Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres

[Justice and Rule]

Question for everyone here:

When played straight (i.e. no Proficiency Without Level variant), shouldn't the threat of death be good enough not to engage with something that is too high a level? I mean, dead men tell no tales and dead PCs gain no experience (save for the final experience). Wouldn't that play closer to the classic risky sandbox?

I've been in the planning stages of a more sandbox-ish campaign, and I was thinking that merely telling people "This world does not care about your backstory, your goals, or your character arc. It will kill you if you are careless." would be enough to dissuade some from thinking about it. Or maybe running an "example game" (which might be an in-universe thing of some poor bastard adventurers stumbling into something they couldn't handle) where they see how being overmatched can get them killed.

Another part of that was to give XP for finding hazards, which meant that they might want to figure out where something bad was, but not necessarily engage it. Was thinking appropriate XP to maybe two levels below the threat? Same with being able to avoid a confrontation through skill rather than combat. That one is more dependent, given that sometimes the situation might deserve more XP depending on how unavoidable the confrontation was and how tough it was to resolve.

Finally, also hammering down on the idea that actions beget reactions: if you kill some bandits, their crew may start looking for you, might raid your base or town in response, might ally with people you don't like, etc. One should always be careful of the enemies you make, and how you deal with them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Like I said in my response to @FrozenNorth, it was basically a number pulled out of a hat. I picked something big because I wanted it to be clearly lower. The double and halving approach is probably more reasonable.


Note that I’m making this suggestion this in the context of old-school sandbox play. How you get your XP is what defines the default action. If it’s treasure combat, and combat is a comparatively poor and dangerous way to get XP, then PCs will take steps to avoid combat while getting as much treasure as possible.

I complete get that.

I guess my point, that you seem to already have gotten, was that already halving it is "clearly lower". I would say any divisor greater than 4 means the awarded XP is so little you could just skip it, with zero impact on the players behavior.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

Question for everyone here:

When played straight (i.e. no Proficiency Without Level variant), shouldn't the threat of death be good enough not to engage with something that is too high a level? I mean, dead men tell no tales and dead PCs gain no experience (save for the final experience). Wouldn't that play closer to the classic risky sandbox?

As long as you add sufficient warning systems, I see no issues with your logic.

To be clear, Pathfinder 2 doesn't offer any such warning systems, and the reason is that in PFS/AP play, you practically never have to worry about this issue. The adventure is a roller coaster where you practically always have "appropriate" encounters for your level, so no warning system is needed and would in fact be redundant.

In other words, decidedly not the sandbox way of play.

There are exceptions to this rule, but then there is still an unwritten rule that the adventure will specifically include text to warn you. (I would say the adventures bend over backwards to ensure not even the clumsiest and most impulsive adventure can fail to get the point, but I digress). In the few cases where this doesn't happen, you can basically assume a mistake has been made.

Spoiler: a case from the Extinction Curse AP (mild spoilers)

This Adventure Path features exactly one instance where it is even conceivable for the heroes to blunder into "high level territory" before they are ready. And indeed, it reads as an oversight.

IIRC the players arrive to a city when they reach level 5. But the main BBEG awaits them at the end of the level 8 chapter. The text perfunctorily acknowledges that players itching for revenge might seek out this BBEG, but just dismisses this possibility with "combat with the front gate guards should tell the players they are in the wrong area". (In Pathfinder 2 level is more decisive than in maybe any other iteration of D&D, so what might be considered a "moderate" challenge for level 8 heroes is an insanely lethal "extreme" encounter at level 5)

Of course, I fully understand if y'all would find this entirely inadequate. But thems the breaks.

So you need to add warning systems (which is another instance of my criticism, in that Paizo appears entirely uninterested to support sandbox play).

Most crudely, do what I did: rate every critter they meet on a scale from green through yellow to red:

Green = the monster or NPC is your level or lower
Yellow = 1-2 levels higher than you
Red = 3 or more levels higher than you

You gain this information automatically and for free. This was the only way we could simply and quickly get on with the role-playing experience, without stupid surprises when a seemingly small and weak critter turns out to be a lethal opponent, or suddenly find out that your spell is utterly toothless just because he's one level too high for Incapacitation not to rear its ugly head etc... in short, without getting bogged down into "meta" aspects (I dislike having to tell the players exact numbers).

 

[Justice and Rule]

As long as you add sufficient warning systems, I see no issues with your logic.

To be clear, Pathfinder 2 doesn't offer any such warning systems, and the reason is that in PFS/AP play, you practically never have to worry about this issue. The adventure is a roller coaster where you practically always have "appropriate" encounters for your level, so no warning system is needed and would in fact be redundant.

In other words, decidedly not the sandbox way of play.

I mean, knowledge checks from various characters would provide that. I don't know (or honestly care) much about the APs, but within the system itself knowledge checks would be easily enough to tell you that you are in the area of something dangerous, as well as how dangerous. It's also worth noting that such checks are actively encouraged by the system, before or even during combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

I mean, knowledge checks from various characters would provide that. I don't know (or honestly care) much about the APs, but within the system itself knowledge checks would be easily enough to tell you that you are in the area of something dangerous, as well as how dangerous. It's also worth noting that such checks are actively encouraged by the system, before or even during combat.

