Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old

[CapnZapp]

It’s a little of both (but mostly rhetorical). I’d a hunch we had different play styles.

For us, the encounters aren’t really the point. The story isn’t really the point. Actually, there isn’t one. The story that gets told is the one that emerges from the decisions the PCs make. The foreshadowing stuff, the building up the important things so players can interact with them and make decisions, that applies at all levels. Anyway, there’s a thread here where I discuss some of the stuff I’m doing with exploration. I don’t need to go into all that here.

Remember that since I'm running an AP, my hands are considerably more tied than if I ran a scenario of my own creation.

That would not change my approach to describing dungeon features, however. My players and me have agreed a long time ago that poking at things with ten-feet poles are a thing of the past (for us).

To be clear: the characters might still poke things with ten-feet poles. It's just that
a) the players don't have to describe them doing it any more than they have to say their character takes bathroom breaks
b) being clever about it doesn't mean you get to circumvent actual mechanics.

That is, in old adventures, you could have a lethal trap because the intention was that by prodding and poking it in sufficiently clever ways (obviously necessitating a clear focus on foreshadowing by the DM) you would be able to bypass or disable it.

That's akin to the difference between two ways of resolving a combat:
I) you describe how you swing and where you aim, and this influences if there's a solid hit, a glancing blow, a block or a dodge
II) characters have statistics and whether you hit or miss is determined by game mechanics and dice

It's player skill vs character skill.

We just run our traps the way we run combat: as a game, where the details are trusted upon the characters and not the players.

If you play combat as a game a Fighter doesn't get a bonus just because his player says he's aiming for the weak spot between the armor plates of the monster. This is instead resolved as "if you roll good enough you get a critical hit". That the Fighter is trying his best to make smart thrusts is assumed, rather than something the player must keep up.

The same way, whether the Rogue finds a trap isn't dependent on whether the player says she's looking or not. We simply look at the dice - if the GM rolls 23 on her Perception check he says "You find minute holes in the walls, you suspect a trap" but if he rolls 14 he says "You take your time, moving closely and carefully, but suddenly you hear a distinctly mechanical clicking sound. Green noxious gas spews from hidden nozzles".

The value we perceive is in cutting down on time spent just exploring the parts of the dungeon that isn't interesting. The party is just moving on until the GM says something interesting happens, the players trusting the GM not to shortchange their characters' abilities.

I have a hard time thinking anyone considering this not a valid play style. In fact, given that traps are presented much like monsters with similar attention to mechanical detail, I would consider our play style being the intended default for PF2. (Contrast to how Grimtooth's traps are much more intended to be interacted with by the players)

It may not be the ONLY playstyle, but it should definitely be enough to contest an assertion such as "to make the game work as Paizo intended it you need to foreshadow more" as not necessarily true.

Regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not sure how much more clearly I can say this: this is not what I’m trying to do. I am trying to point out to you that you (inadvertently) made a flawed assumption about how the game is intended to be run. Your mechanical difficulties arise from that assumption.

I will put another analogy here that you will ignore: consider an Eclipse Phase 1e player who assumes that it is to be played in a bust down the door no tactics combat style... the game will not work well mechanically for them. They will burst into the first room and some punk with a shredder will turn them into a fine mist.

Note: I am not saying that the games can’t be modified to run in a different styles - they can and I fully support doing so. Its just some mechanical alterations may be necessary to facilitate that. What I am saying is that examining your underlying assumptions of how a game is to be played might reveal why you have mechanical difficulty while others do not.



Peoples mechanical difficulties are arising from style mismatches: I am trying to point that out. Your healing example is a perfect example of that. You assume that, because it is not generally necessary to avoid/trivialize fights in DND 5e (because they are so easy), then it is also not necessary to attempt to avoid/trivialize fights in systems where fights are much harder (like pf2). That is an incorrect assumption that causes, when you barge into fight after fight, you to get wrecked which causes your issues with the healing system.

