Philip Benz
A Dragontooth Grognard
A lot of great stuff in this thread.
I think one of the reasons some folks think PF2 isn't good for sandbox games is that they assume that every encounter only ends when one side or the other is dead. We didn't play that way in the 70s, and we don't play that way now.
Not all encounters are with bloodthirsty murderers that you can't escape from. Adversaries, whether they be human (oids) or animals or strange creatures, should have their own agenda. Maybe they're not hungry. Maybe they're already tired and don't really want to get into combat. Maybe they are hungry, but they want a nice snack that won't fight back so much. Maybe the PCs can communicate with them and roleplay their way out of violence. Maybe they have a greater desire to mislead the PCs than to murder them. All those things and more are part and parcel of the sandbox DM's toolkit.
Also, somebody said that PF2 doesn't have much of an exploration system. I disagree strongly. There is a wide swath of the game devoted to what's called "exploration mode" and figuring how to handle PCs' various skills within the framework of exploration. There are numerous feats, actions and special mechanics to deal with a variety of exploration-linked situations. There's even a fully fleshed out "hexploration" system which really reminds me of late 70s D&D games we played at the Iowa City Wargaming Federation. I don't personally much care for "hexploration" rules, and tend to prefer using a gridless wilderness map for such things, or for a greater degree of abstraction than "hexploration" requires, but PF2 doesn't force you into either mold.
I still remain convinced that PF2 is no worse prepared for "sandbox" games than any other game system. In OD&D, DD3.x or DD5, you can be in deep trouble if you encounter a critter that's bigger and tougher than you, if the DM persists in the idea that everything is on a kill-or-be-killed agenda. That's no different than in PF2 where a creature 2 or more levels higher than the party's level can be a rough challenge, and 4 or more levels higher means there is almost no way for the PCs to triumph.
But it's not always "kill or be killed". There are so many other ways to spin encounters, especially when an adversary is objectively beyond the PCs' ability to curbstomp. That's part of what I meant when earlier I spoke of "a clever DM".
A DM's job is not supposed to be "easy". He has to balance whatever material he has prepared (or borrowed from a published adventure) with his players' wants, dreams and desires. He has to adapt things on the fly to whatever decisions his players make. And when things go "off the rails" he has to make hard decisions between the railroad and the highway, and all those auxiliary spaces that he may not have prepared or even thought about in advance. That's part of the fun of our shared hobby and shared storytelling antics.
I think one of the reasons some folks think PF2 isn't good for sandbox games is that they assume that every encounter only ends when one side or the other is dead. We didn't play that way in the 70s, and we don't play that way now.
Not all encounters are with bloodthirsty murderers that you can't escape from. Adversaries, whether they be human (oids) or animals or strange creatures, should have their own agenda. Maybe they're not hungry. Maybe they're already tired and don't really want to get into combat. Maybe they are hungry, but they want a nice snack that won't fight back so much. Maybe the PCs can communicate with them and roleplay their way out of violence. Maybe they have a greater desire to mislead the PCs than to murder them. All those things and more are part and parcel of the sandbox DM's toolkit.
Also, somebody said that PF2 doesn't have much of an exploration system. I disagree strongly. There is a wide swath of the game devoted to what's called "exploration mode" and figuring how to handle PCs' various skills within the framework of exploration. There are numerous feats, actions and special mechanics to deal with a variety of exploration-linked situations. There's even a fully fleshed out "hexploration" system which really reminds me of late 70s D&D games we played at the Iowa City Wargaming Federation. I don't personally much care for "hexploration" rules, and tend to prefer using a gridless wilderness map for such things, or for a greater degree of abstraction than "hexploration" requires, but PF2 doesn't force you into either mold.
I still remain convinced that PF2 is no worse prepared for "sandbox" games than any other game system. In OD&D, DD3.x or DD5, you can be in deep trouble if you encounter a critter that's bigger and tougher than you, if the DM persists in the idea that everything is on a kill-or-be-killed agenda. That's no different than in PF2 where a creature 2 or more levels higher than the party's level can be a rough challenge, and 4 or more levels higher means there is almost no way for the PCs to triumph.
But it's not always "kill or be killed". There are so many other ways to spin encounters, especially when an adversary is objectively beyond the PCs' ability to curbstomp. That's part of what I meant when earlier I spoke of "a clever DM".
A DM's job is not supposed to be "easy". He has to balance whatever material he has prepared (or borrowed from a published adventure) with his players' wants, dreams and desires. He has to adapt things on the fly to whatever decisions his players make. And when things go "off the rails" he has to make hard decisions between the railroad and the highway, and all those auxiliary spaces that he may not have prepared or even thought about in advance. That's part of the fun of our shared hobby and shared storytelling antics.
Last edited: