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

[kenada]

I should also add that if we’re talking about sandboxes in general, then the only thing they need is for the PCs to decide what happens next. Once they’ve made that decision, the encounters can be curated appropriately if that’s what one wants. OSR and sandbox play get conflated, but that’s not necessarily the case (e.g., Scum and Villainy is a sandbox game, and it is definitely not an OSR game).

 

[Thomas Shey]

That’s only going to be an issue if one wants curated combats, but that strikes me as at odds with running an old-school sandbox. The whole point in an old-school sandbox is the PCs decide what to do next, which won’t necessarily be tuned to their capabilities.

Yeah, but at that point it really behooves you to have a system that's got a fair bit of give in what kind of opposition a given party can deal with. For all of its deadliness under some circumstances, that was true with OD&D, partly because there was a great degree of practical compression with levels; there wasn't a dramatic difference between a 4th level fighter and a 6th level or a 5th level mage and a 7th level one, so a there was a wider range of opposition they could potentially deal with. This was also partly true because, honestly, you could play a long damn time without getting more than a few levels.

This didn't mean you couldn't get in over your head--especially outdoors, you had to manage signals pretty carefully to make sure the PCs realized what kind of problem they were potentially walking into in some cases if you didn't want a high TPK risk--but it did make it much more likely a slightly underpowered party could just slog through.

Other games often have compressed enough power scales that similar things apply; you not only don't need to be cautious about matching ability to opposition, its kind of pointless.

I can’t think of any off the top of my head that do tactical combat the way 4e and PF2 do. Aside from the general dislike of 4e, I think the approach common in OSR games tends towards strategic play rather than tactical. Combat is supposed to be a failure state after all.

That was my understanding too, but I try not to overgeneralize regarding systems and system types I'm only modestly familiar with.

(And as an aside, it doesn't necessarily have to be exactly the approach that 4e and PF2e do; there are games outside the D&D-sphere I'm fine with, but arguably to the degree you can compare them to ones inside the D&D sphere, they're more like the two you mention than any older version of D&D or any of the modern reimaginations of same).

It doesn’t help that we had a past GM who was a major a—— about tactics in combat. It’s difficult to teach or nudge the group towards better play because we had the bad experience and one doesn’t want to be that guy.

Believe me, I'm all too aware how much scar tissue (as my wife calls it) is a thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I should also add that if we’re talking about sandboxes in general, then the only thing they need is for the PCs to decide what happens next. Once they’ve made that decision, the encounters can be curated appropriately if that’s what one wants. OSR and sandbox play get conflated, but that’s not necessarily the case (e.g., Scum and Villainy is a sandbox game, and it is definitely not an OSR game).

The problem with doing that is, at least in my experience in the past, to make sandbox-type games flow you have to be able to at least sometimes generate opposition on the fly. That's harder to do with a heavily curated approach and still make things make sense.

 

[kenada]

The problem with doing that is, at least in my experience in the past, to make sandbox-type games flow you have to be able to at least sometimes generate opposition on the fly. That's harder to do with a heavily curated approach and still make things make sense.

The guidelines for building encounters in Pathfinder 2e work pretty well. I’d feel comfortable improvising an encounter if I had to. The way budgeting works means you could have some templates (e.g., a moderate-threat patrol with a captain might be a −1 and a couple of −2s) and just plug in the appropriate creatures when you need them. If you don’t have creatures of the right level, that can be a pain, but one can use the tables in the “Building Creatures” section of the GMG to scale what you want to the right level.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The guidelines for building encounters in Pathfinder 2e work pretty well. I’d feel comfortable improvising an encounter if I had to. The way budgeting works means you could have some templates (e.g., a moderate-threat patrol with a captain might be a −1 and a couple of −2s) and just plug in the appropriate creatures when you need them. If you don’t have creatures of the right level, that can be a pain, but one can use the tables in the “Building Creatures” section of the GMG to scale what you want to the right level.

Your latter case is what I was thinking of, and the issue is there's still going to be a lag while I do that. I was kind of used to being able to plug-and-go.

Spoiled, maybe.

 

[CapnZapp]

Combat is supposed to be a failure state after all.

I would say that in the case of D&D-like games combat is definitely a reward and not a penalty.

Everything you want out of your session stems from combat: excitement, challenge, experience points and loot.

Obviously many non-combat activities can be great fun too, but let's not pretend D&D games are published with combat as "a state of failure" in mind.

Many games have a far better claim to that, but even in these combat is commonly a success state if not for the characters, then for the players.

I can only think of a very small set of games where combat even approaches a true state of failure.

But back to D&D: everything is centered around combat. Every class is combat capable and easily 99% of published adventures feature combat, and I don't mean as punishment. Not to speak of the endless adventures that consist of nearly nothing else!

Best regards

 

[Retreater]

I would say that in the case of D&D-like games combat is definitely a reward and not a penalty.

Was @kenada referring to OSR versions of D&D, where you get XP for loot and not many resources for dealing with combat? In those editions, combat could be seen as a fail state when stealth, negotiation, or other measures failed.
But I agree with you: in practice many of my players like to fight, and it takes only one hothead to force the party's hand into combat.

 

[kenada]

Your latter case is what I was thinking of, and the issue is there's still going to be a lag while I do that. I was kind of used to being able to plug-and-go.

Spoiled, maybe.

That’s fair. Unless you have the tables nicely laid out, it’s not practical to use them on the fly, so there would be a bit of downtime. One way to mitigate that is to ask the PCs where they are going next at the end of the session, so you can have stuff ready (even if it’s just converted monsters). I actually give XP for that. If they accomplish their goal, the party gets XP. In PF2, one could make that a moderate or even major accomplishment.

 

[kenada]

I would say that in the case of D&D-like games combat is definitely a reward and not a penalty.

You’re assuming trad play, but that’s not what’s being discussed. @Retreater is right, I’m talking about old-school sandboxes (or, rather, OSR play). In that style of game, encounters aren’t designed with the capabilities of the PCs in mind. Newer ones are emphatic about that.

For example, ENNIE-nominated adventure Halls of the Blood King is for character levels 3 to 5, but it notes as the very beginning:

This adventure is suitable for PCs of 3rd to 5th level. Note that, as an adventure in the old-school style, not all encounters are intended to be balanced to the PCs’ capabilities. Judicious use of stealth, parley, and trickery are to be encouraged, in place of blindly rushing into combat.

Many of the creatures you’ll encounter are 3*–4* HD. The guests they’ll meet are 7** HD or more. The adventure also has a time limit. This isn’t Curse of Strahd where the tracks are carefully laid to a climatic encounter with the main villain. If the PCs want to win (whatever they consider a win), they’re going to have to be clever about it. Getting into a fight, especially a fair fight, is indeed a failure state.

One issue that Pathfinder 2e has with this style is that it just doesn’t work very well with attrition. With enough time, the PCs can heal up fully from any fight (no matter how foolishly picked). You can try to apply time pressure, but that doesn’t work well as a general approach in my experience. For example, taking a little bit of damage in a fight is trivially healed at almost no cost.

I mentioned it in your threat on healing, but I’ll repeat it here: the system strain mechanic from SWN/WWN does a good job of balancing access to healing with making that have a cost. Healing wouldn’t be any less accessible (in fact, I’d just let them Treat Wounds as much as they wanted at the end of combat), but you could only take so much before you had to stop and rest.

 

[kenada]

But I agree with you: in practice many of my players like to fight, and it takes only one hothead to force the party's hand into combat.

That strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Not every style is going to resonate with every player. In fact, knowing that helps you target your game at your group’s interests.