You also complain that avoiding/trivializing fights in pf2 is difficult because of the detailed mechanics (where dnd 5e had much looser mechanics). But you are missing that PF2 is expecting players to try to avoiding/trivialize fights as a major part of gameplay (see all those quotes from my previous post) and so provides more mechanical support, more limitations, and more customization in this area.



I provided numerous quotes from other sections of the game offering similar advice. You ignored them. It is quite obvious that I am wasting time responding to you when you will not read my posts or engage my central point. So I will no longer do so and focus on more constructive activities.

I understand your points. I just consider it a giant headache to discuss with someone who has such a different outlook than I do. I would much rather discuss with people whose advice and objections I can actually make something of.

I don't consider your advice helpful because I honestly don't believe what you're saying.

No, the game isn't written with the expectation that player skill needs to be applied to make encounters manageable. That is, encounters are not written to be very difficult since the expectation is that players will take an individual approach to each and every single one of them in order to make them considerably easier. What you're saying, basically, is that Paizo APs are not written with an audience of kick-in-the-door dungeon bashers in mind. What you're saying is that if you don't make an entire mini-game out of scouting and preparing for each and every case (encounter), you're making them so much more difficult than what's intended that Medicine can't keep up (just to take one example).

What you're saying is that my criticism isn't valid because I'm playing the game wrong. I can't help but to think of my concurrent discussion (in this very thread) with Kenada. What you're saying is that encounters can't be handled by game mechanics. You're saying that you can't expect the game to work if you interact with an encounter the way I'm interacting with a trap (as described in my replies to Kenada). You're saying that obviously the game is written with the expectation that player skill needs to be applied to make encounters manageable (to repeat what I just said above). I can find no indications that this is true in general. Pathfinder 2 is just about the most mechanically heavy iteration of D&D I can think of, and thus, the least likely iteration to have been written with your play style in mind.

So. Yes, I have had a hard time making a response. But you do deserve a response, and this is it. Best I can do, I'm afraid. I fully agree there's no point in continued conversation on this point (between us two, at least) if only for the simple reason me not really interested in the topic. I don't want to run the game your way, and had I believed your arguments my only solution would have had to be "find another game".

Best Regards,
Zapp

 

[kenada]

Remember that since I'm running an AP, my hands are considerably more tied than if I ran a scenario of my own creation.

The system entreats you to customize them. I’ve also run my share of PF1 APs, and you can (and should) tweak them for your group. If something is bad, I just throw it out. I hadn’t gotten to the point yet of using adversary rosters and running dynamic complexes, but that is how I would run them today (making changes to the encounters as necessary to make the adversary roster work). I don’t think the two things are as incompatible as you say. However, I admit it’s a style preference. You’re definitely entitled to do things by the book if that’s your preference or interpretation of how they should be done.

That would not change my approach to describing dungeon features, however. My players and me have agreed a long time ago that poking at things with ten-feet poles are a thing of the past (for us).

To be clear: the characters might still poke things with ten-feet poles. It's just that
a) the players don't have to describe them doing it any more than they have to say their character takes bathroom breaks
b) being clever about it doesn't mean you get to circumvent actual mechanics.

That is, in old adventures, you could have a lethal trap because the intention was that by prodding and poking it in sufficiently clever ways (obviously necessitating a clear focus on foreshadowing by the DM) you would be able to bypass or disable it.

That's akin to the difference between two ways of resolving a combat:
I) you describe how you swing and where you aim, and this influences if there's a solid hit, a glancing blow, a block or a dodge
II) characters have statistics and whether you hit or miss is determined by game mechanics and dice

It's player skill vs character skill.

We just run our traps the way we run combat: as a game, where the details are trusted upon the characters and not the players.

If you play combat as a game a Fighter doesn't get a bonus just because his player says he's aiming for the weak spot between the armor plates of the monster. This is instead resolved as "if you roll good enough you get a critical hit". That the Fighter is trying his best to make smart thrusts is assumed, rather than something the player must keep up.

