Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[MaskedGuy]

There needs to be space for the PCs to make choices with consequences. If events are prescribed to happen when certain milestones are met, and there’s no way of avoiding or changing the substance of those events, I would hesitate to call such an adventure a sandbox. In Kingmaker, that’s basically what happens in adventure book. The PCs have influence over the details, but the broad strokes are fixed. The GM can make it feel like a sandbox, but for it to actually be one, the PCs would need to have actual agency. There’s e.g., no way to avert the war in the fifth book. You get introduced to Irovetti at the start, then Pitax attacks you.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think Kingmaker is a bad AP. It was actually my group’s favorite AP of the ones I ran (Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Rise of the Rune Lords, Shattered Star) and the only one we played to completion. We had a lot of fun building up their kingdom, and some of the events are still memes in my group. However, if I ran it like I’m running my current campaign (an exploration-driven sandbox), it would have broken down. Even that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (since the PCs would presumably then have actual agency), but it’s not what the AP was written to do.

It is still sandbox though.

Like... What you are describing is adventure book written with branching paths "oh if in book 1 players do this, book 5 doesn't happen at all or is completely different". If kingmaker wasn't sandbox, then by that definition "Hey party, that GM original country next to you we have never really ever talked about? Well they are attacking you" would instantly prevent homebrew campaign being sandbox.

 

[kenada]

It is still sandbox though.

Like... What you are describing is adventure book written with branching paths "oh if in book 1 players do this, book 5 doesn't happen at all or is completely different".

I just finished running Halls of the Blood King a few sessions ago. I would describe that adventure as an actual sandbox. There are no prescribed outcomes. It does not say, “if the PCs do X, respond with Y.” It provides a set of situations, and the only way to learn what happens is to play to find out. Kingmaker was nothing like that. Kingmaker tells a story. Halls of the Blood King creates one. It’s like the difference between trad and Story Now.

If kingmaker wasn't sandbox, then by that definition "Hey party, that GM original country next to you we have never really ever talked about? Well they are attacking you" would instantly prevent homebrew campaign being sandbox.

GMs can homebrew an adventure into whatever they want it to be provided they’re willing to put in the work. That they can do that is irrelevant to what the adventure was written to do. As written, Kingmaker has a prescribed series of events and a story to tell. Those beats are going to happen. That’s just the way traditional adventures work. That GMs are also empowered by the system to pick and choose, throwing out and adding whatever they want, is orthogonal to whether Kingmaker was written as a sandbox.

Update: Thinking about it, there is one flaw in my position. Event timelines are generally prescribed, but they aren’t necessarily meant to tell a story. Halls of the Blood King has a timeline where a blood hunt will happen early in the morning. Presumably, that would happen regardless of whether the PCs are there. I would concede that Kingmaker has some elements that can be construed that way (even though I don’t think that’s necessarily how they were written).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I thought so. I know PF2 uses levels for monsters too, but is an equal level monster equivalent to one PC? I can't remember, it has been to long since I read the book.

I've been playing rather than GMing, so I'm not sure; I think a equal level encounter with with a monster of your level is supposed to be 1 monster for 4 PCs, but I wouldn't bet I'm remembering correctly. If so, 1 per one would be a +2 encounter.

I guess we we just prefer something different. We level up very slowly (we don't use XP) and really don't need our characters to power up to enjoy our game. It took our 5e group 6 years to get to level 15 and we can go months without leveling up. For us it is much more about playing the game at the table than our characters get ever more powerful. It is the growth of their story that we are more interested in (not that you can't have both).

But again, and I know I'm probably coming across as harping on this, do you actually need a full 20 level progression then?

I mean, I get what you're talking about; most of the games I run don't have anything like the steep progression D&D or PF do. But like I said, if that's what I want I don't use a game system with 20 levels (I probably don't use a class and level system at all, but at the least I'd use one designed for the range we were actually going to play).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeap, all of this. I don't have an issue if folks want to call it a sandbox, but its not quite like sandboxes I'm used to. Many single day combats in hexes and scripted events that players dont have much effect on. Still a fine AP in my opinion.

