Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8292530" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’m not sure new being intuitive to new users is particularly germane here. If someone wants to run in a particular style that’s not the one described by the game’s core books (but can be made to work with the system), then they’re not likely to be a new user, and they’re going to have to go to external resources either way.I recommend allowing retreat because it is an easy release valve for the players. They can push, and the dungeon can react, and if things start looking really bad, they can back off and regroup. What I’m suggesting that the GM make retreat a viable option because it is in one’s interest as a GM that it be a viable option.I suggested the chase subsystem because it’s something that could possibly be known to a PF2 group (since it’s included in the GMG). Personally, I think it’s too clunky for retreat procedures. I’d advise just allowing the PCs to retreat and talking through any costs that could have, or using the <a href="https://oldschoolessentials.necroticgnome.com/srd/index.php/Evasion_and_Pursuit" target="_blank">procedure from B/X</a>, or whatever. In essence, the PCs say, “we want to retreat,” and you switch to an exploration activity where they end up somewhere safe (but the GM decides where).Otherwise, you have the situation you and [USER=42040]@Retreater[/USER] described on <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/looks-like-i-will-be-running-a-pf2e-game-in-a-few-weeks-suggestions.680292/page-2" target="_blank">page 2</a> where individual deaths are unlikely, but the risk of a TPK is higher. For AP play or in a story-driven campaign, TPKs are (usually) very undesirable. If GMs want to add a bit of dynamism to keep encounters interesting, then it’s in their interests to use techniques to help mitigate bad outcomes (like a TPK).</blockquote>

Verification