The same way, whether the Rogue finds a trap isn't dependent on whether the player says she's looking or not. We simply look at the dice - if the GM rolls 23 on her Perception check he says "You find minute holes in the walls, you suspect a trap" but if he rolls 14 he says "You take your time, moving closely and carefully, but suddenly you hear a distinctly mechanical clicking sound. Green noxious gas spews from hidden nozzles".

The value we perceive is in cutting down on time spent just exploring the parts of the dungeon that isn't interesting. The party is just moving on until the GM says something interesting happens, the players trusting the GM not to shortchange their characters' abilities.

So Traps as Sport versus Traps as War

I have a hard time thinking anyone considering this not a valid play style. In fact, given that traps are presented much like monsters with similar attention to mechanical detail, I would consider our play style being the intended default for PF2.

It’s not that I think it’s invalid. You’re saying, “poking everything with a stick is boring, so we’ll just assume everyone does that,” and I’m saying, “poking everything with a stick is boring, so let’s not bother with hazards when they don’t contribute anything interesting to the game.” Yes, I do suggest ways to make them interesting, but if that’s not something one wants to do, then I’d rather just not bother.

That’s why I hesitated to endorse that particular style. It wasn’t meant to invalidate the way you like to play. I’d probably not be a good fit for that kind of game, but that’s fine. We can all play the game the way we like.

(Contrast to how Grimtooth's traps are much more intended to be interacted with by the players)

It’s funny you mention Grimtooth’s Traps. It shouldn’t surprise you that I’ve used more than a few in my PF2 game.

My favorite one was the one that’s an illusion of a spiked pit with the sides trapped to fling you into ceiling spikes that are also hidden behind an illusion. I used that one in a one-shot I ran to trial PF2 with my group. The party had sniffed out the illusion and bypassed the trap, but they forgot about it. Later, when they were trying to bluff some ghouls using another ghoul’s corpse, they went walking back through that room and right into the actual hazard. We always use a mat at the table, so I confirmed that’s where they intended to be, and they got sproinged into the ceiling.

It may not be the ONLY playstyle, but it should definitely be enough to contest an assertion such as "to make the game work as Paizo intended it you need to foreshadow more" as not necessarily true.

I’m not sure that anyone’s actually saying that. I’ll let @!DWolf respond if he wants to clarify. I think the idea is that such a style seems to help with the difficulty in the published adventures. If they did intend such a style, they could have done a much better job of communicating it and teaching it in the rules.

 

[nevin]

Zapp

I think this is what led to pathfinder 2e. The pathfinder society games play much better with that dirty nitty gritty do it right or die environment. When you have to standardize everything to make it fair then you have to limit the roleplaying the DM can allow and then the tactical becomes the entire game. I don't know how many Con tournaments you've ever played in but that's why I gave them up. They weren't roleplaying games they were so limited that it was just a test to see if you could figure out the Puzzles.

People that play that way get very confused when you try to explain to them that Role Playing games work better when you have a game master who can fudge, change or adjust any encounter on the fly. That was why they got invented. The Idea of someone adjusting the game to the players instead of just making the players suffer for doing it "Wrong" is confusing to them. For that kind of player "SKILL" in understanding the min max type of play is the only reason for the game. I'd like to say it's video game mentality but Role playing has been fighting that mentality since it started. That's why chainmail rules were tied to the AD&D game.

I think those kind of people have been running Pathfinder for a long time. Thus all the rules that punish creativity or originality. You see it all over the Pathfinder forums. I used to have long long arguments with people about magic. My basic position has been if players can do it bad guys can do it, other NPC's can do it so it shouldn't derail your game. But for the Puzzle players it's "cheating", and they get confused when us roleplayers don't get that. That's why I quit participating on the pathfinder forums. It was like arguing with a robot customer service program. Everytime I'd try to explain why my perspective was different the conversation would reset to the begining and start over.

 

[kenada]

Yeah, there’s a big focus on a certain style of play on reddit and the official forums. I’ve limited my participation to non-advice stuff there because suggesting a different approach gets a mixed response, and I just don’t want to deal with it. I almost feel that way about here. I mean, look at where this thread has taken us.

