Pathfinder 2E Looks like I will be running a PF2e game in a few weeks...suggestions?

[Justice and Rule]

I’m not sure new being intuitive to new users is particularly germane here. If someone wants to run in a particular style that’s not the one described by the game’s core books (but can be made to work with the system), then they’re not likely to be a new user, and they’re going to have to go to external resources either way.

I recommend allowing retreat because it is an easy release valve for the players. They can push, and the dungeon can react, and if things start looking really bad, they can back off and regroup. What I’m suggesting that the GM make retreat a viable option because it is in one’s interest as a GM that it be a viable option.

I suggested the chase subsystem because it’s something that could possibly be known to a PF2 group (since it’s included in the GMG). Personally, I think it’s too clunky for retreat procedures. I’d advise just allowing the PCs to retreat and talking through any costs that could have, or using the procedure from B/X, or whatever. In essence, the PCs say, “we want to retreat,” and you switch to an exploration activity where they end up somewhere safe (but the GM decides where).

Otherwise, you have the situation you and @Retreater described on page 2 where individual deaths are unlikely, but the risk of a TPK is higher. For AP play or in a story-driven campaign, TPKs are (usually) very undesirable. If GMs want to add a bit of dynamism to keep encounters interesting, then it’s in their interests to use techniques to help mitigate bad outcomes (like a TPK).

I do think part of the problem is that, especially nowadays, monsters hitting 0 means dead while that is not the same for the players. This creates a dichotomy for retreat: monsters can retreat and the players will break off because they may have unconscious players that need tending. But monsters can't have that: if you're down, you're dead, so there's no real desire for triage if the monsters are winning. I have a friend who, when a monster goes down, rolls a d20, and if the die is equal to or under half their Constitution score, the monster is still alive but in critical condition (with obvious exceptions for things like massive damage and such). He also played it so that it wasn't necessarily obvious on first look.

This meant that if you broke off, monsters would check to see if they had any survivors, and also would tend to them. It also meant that after a battle, you might well have someone who is still alive after the fight, which can lead to interesting moments: do you stabilize this bandit and pump him for information? Do you use him as leverage to parlay? It leaves some interesting room for roleplay, as well as giving more reasons and outs for both the players and the NPCs to break combat.

On the other hand, that can (and probably should) be read as "do try out starting the module in media res" and not "stop any and all attempts at role-playing now and throughout all ten levels".

This is underrated, but feels like it never happens in D&D. I started an FFG Star Wars game where the players were fleeing a heist gone wrong and they filled in how it went wrong over time. I also stole that from some Live Play, but I cannot for the life of me remember what.

Look.

This is the fifth decade of adventure content that I've witnessed prompting exactly the same complaint regarding lack of story and motivation. (And no, I'm not counting the seventies, that would have been a sixth decade)

What I will never understand is when y'all stick to dungeons and dragony products despite it being blindingly obvious the average push for story is lower than in other games. Literary talent just isn't something you need to be hired by Paizo. Being able to crunch monster stats, and come up with a truckload of different ways to shish a kebab (=the heroes) on the other hand...

(Sure, Traveller has far drearier and drier scenarios that make Abomination Vaults look like Shakespeare, but I digress)

D&D and Pathfinder is 90% about combat. Sure you can write your own material that is 10% about combat, but if you want prewritten supplements that focuses on story or character development, D&D-ish games just isn't where you will find it.

Sorry for ranting, but obviously each new generation of role-players needs to find this out as if it was something new...

Yeah, this is a systemic problem for the content community, where it feels like many want to aspire to adventures that are beyond just combat, but everyone is just a little to afraid to lose what is generally considered "the draw".

I will say that while I don't play APs (largely for that reason), I am interested in Strength of Thousands, given the concept and the progression (From magic students to magic teachers). Also Fists of the Ruby Phoenix because it's just outright a tournament with what seems to be a PUBG-style Battle Royale and that seems eminently lootable for content.

So true. My mega-dungeon's NPCs have a power struggle. Two brothers warring against each other. The older brother falling to corruption and addiction. The younger brother being seen as a failure in the eyes of his father and betraying the family lineage. I get emotional writing it because it's a symbolic re-write of my family dynamics.
Of course, that level of emotion will never hit a reader or player going through the dungeon. But it's what keeps me passionate about the project and work through my own issues.

