Paizo A question about Paizo/PF adventure design

[The-Magic-Sword]

IDK, I find this rude (assuming you actually read the tread referenced, though perhaps you only read the encounter:

"oooh 5 players? then let me clarify for you, the encounter was only severe to begin with, if you had adjusted it with a template (no really, just subtract an additional two as the automation does its thing) or by flushing a single monster, it likely would have dropped to moderate."

Perhaps it come off as more condescending than rude, but they are in the same ball part IMO. In reality I think that was what was triggering me personally more then general rudeness. Bad choice of words on my part, Very much an attitude of your doing wrong, "here is how it should be done" attitude. It is more tone than content, which a bad place to make a judgement over an online post - so probably as much my fault as yours.

Though, I am surprised you can't see how this is rude:
"... has some kind of dire consequences for the game is so karen it hurts."

Now I will freely admit that what appears rude when written on an internet forum may indeed have no intent to be rude in reality.

I know. Unfortunately I don't see the value in trying to explain my position much more. If it is really something you are interested in I will give it one more shot. Let me know.

I don't consider expressions of irritation with someone who is already in the process of disrespecting me to be rude. This is honestly what I was worried about when you made the comment accusing me of rudeness, the problem you have with me is that I'm coming across as uppity, because I'm teaching someone something in the process of rejecting their argument. Yes, I was a little frictive about the '5 players' comment because Retreater was directing heat at me for my disagreement, so it was phrased flippantly but I hardly think I've been especially 'hotter' than the temperature of this room, including you.

As for the second part, if you feel like you want to throw in the towel here, then honestly I encourage you to do so. I know you're framing here is meant to convey that I'm just not understanding something that hasn't been touched by my arguments to the contrary, but I've seen nothing of the reasoning of your position, you've been holding it back, I have no way of judging its quality. My post was a response to a paragraph outlining in exact terms, what I don't understand, and why I think it does work just fine. If that isn't sufficient to convey engagement or respect, or whatever it is you're looking for, I'm afraid I don't have anything to offer you and I have no intention of begging.

 

[Retreater]

After the encounter I realized I handled the hazard incorrectly and we replayed it, after I boosted them a level. Playing the encounter one level higher, knowing the challenges beyond, the group did fine. However, it would be a frustrating thing to keep replaying encounters, especially when we had such limited gaming time (3 hours every two weeks).
The other restrictions the players were placing on me, interpersonal drama, and the lack of Roll20 support for that Adventure Path caused me to drop the campaign.
Maybe Age of Ashes wasn't a good fit. Maybe it was other circumstances, but I didn't have a good time with it. Like @The-Magic-Sword suggested, I did enjoy better making my own encounters, which I would run as tests before bringing in new characters after each TPK.
Each was hard for the group, which I tested at Low, Moderate, and Severe thresholds, accounting for 5 characters this time. The Moderate and Severe especially were beyond the comfort level of most players.
From my experience there's not a lot of wiggle room. A mistake (by a player or GM) can easily result in a character death, which compounds the challenge for the entire group.
I do believe that Paizo should've released a different AP for their inaugural campaign, or at least a series of beginner adventures to guide players and GMs. It doesn't play like 5e or PF1. Having good adventures to show us how to run it is crucial to the success of their line, which was certainly a failing of 4E.

 

[dave2008]

I don't consider expressions of irritation with someone who is already in the process of disrespecting me to be rude. This is honestly what I was worried about when you made the comment accusing me of rudeness, the problem you have with me is that I'm coming across as uppity, because I'm teaching someone something in the process of rejecting their argument. Yes, I was a little frictive about the '5 players' comment because Retreater was directing heat at me for my disagreement, so it was phrased flippantly but I hardly think I've been especially 'hotter' than the temperature of this room, including you.

It is hard to see things from outside our own perspective, I am sorry if I was adding to the heat. That was not my intent, sometimes I make reactionary comments without thinking them through. I do think there is some value in that too though.