 

[Campbell]

Rather ironically, I do not think Pathfinder 2 is well set up for Adventure Path play. It's just heavily resistant to GM pacing or trying to direct the action in a particular way. The game exerts itself and you have the fallout of your actions to deal with. That's a big part of what I love about the game. How it interrupts the flow of what you are trying to do and provides a different narrative experience than you were expecting.

In my experience so far it works brilliantly for a more modern take on dungeon crawling and sand boxing. It also works fairly well for the charged situation based narrative play I run most of the time. I did a 6 session run where players played villagers left behind who had to deal with an insurgent orc tribe with all sorts of layered relationships and stuff. The game was pitch perfect for it.

In my experience PF2 very much does not work well if the GM tries to take the wheel, but is excellent if they are along for the ride.

 

[kenada]

In my experience PF2 very much does not work well if the GM tries to take the wheel, but is excellent if they are along for the ride.

I think I get what you mean from the AP comment, but could you elaborate on that a bit? Like, if a GM has a set of encounters planned for the adventure, they’re going to run into trouble?

 

[!DWolf]

I find pf2e very poorly suited for combat-reset-combat-reset-repeat style of play. But if a gm doesn’t have a “I need this many combats per day mentality” and instead relaxes and enjoys what the players do when given some agency outside of combat, then l think the game runs very well.

The APs modules that I have read try to encourage this (and I am planning on running Hellknight Hill now, so I am going to do a whole thread going through the adventure encounter-by-encounter and pointing out features and interesting passages and things I think it did wrong), but I think that players and gms have gotten so used to running games one way they can’t really read what the module is saying anymore. All they see is what they expect it to say (first you fight this, then you fight this, then you have to fight this) and they sort of gloss over anything that contradicts that.

This problem is compounded by players/gms who see anything not explicitly allowed for in the module as disallowed and anything done out of combat to bypass fights or reduce their difficulty as cheating. Often they will reflexively try to shut it down and force players back into the fight-reset-fight-reset mode of play, where PF2E isn’t at its best.

 

[Retreater]

I find pf2e very poorly suited for combat-reset-combat-reset-repeat style of play. But if a gm doesn’t have a “I need this many combats per day mentality” and instead relaxes and enjoys what the players do when given some agency outside of combat, then l think the game runs very well.

Running the same AP, I can say that there is very little time crunch in the first two books anyway. After rescuing the goblins, there is absolutely zero impetus to spending hours (days?) between combats during their exploration of the citadel. Not so much as a hint that there is a threat to the town, or an evil ritual that is going to occur, or a villain who might escape.
In the second adventure, there is similarly no real time pressure. The villain's plans are only ever revealed to the GM as a text wall background that has no bearing on the adventure - even if it plays out. And as we've discussed earlier in this thread, having the bad guys respond intelligently or with the slightest regard for self preservation breaks the encounter math.
Where it hasn't worked for us is that the agency the players have can't impact the adventure as written. I guess they could fall back to a place of safety and craft a bunch of explosives or enchant some magic items, but by that point they have already died in the first couple rounds of the failed combat.
Plus there are no random encounters to threaten them when they trudge through the wilderness or camp overnight. There's no patrols or warbands. There's no described force that could attack the party as they are holed up in their village. Given the narrative of the second adventure, it's not even plausible. There's nothing in the adventure to suggest anything more than a series of linked combat encounters.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this is ultimately bad adventure design: either the adventure should have been very clear as to what could or couldn’t happen, or should have built encounters differently such that if everything rolled together it was still a reasonable encounter.

Well, in my opinion Paizo kind of takes that for granted. I didn't start out with this particular adventure, and I too had to learn the hard way that you can't mush together two encounters the same way you can in most other rpgs (including most other editions of D&D).

You can combine encounters, but you need to know what you're doing as the GM. You need to apply a touch of finesse. Something as small as having the second batch of monsters arrive even a single round later can mean the difference between a challenging but ultimately "fair" fight, and a fantasy-f!cking-Vietnam style experience where nothing the heroes do can prevent a character death.