Sometimes you just got to indulge in your own stories. Sure, you're there for the players to give them fun stuff to do, but it's really nice to have your own little storylines playing out in the background, even if it doesn't mean as much for the players. As long as you don't get indulgent in it, it's absolutely an alright thing to do.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

My take is a little different in that I'm not sure that there is much more a published adventure (especially a dedicated and advertised as such, Megadungeon) of this kind can do beyond affording you tools like gazeteers and NPCs like Wrin with detailed write ups. I've often noticed a problem where some players and GMs will talk a big game about wanting more roleplaying and story in their gaming, but who don't engage in it even when the opportunities are presented on a silver platter, or story is aimed at them like a cruise missile, whereas others for whom even the dryest dungeon crawl is a narrative rich experience (I'm partial to this kind of Adventurer-Slice-of-Life myself.) Because story is what is created at the table, it isn't something that can encoded the same way as other elements-- instead the role of a published adventure is to furnish the GM with props like NPCs for them to read and then role play at the table. The exception to that would be environmental storytelling and lore, which Golarion is rich with in the first place and is provided by the Gazeteer and other materials.

In this instance, the book discusses adding more narrative to the adventure through a certain means "here's a town and NPCs the players can interact with, who have backstories and relationships with the dungeon, in the only place it makes sense for the PCs to go to rest during their expeditions" but it seems that Zapp and Retreater's groups has (or would have) chosen to regard that contemptuously as fluff. Take Wrin for instance, she has a statblock that takes up about a quarter of the page about her, and the other three quarters concern her story, attitudes, and phobia that makes her normally unable to enter the dungeon. We've intentionally left her out even though the book invites us to have interaction with her.

Frozen's party might actually opt to use the provided material, rather than ignoring it and claiming its insufficient for the purposes of internet polemics, I suspect in that event it would work reasonable well.

 

[kenada]

I do think part of the problem is that, especially nowadays, monsters hitting 0 means dead while that is not the same for the players. This creates a dichotomy for retreat: monsters can retreat and the players will break off because they may have unconscious players that need tending. But monsters can't have that: if you're down, you're dead, so there's no real desire for triage if the monsters are winning. I have a friend who, when a monster goes down, rolls a d20, and if the die is equal to or under half their Constitution score, the monster is still alive but in critical condition (with obvious exceptions for things like massive damage and such). He also played it so that it wasn't necessarily obvious on first look.

This meant that if you broke off, monsters would check to see if they had any survivors, and also would tend to them. It also meant that after a battle, you might well have someone who is still alive after the fight, which can lead to interesting moments: do you stabilize this bandit and pump him for information? Do you use him as leverage to parlay? It leaves some interesting room for roleplay, as well as giving more reasons and outs for both the players and the NPCs to break combat.

I don’t think this is a problem because the monsters do what the GM decides they do. Moreover, as a GM, it’s in my interest not to undermine procedures I’ve put in place to help the PCs mitigate bad situations. The obvious thing to do is to treat NPC death as an abstraction. They don’t really die at 0 hit points, but it’s a waste of energy at the table to track and roll for every single NPC that goes down, so we assume they all bleed out by default.

Even if the PCs make sure to dismember every creature they fight (even when they are going to retreat), I’d still not take the lack of wounded to check as a reason to go ahead and pursue. Again, my interest is in making sure the PCs have that escape valve for when things get too tough. If it seems incredulous that the PCs are just allowed to escape, then determine why they were allowed as part of narrating the escape procedure.

This is underrated, but feels like it never happens in D&D. I started an FFG Star Wars game where the players were fleeing a heist gone wrong and they filled in how it went wrong over time. I also stole that from some Live Play, but I cannot for the life of me remember what.

I started an adventure in media res once and posted about it on the Internet. I got a ton of crap for it. I suspect people just expect you start at the beginning because that’s the place where you start. Otherwise, I agree. If you need the PCs going into the dungeon, then just start them at the dungeon and ask them how they got there.

Yeah, this is a systemic problem for the content community, where it feels like many want to aspire to adventures that are beyond just combat, but everyone is just a little to afraid to lose what is generally considered "the draw".

I will say that while I don't play APs (largely for that reason), I am interested in Strength of Thousands, given the concept and the progression (From magic students to magic teachers). Also Fists of the Ruby Phoenix because it's just outright a tournament with what seems to be a PUBG-style Battle Royale and that seems eminently lootable for content.

