Pathfinder 2E Looks like I will be running a PF2e game in a few weeks...suggestions?

[Retreater]

Another thing about the APs is you really need to read them in their entirety to successfully run them. You dont need to memorize every map and NPC per say, but you should definitely be familiar with the adventure synopsis of all parts. Some folks fall in the trap of thinking they can go module to module and the APs dont work like grandpappy's modules of the 80's and 90's do.

Which is kinda not helpful if you're starting with a new AP and have to wait 6 months to get that last volume.
I am in the position to be able to read through all of Abomination Vaults, and I have at least skimmed all of it.
PF APs definitely aren't for the inexperienced GM. Of all the ones I've seen so far for PF2, I think Abomination Vaults is the most newbie friendly.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm still on the fence if large dungeons are out of the wheelhouse of PF2. Easy access to rests, full heals between combats, a town within 15 minutes, etc, all makes it feel video gamey. You have an exciting skirmish (combat as sport) then move on to the next, with little impact in story or your characters' abilities.

I 100% agree with this about how this dungeon feels a bit “low-stakes” and “videogamey”.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's also presented as no clear villains or masterplan (or plot). For me, as the GM, I could read ahead to the end of the 3rd volume, try to figure out what's going on, and then figure out how to present that to the party. I can't help but think that the AP was written without an end goal in mind, whereas the mega-dungeon that I am writing for the OSR incorporates the villain in the history throughout the dungeon, and he makes his presence known on the surface world, giving the party a real reason to challenge him. I'm definitely no James Jacobs, but I feel this is mega-dungeon design 101.

There is an expression in French “no one is expected to do the impossible”. By which I mean, as a DM, you are already expected to do a ton of work, and most of the people here have families and lives that preclude them from spending too much time rewriting a module to give the party a solid motivation to explore the dungeon.

 

[payn]

Which is kinda not helpful if you're starting with a new AP and have to wait 6 months to get that last volume.

It's less of a problem as the years roll on, but yeah early in the edition cycle its a PITA.

 

[Retreater]

I 100% agree with this about how this dungeon feels a bit “low-stakes” and “videogamey”.

I suppose it is up to the GM to bring the excitement. That's something I've been hesitant to do since my last attempt at GMing PF2 had 3 TPKs in 6 sessions. It's really such a tightly constructed system that attempting to combine encounters, deny access to healing by increasing the pace, etc., can completely break the system (as I've witnessed firsthand, regretfully).
It seems almost that you must play a certain way or the system just collapses. So the only wiggle room is for the GM and players to make their own excitement and bring their own drama and stakes, which is an extra layer of illusion on top of the fantasy of the game itself. If that makes sense.

 

[payn]

I suppose it is up to the GM to bring the excitement. That's something I've been hesitant to do since my last attempt at GMing PF2 had 3 TPKs in 6 sessions. It's really such a tightly constructed system that attempting to combine encounters, deny access to healing by increasing the pace, etc., can completely break the system (as I've witnessed firsthand, regretfully).
It seems almost that you must play a certain way or the system just collapses. So the only wiggle room is for the GM and players to make their own excitement and bring their own drama and stakes, which is an extra layer of illusion on top of the fantasy of the game itself. If that makes sense.

You maybe trying to put old school playstyle to the test in FP2 here, and its designed specifically not to play that way. 5E is much more flexible, but thats just another reason Paizo went in the direction they did to say Pathfinder is not 5E. The fact that a TPK is far more likely than PC death shows how far into combat as sport the game really is.

 

[CapnZapp]

But perhaps most importantly it's that the story doesn't really matter to the AP. It's not pertinent to the combats, doesn't provide motivation for the exploration. It's just background of what happened in the dungeon in the past. (At least as far as I've read - basically the first book and half of the second.) I have a strong suspicion it will come to be important, but by the time it does, that's going to be 6-7 levels of experience later (and several months of play).

It's also presented as no clear villains or masterplan (or plot). For me, as the GM, I could read ahead to the end of the 3rd volume, try to figure out what's going on, and then figure out how to present that to the party. I can't help but think that the AP was written without an end goal in mind, whereas the mega-dungeon that I am writing for the OSR incorporates the villain in the history throughout the dungeon, and he makes his presence known on the surface world, giving the party a real reason to challenge him. I'm definitely no James Jacobs, but I feel this is mega-dungeon design 101.

Spoiler

The villain awaits you at the end of the adventure path, just like every adventure path I've seen. You should be lucky if the story writes in even a single appearance from the BBEG before the end combat (this did not happen in Extinction Curse).

This AP was written by a single author (Jacobs) so "written without an end goal" is not correct.

However, the journey is the destination. You need to be motivated to go down a dungeon to have exciting fights and loot.

The "end goal" is simply to have fun while playing the game.

 

[Retreater]

You maybe trying to put old school playstyle to the test in FP2 here, and its designed specifically not to play that way. 5E is much more flexible, but thats just another reason Paizo went in the direction they did to say Pathfinder is not 5E. The fact that a TPK is far more likely than PC death shows how far into combat as sport the game really is.

I agree, which is why I try to run close to "by the book" as possible. Still, I think that combats can feel more like scrimmage matches than battles with consequences. Some of this is from my playtesting mentality that I have acquired over the past couple of years.
I'd also say that with Hero Points, a single PC death is impossible (but TPKs are far more likely.)
However, as long as folks are having fun, I'm happy to run it. I'll only be concerned if the players get bored thinking "this is just another fight that doesn't matter."

 

[Retreater]

This AP was written by a single author (Jacobs) so "written without an end goal" is not correct.

Not true. Volume 2 was written by Vanessa Hoskins and Volume 3 by Stephen Radney-MacFarland. Jacobs may have overseen all of it, but he is credited as the author only in the 1st volume.

 

[payn]

I agree, which is why I try to run close to "by the book" as possible. Still, I think that combats can feel more like scrimmage matches than battles with consequences. Some of this is from my playtesting mentality that I have acquired over the past couple of years.
I'd also say that with Hero Points, a single PC death is impossible (but TPKs are far more likely.)
However, as long as folks are having fun, I'm happy to run it. I'll only be concerned if the players get bored thinking "this is just another fight that doesn't matter."

To you something is fishy here, there are bugs in the system. To others the systems features are working as intended. I had some reservations during the playtest and wanted to take a second shot. I like PF2, but still prefer PF1. If I ever ran PF2 id toss in a number of variant rules.