I also think it is possible to teach without coming across as "uppity," but it can be a fine line (particularly in this medium). Really just a few words different here and their and I don't think I would have reacted at all.

As for the second part, if you feel like you want to throw in the towel here, then honestly I encourage you to do so. I know you're framing here is meant to convey that I'm just not understanding something that hasn't been touched by my arguments to the contrary,

No, my point was not that you lack an understanding, but that I haven't put in the effort to properly explain. I can't expect you to understand something I haven't thoroughly explained.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

It is hard to see things from outside our own perspective, I am sorry if I was adding to the heat. That was not my intent, sometimes I make reactionary comments without thinking them through. I do think there is some value in that too though.

I also think it is possible to teach without coming across as "uppity," but it can be a fine line (particularly in this medium). Really just a few words different here and their and I don't think I would have reacted at all.

No, my point was not that you lack an understanding, but that I haven't put in the effort to properly explain. I can't expect you to understand something I haven't thoroughly explained.

Well, do as you will, in so far as explaining things go.

 

[dungeonHamster]

As I have already mentioned, if I get a chance I would probably play a PC in PF2, not GM. That is OK, as you say not every system is for every GM. However, your point about it being easier to adjust encounters in PF2 than it is in 5e is pretty much exactly the viewpoint that is, for me, a problem I have with PF2 from GM perspective. I never need to adjust encounters in 5e, they just work, and the concept of doing so is foreign to how we play the game.

So for me:

• Not really interested in GM PF2 at this time (to much difference from what I am familiar with / comfort zone)
• I am (or was) interested in playing PF2, but the pandemic and lack of PF2 groups in my area is causing a problem with that. Hopefully things change soon.

I've mentioned this before, but my main group and I are 5E babies who got introduced to the hobby via Critical Role. I take issue with the idea that encounters "just work" in 5E: as has been noted in earlier threads, low level is deadly and higher levels become trivial unless you significantly alter the challenge ratings. If your players are fine with combat being cruise control, there is of course nothing wrong with this, but my players (and myself as GM as well), were highly unsatisfied with that state of affairs even after my work modifying encounters. In 5E, that's significantly harder than it is to do in Pathfinder 2, especially when I have to account for less/extra players.

While my main group and I will always love 5E for introducing us to the hobby, Pathfinder 2 hit at the perfect time when we had outgrown it and craved something more complex. I believe the encounter building guidelines in Pathfinder 2 "just work" and I find combat is fast and highly meaningful. I don't need to modify encounters unless another player shows up and, as a bonus, it is extremely easy to do so.

I'm in the process of converting more non-Pathfinder 2 groups to Pathfinder 2, but learning how to do things via VTT instead of in person is definitely a stumbling block for me. Learning how to use Foundry is like learning a new game system, haha.

 

[dave2008]

I've mentioned this before, but my main group and I are 5E babies who got introduced to the hobby via Critical Role. I take issue with the idea that encounters "just work" in 5E: as has been noted in earlier threads,

Perhaps I should have clarified, but I thought it was clear from the context of my post. 5e encounters "just work' for my DM style and my group. I realize it may not work for others (I think I addressed that as well somewhat). What I mean by this is: I don't have to worry about designing an encounter for a specific XP budget or encounter difficulty. I can make an encounter simply based on what makes sense for the area. No need to check if it is "moderate, "easy," or "extreme." I fear that approach will lead to a lot of TPKs in PF2. Now, once I'm more familiar, maybe not, but I am really not interested in having to design encounters with a budget or difficulty in mind.

So for me, 5e encounters work and I don't have to worry about XP budgets or challenge ratings. However, I will agree the encounter guidelines in the DMG are hit-and-miss and of limited use compared to PF2. Of course what I like about 5e is that I don't need to use them at all to have an exciting and interesting adventure or combat. They are, IMO, completely unnecessary and that is how I like it!