I agree with CapnZapp. Well, I’m not sure I’d go quite as far, but I agree with him as far as it concerns Paizo’s and many of WotC’s adventures. The “trad” adventure is all about ushering PCs through a story. Any opportunity for actual exploration will screw that up, so at best it’s a facade. The meat of the adventures is combat, and the game has developed provide a thrilling combat experience.

 

[Retreater]

Take Wrin for instance, she has a statblock that takes up about a quarter of the page about her, and the other three quarters concern her story, attitudes, and phobia that makes her normally unable to enter the dungeon. We've intentionally left her out even though the book invites us to have interaction with her.

Here's the thing, and I may not be a typical GM or adventure reader, but I find the presentation very disconnected. The Otari gazetteer, I literally didn't notice it was in the book until it was mentioned in this thread, and I've been running the adventure for a couple months now. I'm reading it on PDF, scrolling from page-to-page. I got to the last room of the dungeon, then after that, I use a search feature to find the stats for the unique monsters. So this is completely on me.
Wrin (and I did see her write-up because I did a search for the character stats), that's great if you want to read a short story. What I want to see is real information to drive the party to an adventure. I bought the module, and there's a lot to read already, so Paizo, please for the love of all that is holy, present me with usable information.
So here's what I would want. Give an intro quest, some boxed text. Have Wrin meet the party at her shop, spin an intriguing legend (something better than "a strange light lit up one night"). Maybe some interesting/concerning artifacts have been brought out by the Osprey guild?
Then give the party a couple of unique mini quests for each level or so of the dungeon. A local farmer has noticed small fey pulling pranks with his livestock - boom - pull the characters into level 1. A local mercenary has disappeared heading into the caves below the lighthouse - boom - pull the characters into level 2. The library needs a tome reportedly in the possession of the lighthouse keeper - boom - pull the characters into the library on level 3.
So that's the structure I would want. If I were a GM with a lot of time, that's what I would do. I would rather have scenes and plots than a "well rounded, unique character" that I really don't know how to play anyway.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I don’t think this is a problem because the monsters do what the GM decides they do. Moreover, as a GM, it’s in my interest not to undermine procedures I’ve put in place to help the PCs mitigate bad situations. The obvious thing to do is to treat NPC death as an abstraction. They don’t really die at 0 hit points, but it’s a waste of energy at the table to track and roll for every single NPC that goes down, so we assume they all bleed out by default.

Even if the PCs make sure to dismember every creature they fight (even when they are going to retreat), I’d still not take the lack of wounded to check as a reason to go ahead and pursue. Again, my interest is in making sure the PCs have that escape valve for when things get too tough. If it seems incredulous that the PCs are just allowed to escape, then determine why they were allowed as part of narrating the escape procedure.

I've never tried it, though with a VTT I suspect it'd be rather easy, tbh. And sure you can do that stuff through GM fiat, but the system he had was simple enough to do quickly.

I started an adventure in media res once and posted about it on the Internet. I got a ton of crap for it. I suspect people just expect you start at the beginning because that’s the place where you start. Otherwise, I agree. If you need the PCs going into the dungeon, then just start them at the dungeon and ask them how they got there.

The internet is so weird.

I agree with CapnZapp. Well, I’m not sure I’d go quite as far, but I agree with him as far as it concerns Paizo’s and many of WotC’s adventures. The “trad” adventure is all about ushering PCs through a story. Any opportunity for actual exploration will screw that up, so at best it’s a facade. The meat of the adventures is combat, and the game has developed provide a thrilling combat experience.

It's also worth noting that a more linear adventure also makes it easier to plan and design the experience to hit the right notes at the right times, especially if you are writing something where you have no idea of the experience level of the GM and the PCs. A sandbox experience is cool, but there's just so much that can happen that it can frustrate both new GMs and PCs. Along with that, it can negate the cool stuff that a curated experience provides.

Of course, all that stuff kind of flies in the face of how I operate, which is why I just can't run APs. I do like stealing ideas from them, though...