Yeah, doesn't sound like a sandbox as I'm used to it either. At worst, in a sandbox you have triggers for events in certain places, and those events have ripples, but you can avoid them completely (well, potentially; it isn't necessary obvious that getting into a fight with this dragon in hex 2406 will free up the pocket kingdom over there to attack its neighbor, but you can still avoid getting into it with that dragon or even going into that hex).

 

[MaskedGuy]

I also find idea that sandbox can't have events, story or even player goal weird. Like having "players travel to area that is essentially mini sandbox where they have a goal but no clear route to goal so they have to figure rest by themselves" is still sandbox to me.

 

[kenada]

Sandboxes can have events and player goals, but the important thing is that the PCs are the drivers of what happens next. Having a story prepared tends to get in the way of that. In essence, don’t prep plots, prep situations. As written, Kingmaker has much more of the former than the latter.

I think it’s okay that traditional adventures can’t do every kind of structure. Structures are often tied to creative agendas, which have different (and sometimes incompatible) priorities. I think it would be fair to call Kingmaker a hex crawl. I’d go so far as to say it’s sandbox-inspired, but I wouldn’t call it a sandbox. You’re not meant to play in it. You’re meant to experience the story it’s telling.

Consider the following: if the PCs decide that all they want to do is run Oleg’s trading post, would that ruin the AP? If it were a sandbox, no. It may have situations that occur on their timelines, but that’s just part of portraying a living world. The PCs aren’t expected to do anything. But Kingmaker is about getting your own kingdom and using that as a vehicle for the story it wants to tell. A GM could roll with it by using the AP as a source for homebrew, but you’re well outside the scope of what it expects.

I should also note that Paizo has their own definition of sandbox, which they include in the GMG in the section on adventure design. As they put it: “you give the players a sizable location to explore and let them decide how to go about it.” There’s an implicit expectation that the players are playing through the adventure’s plot, which they make more explicit in the section on hexploration: “Even a sandbox adventure has a story or is the setting of multiple stories.” This is from PF2, but I think the ethos follows from PF1.

Let’s just say I don’t agree with their take on sandboxes. I don’t think it’s necessary to shoehorn everything into the traditional adventure structure, and I find it a bit exasperating how the traditional structure is taken to be the natural and default form of adventures.

 

[dave2008]

I've been playing rather than GMing, so I'm not sure; I think a equal level encounter with with a monster of your level is supposed to be 1 monster for 4 PCs, but I wouldn't bet I'm remembering correctly. If so, 1 per one would be a +2 encounter.

Ok, I thought PF2 changed that from 3e/ PF1.

But again, and I know I'm probably coming across as harping on this, do you actually need a full 20 level progression then?

Yes. The more levels the more gradual the progression can be. So yes, I feel we need at least 20 levels, maybe go back to the 36 levels of BECMI!

I mean, I get what you're talking about; most of the games I run don't have anything like the steep progression D&D or PF do. But like I said, if that's what I want I don't use a game system with 20 levels (I probably don't use a class and level system at all, but at the least I'd use one designed for the range we were actually going to play).

We play the whole range, so I feel we need it all. I guess we could cram it all into 10 levels, but then you get to much at each level, and that is not what I want.

 

[dave2008]

I also find idea that sandbox can't have events, story or even player goal weird. Like having "players travel to area that is essentially mini sandbox where they have a goal but no clear route to goal so they have to figure rest by themselves" is still sandbox to me.

To me it is more about player agency. A sandbox can have events, goals, hooks, story, etc., but the players can choose to ignore any of it and do their own thing (though there are likely to be consequences). It is their ability to choose that makes it a sandbox IMO. Now, it is really hard to write an adventure like this I would imagine. That is why if I used published material I just used them for set pieces within our sandbox.

EDIT: @kenada beat me to it and said it much better than I did!

 

[kenada]

Ok, I thought PF2 changed that from 3e/ PF1.

Both PF1 and PF2 actually make similar assumptions when it comes to encounters. The difference is the math in PF2 actually works at pretty much all levels.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In my group's experience, that wasn't enough to hook them. I think they couldn't see any direct causation between the attack on Otari (by summoning in the attackers) and the lighthouse, and perhaps more drastically couldn't see how their exploration of the dungeon was going to do anything to stop the future attacks.

Also, the threat from the lighthouse could be disabled by simply breaking the floor under the focus. Problem solved, let’s go back and have an ale.