decision points become meaningless. Any decision that did not result in the PCs directly confronting and slaying enemy monsters was basically a waste of time at best. If the monsters could be manipulated into killing each other off screen, the PCs would get nothing out of it except their treasure, much of which is useless to them anyways if it doesn't give them XP.

Yes. In a good RPG system the PC progression rules will correlate sensibly with the sort of actions the PCs are expected to undertake.

This is part of my personal beef with 2nd ed AD&D - it has all this flavour of storytelling fantasy, but doesn't have the mechanics, inlcuding the PC progression mechanics, to support that flavour.

 

[pemerton]

if the PCs are supposed to know something, it doesn't hurt to keep repeating that something until you're sure the players know it too. At worst I'll use low-DC INT (etc) checks if it's something a smart PC would remember, but not absolutely obvious.

If the players have known something and forgotten between sessions, I'll generally remind them, especially as their record keeping is hopeless - the best notekeeper in the group left a few years ago for the greener pastures of England, and even when they do take notes they're often on character sheets which, in 4e, get turned over very quickly!

What I try to be careful about, though, is not to use reminding as a type of GM nudging. I don't want to be their decision-maker!

 

[S'mon]

If the players have known something and forgotten between sessions, I'll generally remind them, especially as their record keeping is hopeless - the best notekeeper in the group left a few years ago for the greener pastures of England, and even when they do take notes they're often on character sheets which, in 4e, get turned over very quickly!

What I try to be careful about, though, is not to use reminding as a type of GM nudging. I don't want to be their decision-maker!

I agree - I'm lucky if my players record their Action Points, hit points or healing surges between sessions, never mind campaign notes!

 

[Hussar]

Certainly. In the case of the goblin/hobgoblin and the two orc caves, they are actually connected to other caves and presumably have daily contact with each other. In the case of kobolds, they do daily chores for the other lairs and so have daily contact with almost all of the other lairs.

Wait... what?

The bugbears have a little shop and pub for the other denizens of other lairs. [/quote]

again... what?

And in any case, all of the entrances of the caves are in the same little valley and you can see from one cave entrance directly into most of the others.

Have you actually LOOKED at the map?

It's obvious that this is a very tight little ecosystem that exists in precarious balance, and if the PCs come along and upset that balance, the consequences will be felt very quickly. All of this is made explicit in the DM's text. If the PCs go into the cultist cave, the owlbear cave, or the minotaur cave, or perhaps even the gnoll cave, there will probably not be immediate consequences felt on the rest of the area. But all other caves are very connected to at least one other lair.

Umm, the only connected lairs are peopled by similar creatures - goblins with goblins by and large (since orcs are considered goblinoids at this point in time.

But, this gets back to my point. This is why I often say it's ridiculously easy for sandbox DM's to railroad. Because, that's exactly what you're doing. The players are doing something you don't like, so you pick the results that most punish their behavior, not because it's believable, or even realistic, but because you want to punish their behavior.

Let's run with your example for a moment. PC's go into a cave, wipe out some of the creatures and leave. Next cave over comes in and finishes off the job and loots the place.

How is this a failure for the PC's? They simply go next door, kill the next guy over and get the treasure (which is the lion's share of the reward) from the now weakened (since, well, 12 hours earlier they were fighting - you do account for that being all about realism don't you?) next group and they win.

Or, taking this a step further, how would this not cascade? PC's go into one cave and weaken it. Next cave over comes in and wipes them out but gets weakened in the process. So, the next cave in line comes in and wipes THEM out. So one and so forth. The PC's come back 12 hours later, mop up the survivors and get all the treasure conveniently gathered in one place. Total win.

Let's look at your other option - retreat. PC's enter cave, wipe out some of the inhabitants and leave. They come back 12 hours later and the cave has been evacuated. But, the evacuees are mostly females and young. And they leave tracks. And they're burdened by their belongings.

Why doesn't the party simply follow this large group and wipe them out considerably more easily since they aren't hiding within their nice strong lair? This plays directly INTO the hands of the 15 MAD group. They've now gathered all the inhabitants and their loot into one place, the PC's who will move faster than the evacuees (having horses and all, or, even on foot, they're still faster than burdened kobolds) can pick an ambush point wherever they like and bring 100% of their firepower to bear in that ambush, instead of having to ration things across an adventuring day.

Both of your "solutions" actually play directly into the tactics of the 15 MAD group. They actually make the 15 MAD group more effective, not less.

 

[billd91]

Have you actually LOOKED at the map?

Looks like the same small little valley to me.

