Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8104424" data-attributes="member: 70468">I think there are a couple of issues here. The first is the hazard. It just doesn’t sound like a very good setup. Even if we were using Proficiency Without Level or a totally different system like 5e, killing one of the PCs before things start doesn’t makes for a particularly good encounter. Maybe core PF2 is more vulnerable to a TPK in that situation, but it’s still a bad one regardless.The other one is intent and default assumptions. The only ones I think are safe to make is party size (4 characters), level (all the same) and equipment (appropriate for the former), and that they will work and fight together as a team. Assuming more than that would risk assuming my experiences as the default. It’s worth noting the CRB does touch on published adventures, saying that changing them is not just acceptable, it’s preferable. Consequently, ‘tweaking’ them to foreshadow danger seems like a reasonable thing to do.Now, if the problem is that the game just doesn’t teach you those things, then I agree. I’ve linked this article before here, but I’ll link it again: <a href="https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters" target="_blank">System Matters</a>. Games could do a much better job of teaching GMs how to run them properly. That’s probably why streaming is so important now as a way to get new people into the hobby. It provides a way to learn from someone else that can reach a much bigger audience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8104424, member: 70468"] I think there are a couple of issues here. The first is the hazard. It just doesn’t sound like a very good setup. Even if we were using Proficiency Without Level or a totally different system like 5e, killing one of the PCs before things start doesn’t makes for a particularly good encounter. Maybe core PF2 is more vulnerable to a TPK in that situation, but it’s still a bad one regardless. The other one is intent and default assumptions. The only ones I think are safe to make is party size (4 characters), level (all the same) and equipment (appropriate for the former), and that they will work and fight together as a team. Assuming more than that would risk assuming my experiences as the default. It’s worth noting the CRB does touch on published adventures, saying that changing them is not just acceptable, it’s preferable. Consequently, ‘tweaking’ them to foreshadow danger seems like a reasonable thing to do. Now, if the problem is that the game just doesn’t teach you those things, then I agree. I’ve linked this article before here, but I’ll link it again: [URL='https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters']System Matters[/URL]. Games could do a much better job of teaching GMs how to run them properly. That’s probably why streaming is so important now as a way to get new people into the hobby. It provides a way to learn from someone else that can reach a much bigger audience. [/QUOTE]

Verification