Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8106861" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’m not reading it that way, but I’m also not on the receiving end of the argument. I don’t want to invalidate your experience, so I’ll just leave it at that.I think it’s a recurring theme that PF2 suffers for not teaching GMs how to run the game. It’s obvious from these battle reports that it’s making some assumptions that aren’t shared across the groups that run or play them, and that’s causing problems.I can pick up and run a copy of OSE for my group, and we know we’re doing the dungeons correctly because it tells us exactly how that works. Wandering monsters and even evasion are built into the rules. If I just follow the rules, we’ll have the intended experience. Moreover, I don’t need to fall back on my existing experience to know what to do.Or I could pick up a copy of Apocalypse World and just run it. The game is pretty explicit about your agenda and principles, and it uses those to tie together its mechanics. If I follow the rules as the MC (and that is expected because winging it is cheating), then we’ll have the intended experience.For whatever reason, modern games just assume people know how to run a dungeon. They’ll talk about dungeons and their contexts in adventure, but they usually don’t drill down into the nuts and bolts of taking the various systems and making them function together at the table.That’s why people assume that some form of railroading is the default in a story-driven game, or how people can pick up PF2 and get completely obliterated  by the difficulty. I was looking at some of the posts in the official Age of Ashes forum, and some people were like: yeah, we’ve already had a couple of TPKs. Like that’s a matter of fact normal thing that happens. I run combat hard and have my share of deaths and TPKs, but I wouldn’t consider any of that just a matter of course.</blockquote>

Verification