But, this gets back to my point. This is why I often say it's ridiculously easy for sandbox DM's to railroad. Because, that's exactly what you're doing. The players are doing something you don't like, so you pick the results that most punish their behavior, not because it's believable, or even realistic, but because you want to punish their behavior.

Presenting a reactive campaign rather than a static one is what's going on here, and both being picked off by another or fleeing are perfectly reasonable. Is staying in place with no changes reasonable? No.

Let's look at your other option - retreat. PC's enter cave, wipe out some of the inhabitants and leave. They come back 12 hours later and the cave has been evacuated. But, the evacuees are mostly females and young. And they leave tracks. And they're burdened by their belongings.

Why doesn't the party simply follow this large group and wipe them out considerably more easily since they aren't hiding within their nice strong lair? This plays directly INTO the hands of the 15 MAD group. They've now gathered all the inhabitants and their loot into one place, the PC's who will move faster than the evacuees (having horses and all, or, even on foot, they're still faster than burdened kobolds) can pick an ambush point wherever they like and bring 100% of their firepower to bear in that ambush, instead of having to ration things across an adventuring day.

Both of your "solutions" actually play directly into the tactics of the 15 MAD group. They actually make the 15 MAD group more effective, not less.

Assumptions galore that may not play out. How burdened are the refugees? Variable. Do the PCs have a tracker? Maybe not. Do the PCs want to follow refugees rather than try to plunder more caves before the other humanoids undertake measures to avoid being the next group butchered? Could the refugees have left behind a rearguard to ambush the PCs who may follow? Might there be other wilderness encounters to complicate matters? And all of this much more fluid than a static set of caves easily picked off by a party allowed to engage in short nova-burst sorties without reaction from the DM.

 

[Hussar]

Looks like the same small little valley to me.



Presenting a reactive campaign rather than a static one is what's going on here, and both being picked off by another or fleeing are perfectly reasonable. Is staying in place with no changes reasonable? No.

No one is saying that though. It would be perfectly reasonable for the inhabitants to turtle up, post more guards, set traps. All sorts of things. But, outright leave? And I notice you skipped the part about the other caves taking them out.

Assumptions galore that may not play out. How burdened are the refugees? Variable. Do the PCs have a tracker? Maybe not. Do the PCs want to follow refugees rather than try to plunder more caves before the other humanoids undertake measures to avoid being the next group butchered? Could the refugees have left behind a rearguard to ambush the PCs who may follow? Might there be other wilderness encounters to complicate matters? And all of this much more fluid than a static set of caves easily picked off by a party allowed to engage in short nova-burst sorties without reaction from the DM.

Yeah, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. Tracking several dozen fleeing refugees including children about 12 hours after they left. Yeah, I need an expert tracker for that.

Rearguard? Munch. Nicely divided forces. Just that much easier to take out.

Other wilderness encounters? Yup, right back to whacking the PC's on the nose for acting in a manner the DM doesn't approve of.

Note how every "reasonable" situation is always the worst possible situation for the PC's. But, if the PC's act in accordance to how the DM wants them to act, everything comes up roses.

Choo Choo!

Bah, I'm done here. This isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[Rogue Agent]

Umm, the only connected lairs are peopled by similar creatures - goblins with goblins by and large (since orcs are considered goblinoids at this point in time.

Fact check.

Physically connected lairs:

(1) B and C
(2) H and I
(3) D, E, and F
(4) J and K

These lairs belong to:

(1) Orc and Orc
(2) Bugbear and Minotaur
(3) Goblin, Ogre, Hogoblin
(4) Gnolls and Human Necromancers

Three out of the four connected lairs include non-goblinoids. (And one of them includes no goblinoids whatsoever.) Of those three, none of them consist of "similar creatures".

Conclusion? Your statement, like most of what you post, is factually untrue.

 

[lucek]

Ok can I say the quote in the OP is bs marketing speak. Pathfinder's setting and stories are passable. There are so many other games with soo much more focused on setting and feel.

 

[S'mon]

Ok can I say the quote in the OP is bs marketing speak. Pathfinder's setting and stories are passable. There are so many other games with soo much more focused on setting and feel.

Yeah, but their stuff looks pretty, and their competition in the "D&D genre" market is pretty limited.

 

[lucek]

Yeah, but their stuff looks pretty, and their competition in the "D&D genre" market is pretty limited.

That's the thing they're not popular for their content, but brand recognition. Tell me, how is D&D a genre. Answer it's not. D&D is a semi generic heroic fantasy class based level based rpg with a simple core mechanic but a lot of crunch. Their a dime a dozen. Again allot with excellent material. D&D and by extension Pathfinder are popular because of 40 years of advertising.

It's like soda, You can say coke or pepsi is good but what's the last time you had a birch beer.