Here's the thing, and I may not be a typical GM or adventure reader, but I find the presentation very disconnected. The Otari gazetteer, I literally didn't notice it was in the book until it was mentioned in this thread, and I've been running the adventure for a couple months now. I'm reading it on PDF, scrolling from page-to-page. I got to the last room of the dungeon, then after that, I use a search feature to find the stats for the unique monsters. So this is completely on me.
Wrin (and I did see her write-up because I did a search for the character stats), that's great if you want to read a short story. What I want to see is real information to drive the party to an adventure. I bought the module, and there's a lot to read already, so Paizo, please for the love of all that is holy, present me with usable information.
So here's what I would want. Give an intro quest, some boxed text. Have Wrin meet the party at her shop, spin an intriguing legend (something better than "a strange light lit up one night"). Maybe some interesting/concerning artifacts have been brought out by the Osprey guild?
Then give the party a couple of unique mini quests for each level or so of the dungeon. A local farmer has noticed small fey pulling pranks with his livestock - boom - pull the characters into level 1. A local mercenary has disappeared heading into the caves below the lighthouse - boom - pull the characters into level 2. The library needs a tome reportedly in the possession of the lighthouse keeper - boom - pull the characters into the library on level 3.
So that's the structure I would want. If I were a GM with a lot of time, that's what I would do. I would rather have scenes and plots than a "well rounded, unique character" that I really don't know how to play anyway.

Ahahaha... okay, sorry, this just reminds me of a high school class I took long ago. It was a tech class, and on the first day the teacher gave us this long list of instructions with a bunch of stupid stuff you had to do on it: it had you stand up, hop on one foot, sit down, write stuff down, do some math, shout a color... and at the very end, it told us to not do any of the previous steps, put your name on the paper, and turn it in for a full grade. It was a pretty great way of showing us the value of reading directions before doing anything.

 

[kenada]

My take is a little different in that I'm not sure that there is much more a published adventure (especially a dedicated and advertised as such, Megadungeon) of this kind can do beyond affording you tools like gazeteers and NPCs like Wrin with detailed write ups. I've often noticed a problem where some players and GMs will talk a big game about wanting more roleplaying and story in their gaming, but who don't engage in it even when the opportunities are presented at a self platter, or story is aimed at them like a cruise missile, whereas others for whom even the dryest dungeon crawl is a narrative rich experience (I'm partial to this kind of Adventurer-Slice-of-Life myself.) Because story is what is created at the table, it isn't something that can encoded the same way as other elements-- instead the role of a published adventure is to furnish the GM with props like NPCs for them to read and then role play at the table.

The problem is that adventure paths are plotted. They’re not about providing a tool to create an emergent story. They have certain beats you’re expected to hit, and there’s a villain at the end who needs defeated. There are tools and techniques they could provide or support that help create an emergent narrative, but that’s not the point. Those things would risk derailing the plot. What one gets instead are extensive backstories, which feels more like filler (though a GM may be able to do something with them).

The exception to that would be environmental storytelling and lore, which Golarion is rich with in the first place and is provided by the Gazeteer and other materials.

I feel like the official setting material falls into the same trap. You get tons of history and other stuff, but the actual grist for adventure is pretty limited.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Here's the thing, and I may not be a typical GM or adventure reader, but I find the presentation very disconnected. The Otari gazetteer, I literally didn't notice it was in the book until it was mentioned in this thread, and I've been running the adventure for a couple months now. I'm reading it on PDF, scrolling from page-to-page. I got to the last room of the dungeon, then after that, I use a search feature to find the stats for the unique monsters. So this is completely on me.
Wrin (and I did see her write-up because I did a search for the character stats), that's great if you want to read a short story. What I want to see is real information to drive the party to an adventure. I bought the module, and there's a lot to read already, so Paizo, please for the love of all that is holy, present me with usable information.
So here's what I would want. Give an intro quest, some boxed text. Have Wrin meet the party at her shop, spin an intriguing legend (something better than "a strange light lit up one night"). Maybe some interesting/concerning artifacts have been brought out by the Osprey guild?
Then give the party a couple of unique mini quests for each level or so of the dungeon. A local farmer has noticed small fey pulling pranks with his livestock - boom - pull the characters into level 1. A local mercenary has disappeared heading into the caves below the lighthouse - boom - pull the characters into level 2. The library needs a tome reportedly in the possession of the lighthouse keeper - boom - pull the characters into the library on level 3.
So that's the structure I would want. If I were a GM with a lot of time, that's what I would do. I would rather have scenes and plots than a "well rounded, unique character" that I really don't know how to play anyway.

I suspected it might be something like that when I read the introduction page to see how it was presented after your post and noticed that it actually instructs you to go look at certain pages for the background and write ups, and suggests the debriefing with Wrin as something that might suit the playgroup. If that was skipped in favor of the 'skip the fluff' option of dropping the party on the mega dungeon's doorstep I can see how your impression would come about.

