Thomas Shey
Hero
Also, I've consistently seen people saying Age of Ashes is more difficult on the average (sometimes notably so) than the later adventure paths.
That is the kind of thing I was jokingly said made my eyes bleed - how they have an exploration activity listed with defined rules of what a "dungeon crawl" is. There are things you don't have to codify, which should be the purview of the GM. Having advice on how to create a dungeon - that's a valuable resource; however, making rules about it, how many sessions it should last, etc., just borders on ridiculousness to me.Look at the GMG’s dungeon crawl recipe: 6 moderate and 6 severe encounters (in addition to 2 trivial and 4 low). If I followed that recipe, my PCs would have died repeatedly in the first dungeon. We ought to be the ideal audience (former PF1 group that shifted 5e somewhat begrudgingly), but my players were never hardcore builders or tacticians. We had one TPK early in my PF2 campaign, and I got some static for that. Multiple TPKs would have prompted us to find a different game.
That is the kind of thing I was jokingly said made my eyes bleed - how they have an exploration activity listed with defined rules of what a "dungeon crawl" is. There are things you don't have to codify, which should be the purview of the GM. Having advice on how to create a dungeon - that's a valuable resource; however, making rules about it, how many sessions it should last, etc., just borders on ridiculousness to me.
Having procedures for dungeon crawling is pretty old-school. Both OD&D and B/X have them. It’s not like GMs are born knowing how to properly run a dungeon. They need to learn it from somewhere. If you’re not lucky enough to start playing in a group that does those things, or you don’t find a stream that does (or a blog that teaches them), then you’re left emulating what you know: linear storytelling.That is the kind of thing I was jokingly said made my eyes bleed - how they have an exploration activity listed with defined rules of what a "dungeon crawl" is. There are things you don't have to codify, which should be the purview of the GM. Having advice on how to create a dungeon - that's a valuable resource; however, making rules about it, how many sessions it should last, etc., just borders on ridiculousness to me.
If you look at my quote, I ended it with "to me." So that's my opinion, not that I am saying it's the only acceptable way of looking at it.Can I say I find the idea having a set of rules you can use to structure something "ridiculous" seems like its really privileging a certain approach to the game as all that's acceptable.
Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding. The dungeon crawl recipe I linked is in the section on designing adventures in the GMG. My point was if we had followed that recipe, I’d have probably TPKed my group repeatedly (because the default tuning is too hard for us).The "dungeon crawl" activity is just far more than the amount of detail that I need in any aspect of my life. It feels to me like they created a downtime activity called "play role-playing game" that detailed how long sessions last, how many players could come, and who brings the Doritos.
I can agree with procedures and advice for how to run a dungeon, but to have it distilled to a paragraph using delineated game terms seems artificial, almost to the point of parody.Having procedures for dungeon crawling is pretty old-school. Both OD&D and B/X have them. It’s not like GMs are born knowing how to properly run a dungeon. They need to learn it from somewhere. If you’re not lucky enough to start playing in a group that does those things, or you don’t find a stream that does (or a blog that teaches them), then you’re left emulating what you know: linear storytelling.
The Alexandrian has a pretty good article on this issue (which I’m pretty sure I’ve linked here before, but it’s worth sharing again).
It’s not perfect. We’re probably not being prescriptive enough with our exploration activities, so things don’t always go smoothly. I expect that’s true for many groups with prior experience in other systems (particularly 3e and newer). In spite of that, I think PF2 did a good thing for trying to bring forward old-school structures into a modern system.
Is it really all that different from e.g., OSE? On some level, these things are just games, and we have to engage them as such. I’ll leave the greater discussion of aesthetics to the thread over in the D&D section of this site.I can agree with procedures and advice for how to run a dungeon, but to have it distilled to a paragraph using delineated game terms seems artificial, almost to the point of parody.
I guess the differentiation I see is in OSR games (like OSE) is that the design and crafting of the dungeon (or other adventure) is done by the experience of the GM (obviously referring to advice provided by the game or other sources). Sure, many systems might have the player-facing elements codified (how long does a torch burn, how much area can I search in ten minutes, etc.), but the design of the adventure isn't laid out like a recipe card stating: 1 session to walk to the dungeon, 3-4 sessions to explore the dungeon, with X # of fights at each of the following challenge levels - A, B, C, and D, with Y # of roleplaying encounters and Z # of traps. And that recipe is presented as a formatted stat block as if you were looking at an ironclad rule of the game.Is it really all that different from e.g., OSE? On some level, these things are just games, and we have to engage them as such. I’ll leave the greater discussion of aesthetics to the thread over in the D&D section of this site.
Thanks for the rest of your explanation. That helped me understand better. I just wanted to respond to this part because I think it’s the lack of context.And perhaps it is the presentation looking at it out of the context of the rest of the GMG, but to me (and YMMV) it is very off-putting and seems an attempt to restrict the creativity of GMs by giving them a Procrustean Bed in which their adventures must fit.
If you look at my quote, I ended it with "to me." So that's my opinion, not that I am saying it's the only acceptable way of looking at it.