 

[kenada]

Perhaps I should have clarified, but I thought it was clear from the context of my post. 5e encounters "just work' for my DM style and my group. I realize it may not work for others (I think I addressed that as well somewhat). What I mean by this is: I don't have to worry about designing an encounter for a specific XP budget or encounter difficulty. I can make an encounter simply based on what makes sense for the area. No need to check if it is "moderate, "easy," or "extreme." I fear that approach will lead to a lot of TPKs in PF2. Now, once I'm more familiar, maybe not, but I am really not interested in having to design encounters with a budget or difficulty in mind.

So for me, 5e encounters work and I don't have to worry about XP budgets or challenge ratings. However, I will agree the encounter guidelines in the DMG are hit-and-miss and of limited use compared to PF2. Of course what I like about 5e is that I don't need to use them at all to have an exciting and interesting adventure or combat. They are, IMO, completely unnecessary and that is how I like it!

Do PCs run from some encounters, or have you developed an intuitive sense of what works for your group? How did things go when you first started running 5e?

I tried just doing what made sense for my group in 5e, but I ended up accidentally killing them with flying snakes.

 

[dave2008]

Do PCs run from some encounters, or have you developed an intuitive sense of what works for your group? How did things go when you first started running 5e?

I tried just doing what made sense for my group in 5e, but I ended up accidentally killing them with flying snakes.

Some of both. My group is generally cautious and likely to retreat if they get in a pinch. 5e as few things that can take a group down in 1 round so retreat is almost always an option.

When I started 5e I used the encounter guidelines and it worked well for my new group, less so with my veteran group. With the new group I used the guidelines until about 5th-6th level when I got to an intuitive feel for them. That campaign ended at 10th lvl. With my veteran group I dropped the guidelines and just went with my traditional design (what makes sense for the area) after the 2nd session I think. That group is 15th level now. I've been playing with that group since 1e and we just have style that works for us and I quickly realized the guidelines didn't really matter to how we played.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Some of both. My group is generally cautious and likely to retreat if they get in a pinch. 5e as few things that can take a group down in 1 round so retreat is almost always an option.

When I started 5e I used the encounter guidelines and it worked well for my new group, less so with my veteran group. With the new group I used the guidelines until about 5th-6th level when I got to an intuitive feel for them. That campaign ended at 10th lvl. With my veteran group I dropped the guidelines and just went with my traditional design (what makes sense for the area) after the 2nd session I think. That group is 15th level now. I've been playing with that group since 1e and we just have style that works for us and I quickly realized the guidelines didn't really matter to how we played.

Question just because I'm curious: are there firm differences in playstyle between the new group versus the veteran group? Or is it just party makeup?

 

[kenada]

Some of both. My group is generally cautious and likely to retreat if they get in a pinch. 5e as few things that can take a group down in 1 round so retreat is almost always an option.

When I started 5e I used the encounter guidelines and it worked well for my new group, less so with my veteran group. With the new group I used the guidelines until about 5th-6th level when I got to an intuitive feel for them. That campaign ended at 10th lvl. With my veteran group I dropped the guidelines and just went with my traditional design (what makes sense for the area) after the 2nd session I think. That group is 15th level now. I've been playing with that group since 1e and we just have style that works for us and I quickly realized the guidelines didn't really matter to how we played.

Thanks for the explanation. Actually being willing and able to retreat is a big deal. That goes a long way towards mitigating the danger of difficult fights. It’s cool your players do that.

I think you could run PF2 like that, especially if you used Proficiency Without Level. You’re not just setting up fights and having at it, so your PCs can just disengage when things get too dangerous. Essentially, your organic approach to determining difficulty ought to still work in PF2.

However, if I recall correctly, you have other reasons why PF2 is not a good game for you to run, but I thought it was worth pointing out. What you do sounds similar to what some of us have discussed in our approaches.