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

[kenada]

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 think we ended up on a tangent. I wasn’t specifically referring to your game when I brought that up. I was discussing difficulty and the effect it would have on my group if I had e.g., followed that recipe.

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.

The game invites GMs to make changes. What they are wanting is at odds with how the game wants you to run it.

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.

Even the PFS guidelines for running adventures allow some variation — they aren’t that strict.

Obviously, groups should play the way they want to play. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s what they should be doing even if it means that certain games are poor fits for them. However, even if it wasn’t intentional, it feels like you were set up for failure.

 

[Campbell]

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.

I will have more on this later, but I personally think this is a recipe for disaster and involves ignoring about half the text in the game. PF2 is not PF1. It's a game that requires a good deal of applied GM judgement. The game is fairly up front about it. The GM and your GM are incredibly common phrases throughout the entire game. The game expects you to tailor the experience.

Also that would drive me crazy as a GM and I would quit on principle.

 

[Retreater]

I will have more on this later, but I personally think this is a recipe for disaster and involves ignoring about half the text in the game. PF2 is not PF1. It's a game that requires a good deal of applied GM judgement. The game is fairly up front about it. The GM and your GM are incredibly common phrases throughout the entire game. The game expects you to tailor the experience.

Also that would drive me crazy as a GM and I would quit on principle.

But jeez, it is difficult to alter it during the game. I've had to program everything in advance onto a VTT (where the module isn't available to purchase). You can't put in new encounter maps and create new encounters on the fly. Editing the attack macros is a chore.

Moreover, when there's a hazard designed to one-shot a PC with an instant-death effect, what tailoring can you do? Switch out the hazard with another spell? Take it out entirely? Drop the DCs by 10 (which would make it survivable at the level)? Where is this information located - in the GMG? (To me, that would be a lot more useful than the recipe outlines that were linked here.)

 

[kenada]

But jeez, it is difficult to alter it during the game. I've had to program everything in advance onto a VTT (where the module isn't available to purchase). You can't put in new encounter maps and create new encounters on the fly. Editing the attack macros is a chore.

That’s rough. Do you need that level of fidelity?

We use roll20, but I don’t do anything more than make the map and set up the walls. We use Hero Lab Online to handle the mechanics, but the roll20-based character sheet can be flipped to NPC mode for doing creature stat blocks. I used that prior to our switching.

Alternately, if you haven’t invested in roll20, there are other VTTs with better PF2 support. People seem to like Foundry. There’s another, but I can’t remember the name off hand.

You’d still need to set up the content, though someone has redone the maps in Dungeondraft. I’m not really familiar with it, so I don’t know what that entails. However, I am considering a switch myself.

Moreover, when there's a hazard designed to one-shot a PC with an instant-death effect, what tailoring can you do? Switch out the hazard with another spell? Take it out entirely? Drop the DCs by 10 (which would make it survivable at the level)? Where is this information located - in the GMG? (To me, that would be a lot more useful than the recipe outlines that were linked here.)

The “Building Hazards” section of the has guidelines for building hazards. Just use the numbers from a couple of levels lower if you want to weaken a hazard.

 

[Campbell]

I do not really use prepared maps like that when I run on virtual table tops. I use flowchart dungeon maps and just draw out stuff as it becomes relevant much like I would with a Chessex battle map and marker in person. I also do not use macros or anything like that. I have only run PF2 in person, but when I ran Lancer (which is just as tactical) I would make on the fly adjustments on a regular basis (based on fictional positioning).

I am definitely the wrong person to ask when it comes to more linear adventures though. I am thoroughly of the Don't Prep Plots style of running a game. I have utilized APs in the past, but not like with the objective to play through them.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

Can you stream/record your game? And/Or upload your group's character sheets?

 

[Retreater]

Alternately, if you haven’t invested in roll20, there are other VTTs with better PF2 support. People seem to like Foundry. There’s another, but I can’t remember the name off hand.

I've pretty much gone all-in with Roll20. Due to technical differences with our players, a browser based VTT was really the only option. The PF2 support has been fairly underwhelming, but it's improving at least. It's just not there for Age of Ashes. It would honestly be easier for me to create my own adventures than run AoA on Roll20, but the group wants to stick with it.

You’d still need to set up the content, though someone has redone the maps in Dungeondraft. I’m not really familiar with it, so I don’t know what that entails. However, I am considering a switch myself.

The maps haven't been too hard. I just screen capture the map from the PDF and line up the grid. It takes a few minutes and isn't practical to do during the game. Making other maps on the spur of the moment is another issue, though.