The "dungeon crawl" activity is just far more than the amount of detail that I need in any aspect of my life. It feels to me like they created a downtime activity called "play role-playing game" that detailed how long sessions last, how many players could come, and who brings the Doritos.
Thanks for the rest of your explanation. That helped me understand better. I just wanted to respond to this part because I think it’s the lack of context.
These recipes are part of a larger section on putting together an outline of an adventure. GMs are told at several points that these are just seeds, a framework, something they should customize as they see fit.
There’s a perception that creating one’s own adventure is something that’s difficult. Having a set of steps to put something together, even if it’s a bit ham-handed in places, is a boon if it helps demystify that.
I recognize that you are not necessarily endorsing the first point here, but I do feel it is pretty dismissive. I didn't play 3e or Pathfinder, so it simply isn't the case that I am so used to high powered wizards that I don't recognize PF2 balancing act. The argument also cuts both ways: it is just as arguable that PF2 designers, after a 15 years of wizards being overpowered, overcorrected and made them weaker than other characters.From reading a lot of discussion on the Paizo forums, there seem to be two things that lead to this impression (and note, that is not me saying that its entirely incorrect, just that whether it is or not it seems so for these reasons):
1. In general, spellcasters have been cut back some from 3e era ones. That's because (and I know this doesn't go over well with some, but I don't know any better way to put it that is honest) they were out of balance with non-casters. That was just taken as a given by a lot of people and was viewed as somehow okay by many, but that didn't make it good design and one of the design choices in PF2e was to push the two types together. One of the areas where this is very visible is that spellcasting is generally a weak way to directly deal with a single opponent--and that's probably the single most visible sign of effectiveness that most people percieve. Spellcasting can still be a good way to start cooking up groups when a spell caster is willing to take some positioning chance, and good ways to buff and debuff (but as I noted, people who haven't internalized the importance of manipulating crit and fumble chances don't always see it that way), but neither of these tends to be as visible (and of course occasionally you'll get GMs who make it really hard to apply the first; personally, I've watched one players lightning-oriented sorcerers dump more damage out on a semi consistent basis than either of my fighting types did, she just doesn't do it all in one place).
Interestingly enough. I had the exact same discussion that you and kenada had on a different forum. I had bemoaned the fact that the 5e DMG did not include sufficient guidelines for designing interesting non-combat encounters, and another poster pointed out that I had in the past frequently taken issue with the proliferation of unnecessary rules systems.I guess the differentiation I see is in OSR games (like OSE) is that the design and crafting of the dungeon (or other adventure) is done by the experience of the GM (obviously referring to advice provided by the game or other sources). Sure, many systems might have the player-facing elements codified (how long does a torch burn, how much area can I search in ten minutes, etc.), but the design of the adventure isn't laid out like a recipe card stating: 1 session to walk to the dungeon, 3-4 sessions to explore the dungeon, with X # of fights at each of the following challenge levels - A, B, C, and D, with Y # of roleplaying encounters and Z # of traps. And that recipe is presented as a formatted stat block as if you were looking at an ironclad rule of the game.
And perhaps it is the presentation looking at it out of the context of the rest of the GMG, but to me (and YMMV) it is very off-putting and seems an attempt to restrict the creativity of GMs by giving them a Procrustean Bed in which their adventures must fit.
(Wizards underpowered)
I recognize that you are not necessarily endorsing the first point here, but I do feel it is pretty dismissive. I didn't play 3e or Pathfinder, so it simply isn't the case that I am so used to high powered wizards that I don't recognize PF2 balancing act. The argument also cuts both ways: it is just as arguable that PF2 designers, after a 15 years of wizards being overpowered, overcorrected and made them weaker than other characters.
Given how frustrated your text reads, I think it may just be time to say No and move on to something else or have one of them run it.They want to get the "real" PF2 experience, not something I've layered with house rules or redesigned to make it better balanced. They don't want me changing encounters. Honestly, it feels like my role is more an interpreter of Paizo's team than a GM, as if I'm a referee of an Organized Play event or scientist in a playtest. There is no roleplay. There is no continuous story connection. It goes from encounter-to-encounter, precisely as written in the published module. Following any structural outlines from GMG wouldn't be useful - my only guide is the Core Rulebook and the contents of the Age of Ashes AP adventures.
I bought the GMG for PF1 and it was a good resource for that system, and I'd likely find parts of this one useful if I were creating my own adventures. However, for all the debate about the GMG and its entry about the Dungeon Crawl recipe, it's largely not relevant to my group's issue. I have been tasked by my players to run PF2's Age of Ashes in as close to a scientific, controlled test as possible. They want to get the "real" PF2 experience, not something I've layered with house rules or redesigned to make it better balanced. They don't want me changing encounters. Honestly, it feels like my role is more an interpreter of Paizo's team than a GM, as if I'm a referee of an Organized Play event or scientist in a playtest. There is no roleplay. There is no continuous story connection. It goes from encounter-to-encounter, precisely as written in the published module. Following any structural outlines from GMG wouldn't be useful - my only guide is the Core Rulebook and the contents of the Age of Ashes AP adventures.
Given how frustrated your text reads, I think it may just be time to say No and move on to something else or have one of them run it.