Personally I despise the boxed text and sequential 'scene' structure and it would be definitionally inappropriate for a mega dungeon.

You really might want to try designing your own adventures, I get the sense that it would actually be easier for you than these published materials, because the published materials demand you take the time to read them closely, internalize them, and then you have to still present it artfully to your players and improvise when they say or do things no book could expect. Whereas if you're at all like me, a couple of encounters (or better yet a list of appropriate enemy statblocks I took some quick notes of and the encounter tables on the back of the GM screen), and some improvised maps (a little harder over the internet but not intolerably so, easy with some wet erase markers and ye olde chessex maps) and some ideas and you can spin out something much more immersive and less constrained than a partial reading of the text. Its honestly way less time consuming, and really just requires a little know-how (less than any published module) and trusting yourself.

Edit: Which to preempt the obvious, was something that can be learned by a new GM, which I know from first hand experience (and for the same reason, serious issues running published content, i still get nervous when i volunteer for PFS or AL.)

 

[Retreater]

Ahahaha... okay, sorry, this just reminds me of a high school class I took long ago. It was a tech class, and on the first day the teacher gave us this long list of instructions with a bunch of stupid stuff you had to do on it: it had you stand up, hop on one foot, sit down, write stuff down, do some math, shout a color... and at the very end, it told us to not do any of the previous steps, put your name on the paper, and turn it in for a full grade. It was a pretty great way of showing us the value of reading directions before doing anything.

Yeah I'll admit most of my GM prep time was mechanically based (putting everything into Roll20, learning rules for a new system, etc). And I guess I'm also more used to running adventures that sort of present the quest in different ways.
Of course, the module's recommendation to just start at the doorstep of the dungeon coupled with running online for a bunch of strangers persuaded me to get the adventure started rather than awkward role-playing.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The problem is that adventure paths are plotted. They’re not about providing a tool to create an emergent story. They have certain beats you’re expected to hit, and there’s a villain at the end who needs defeated. There are tools and techniques they could provide or support that help create an emergent narrative, but that’s not the point. Those things would risk derailing the plot. What one gets instead are extensive backstories, which feels more like filler (though a GM may be able to do something with them).


I feel like the official setting material falls into the same trap. You get tons of history and other stuff, but the actual grist for adventure is pretty limited.

I'm not so sure the plotting on them is as constrained as suggested, especially in this mega dungeon, its a town + a multi floor dungeon with a handful of entrances and secret ways between levels, unless you leave the town to go elsewhere entirely, there's no meaningful way to derail it, the plot is tied completely to descending through the vault.

 

[kenada]

I've never tried it, though with a VTT I suspect it'd be rather easy, tbh. And sure you can do that stuff through GM fiat, but the system he had was simple enough to do quickly.

That system is fine. You could also have the monsters make death saving throws (or whatever one’s system does). I just don’t think the GM needs mechanical permission from one part of the game to engage in another (the hypothetical escape procedure). That kind of simulation is something that 3e really got into, which I think was a mistake (and Gygax arguably at least claimed to reject in 1e). That’s why I use the framing I do: assume the PCs escape and then figure out how that happened. Otherwise, they get hung up on logistics or whether it’s realistic.

For example, when my group had its rout in Old-School Essentials, I had to bluntly say that they will escape. As expected, one of my players started the process of rationalizing how it was actually impossible, and I had to state emphatically it would succeed. Once we got past that hangup, we were able to figure out what they did to make their escape, and they got away with only the death of a retainer. It felt bad for the players, but none of the PCs died, which I viewed as a victory.

It's also worth noting that a more linear adventure also makes it easier to plan and design the experience to hit the right notes at the right times, especially if you are writing something where you have no idea of the experience level of the GM and the PCs. A sandbox experience is cool, but there's just so much that can happen that it can frustrate both new GMs and PCs. Along with that, it can negate the cool stuff that a curated experience provides.

I think that’s basically what “trad” is about. I can’t see how you can have that kind of story-driven experience without the curation.

Of course, all that stuff kind of flies in the face of how I operate, which is why I just can't run APs. I do like stealing ideas from them, though...

I’m not a good fit for that kind of game as a player, and it’s too much work to prep as a GM. I really prefer OSR or Story Now.