The main problem is putting in all the unique and new monsters not in the Bestiary. That takes me hours to do to prep a module.

do not really use prepared maps like that when I run on virtual table tops. I use flowchart dungeon maps and just draw out stuff as it becomes relevant much like I would with a Chessex battle map and marker in person. I also do not use macros or anything like that. I have only run PF2 in person, but when I ran Lancer (which is just as tactical) I would make on the fly adjustments on a regular basis (based on fictional positioning).

I have a very tactical group (whether they are good at it is a different conversation). They absolutely want maps with their PF2.

am definitely the wrong person to ask when it comes to more linear adventures though. I am thoroughly of the Don't Prep Plots style of running a game. I have utilized APs in the past, but not like with the objective to play through them.

Yes. I agree when I'm running other games (I have two other active campaigns). This is sort of the outlier to me.

Can you stream/record your game? And/Or upload your group's character sheets?

I don't think they'd be comfortable with me recording a session. But I might be able to figure out how to screen capture the character sheets and post after work. (I don't think they can be downloaded from Roll20.)

 

[!DWolf]

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.

Like Fire, adventure paths and rules make good servants but poor masters.

I think your players have placed you in a bad situation: they want the game played in a specific way without houserules/interpretations but you need those things to run it successfully because the specific way they want is not how it is intended to be played: not a single pathfinder GM I know has tried running an AP the way your players want it and I’m sure most of them would say no to running it that way because it wouldn’t be fun for them. Personally, I love the old-school exploration and puzzle solving aspect of the game so cutting those out in favor of an endless stream of combats would just kill it for me. And if you look at the Paizo boards for the Age of Ashes, you will quickly see that most (all?) of the GMs there aren’t trying to run it like that either. And if most pathfinder GMs don’t/won’t run it that way, then how can it be a “real” experience?

And I’m 100% percent sure that the “real” pathfinder experience doesn’t leave the GM miserable. GMs are playing the game too, and they should be having fun as well. If you aren’t, and it sounds like you aren’t, then you need sit down and have a talk to your players about it.

Sidenote: I’m not involved with society, but I’m pretty sure they have a special “campaign mode” for running APs that gives them a lot more leeway in how they run things.

 

[kenada]

I've pretty much gone all-in with Roll20. Due to technical differences with our players, a browser based VTT was really the only option. The PF2 support has been fairly underwhelming, but it's improving at least. It's just not there for Age of Ashes. It would honestly be easier for me to create my own adventures than run AoA on Roll20, but the group wants to stick with it.

That’s fair. I can understand not wanting to migrate to another tool, especially if you’ve sunk a lot of time into setting up content in the corrent one.

For what it’s worth, it appears I was wrong. I looked at the PF2 community module, and it appears to have AoA content. I’m talking to some people in another community about Foundry and asked them if they knew. (I won’t be able to verify myself until if/when I purchase a license and deploy it.)

Update: I was told by someone who uses Foundry that all the AP material is there, and new material shows up within a week or so of its release. There’s a module that will turn your official PDF into maps with pre-configured walls and notes. Anyway, just an FYI and correcting myself for anyone else reading this.

The maps haven't been too hard. I just screen capture the map from the PDF and line up the grid. It takes a few minutes and isn't practical to do during the game. Making other maps on the spur of the moment is another issue, though.

The maps I use for ad hoc things are terrible scribbles. Last session the party encountered an injured brontosaurus. Everyone cracked up when they saw the horrible thing I was trying to pass off as the dinosaur.

 

[Retreater]

That’s fair. I can understand not wanting to migrate to another tool, especially if you’ve sunk a lot of time into setting up content in the corrent one.

For what it’s worth, it appears I was wrong. I looked at the PF2 community module, and it appears to have AoA content. I’m talking to some people in another community about Foundry and asked them if they knew. (I won’t be able to verify myself until if/when I purchase a license and deploy it.)

Update: I was told by someone who uses Foundry that all the AP material is there, and new material shows up within a week or so of its release. There’s a module that will turn your official PDF into maps with pre-configured walls and notes. Anyway, just an FYI and correcting myself for anyone else reading this.

Yes. Unfortunately, I think Roll20 is the only game in town that will work for us. Foundry (like Fantasy Grounds) requires installation on computers that half our players don't have access to. A browser-based VTT is the only thing that will work for us, and it seems Roll20 is likely the most supported option. Not to mention, I've already spent a couple hundred of dollars and 300+ hours into Roll20.