Fixing/Improving Recall Knowledge

CapnZapp made a post about the issues with Recall Knowledge in the GM experience thread and suggested there be a separate discussion. While he can speak for himself, I agree with his points that the Recall Knowledge action and use is pretty light on the rules where as most other parts of the...

www.enworld.org

 

[Justice and Rule]

Fixing/Improving Recall Knowledge

CapnZapp made a post about the issues with Recall Knowledge in the GM experience thread and suggested there be a separate discussion. While he can speak for himself, I agree with his points that the Recall Knowledge action and use is pretty light on the rules where as most other parts of the...

www.enworld.org

I mean...

Failing Forward - Rules - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Unexpected failure can bring the game to a halt, particularly during exploration. “Failing forward” means finding a way to progress the story instead of saying, “That didn't work.” This doesn't mean the group can't fail, or that the PCs should get what they wanted despite failing. Rather, it...

2e.aonprd.com

... Exploration is specifically called out there. I dunno if you need to rework the whole system as long as you integrate Failing Forward into such things.

 

[kenada]

When played straight (i.e. no Proficiency Without Level variant), shouldn't the threat of death be good enough not to engage with something that is too high a level? I mean, dead men tell no tales and dead PCs gain no experience (save for the final experience). Wouldn't that play closer to the classic risky sandbox?

It should do that, but how it goes will depend on the group’s experience and disposition. That’s why I posted there should be a mechanical signpost to emphasize the danger. I tried to explain things weren’t tuned to my players, but they TPK’d themselves early in our campaign on a completely unnecessary* encounter. Because OSE is so mechanically unforgiving and harsh, they’re scared of everything (which means more combat as war and less combat as sport).

Another part of that was to give XP for finding hazards, which meant that they might want to figure out where something bad was, but not necessarily engage it. Was thinking appropriate XP to maybe two levels below the threat? Same with being able to avoid a confrontation through skill rather than combat. That one is more dependent, given that sometimes the situation might deserve more XP depending on how unavoidable the confrontation was and how tough it was to resolve.

The reason why I want to dispense with XP for hazards is I hate picking out a level for them. (That’s one of the things that burnt me out was having to design stuff I felt wasn’t important.)

Finally, also hammering down on the idea that actions beget reactions: if you kill some bandits, their crew may start looking for you, might raid your base or town in response, might ally with people you don't like, etc. One should always be careful of the enemies you make, and how you deal with them.

Yep. One of the principles I suggested in that big GM notes thread and that I plan to put on my list is: portray a living world, respond to changes with consequences. If the PCs upend the status quo in any way, that should be reflected back in the campaign world. Not only does that underscore their agency (the bandits are gone because the PCs did that), but it contributes to the feeling of the world being an actual place.

--
* Suppose you have a football field (gridiron or association, it doesn’t matter). In the very center of the field is a gray ooze, which is melting a giant gecko. Your goal is to get to the other side without dying. My PCs went up and fought the gray ooze.

 

[kenada]

I mean, knowledge checks from various characters would provide that. I don't know (or honestly care) much about the APs, but within the system itself knowledge checks would be easily enough to tell you that you are in the area of something dangerous, as well as how dangerous. It's also worth noting that such checks are actively encouraged by the system, before or even during combat.

I think it’s more subtle than that. It’s like those old-school traps that kill PCs on a failed saving throw. “Rocks fall, you die” isn’t particularly fun if you have absolutely no way of knowing the rocks are coming. That’s why it’s important to make traps interesting. For encounters, that’s why the encounter procedure is so important. If the PCs have a way of deescalating or negotiating, and if everything is not automatically hostile, then killer encounters become less so.

Someone here discussed running surprise in PF2. I think maybe it was @JmanTheDM (but correct me if I’m wrong). The approach was to handle it similarly to the old-school encounter procedure. When you get to the encounter, don’t immediately start the fight. For surprise, you have the PCs continue sneaking around (using the appropriate actions) until everyone is in position. The same can go for negotiations (e.g., using the influence subsystem) and evasion (using the chase subsystem).

I also think morale is important to help prevent every fight from being a fight to the death. If you can target an obvious leader, you can focus on breaking the opposition’s morale instead of just slugging it out with everyone. PF2 doesn’t have any good subsystems to suggest. My preference is just the B/X method of 2d6 versus a morale score because it’s easy, and I don’t have to look anything up. We’ve discussed it here before, and others have suggested ways to do it using Will saving throws, but I can’t recall them offhand.

 

[JmanTheDM]

Someone here discussed running surprise in PF2. I think maybe it was @JmanTheDM (but correct me if I’m wrong).

yup that was me!, oh, and YOU REMEMBERED!!!!

Cheers,

J.

 

[CapnZapp]

I dunno if you need to rework the whole system as long as you integrate Failing Forward into such things.

I think you are better off making your point in the supplied thread.