Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[Squire James]

My solution to the "15 minute workday" (which is more a play-style issue than a rules issue) is a combination of several things, each used when it seems appropriate. From most frequent to least frequent:

- If this isn't an "orc lair" scenario, make the first few encounters easy enough that resting after them will make the PC's feel rather foolish. There's nothing quite like using shame to change player behavior! On the other hand, some players are bored with easy encounters and obviously this approach won't work all the time.

- Make the next encounter abnormally difficult without adding monsters. A bit of "prep work" on the terrain work wonders. In the "orc lair" example, the PC's decide to rest, so the orcs build a barricade, dig a pit in front of the barricade (cover optional), and use more archers than normal.

- Just because the PC's rest, it doesn't mean the monsters rest. In the "orc lair" example, the orcs send a "brute squad" or two after the PC's. This can actually be used by the PC's as a tactic of sorts if they'd rather fight the monsters in the open and they aren't as hurt as they seem...

- Put the PC's "on the clock" a little. Some console RPG's use this mechanic to good effect, and I don't see why it won't work once in a while for tabletop RPG's. In the "orc lair" example, make it clear to the PC's somehow that the orc shaman recently got access to a demon-summoning ritual. If they retreat, they may be fighting a demon tomorrow! Of course, this only works if the demon is powerful enough to scare the PC's a little (party level +2 by itself, plus a shaman of party level, perhaps).

- There are several other ways to punish the group for their timid behaviors. Perhaps there's a big pile of treasure nearby, and someone else (friend or foe) will waltz in and get it if the PC's retreat and rest. Maybe the high-level orc chieftain is busy with his harem, and the PC's would have geeked him easily if they had interrupted him.

None of this is intended to be the "final" solution, because the root problem is likely that the players are not "invested" in your game enough to act "realistically". They need some motivation to enter into a risky situation, and sometimes you need to try to think "outside the box" to provide it. All the stuff above are "in the box" solutions that may or may not have occurred to you.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

None of this is intended to be the "final" solution, because the root problem is likely that the players are not "invested" in your game enough to act "realistically". They need some motivation to enter into a risky situation, and sometimes you need to try to think "outside the box" to provide it. All the stuff above are "in the box" solutions that may or may not have occurred to you.

Punishing players for behaving contrary to DM's wishes is something that occurs to most DMs, although hopefully most of them discard it.

If you have players wanting to rest to full after every combat at 15th level, this is a player issue.

Below 7th level or so, it's absolutely a rules issue.

Killing characters so that they behave irrationally and either hold back on their abilities (metagaming that "well, these are just the entry critters) or go on even after their abilities are expended ("those wandering monsters will kill us for sure, and maybe the set encounters will be survivable") isn't a solution in my mind.

A more balanced design -- which it sounds like both 4E and Pathfinder have agreed upon -- is the answer.

If you haven't encountered this as a "real" problem, have someone DM you and a standard-sized level 2 group through even a small dungeon, and have the DM do all the stuff you're suggesting. Either the DM has to rewrite the dungeon with sub-level 2 threats, you're going to stop and rest, or your characters will suffer a lot of casualties.

 

[Wicht]

That's been my problem with this whole process. Pathfinder fans (and, frankly, even some of the Pathfinder team) have come across as suggesting that not all feedback is equal.

I believe it was Erik Mona who at one point came out and said that they were aiming for a certain market and if you had a problem with Alignment and Vancian Magic, you were not the target audience and would not like the end result. (He might have used other specifics but that was the gist). Which translates I think into the reality that those who have the biggest problems with 3e are going to end up not liking Pathfinder RPG and those who advocate radical overhauls of the basic system are going to be the ones least likely to be listened to.

 

[Squire James]

Hm... the dangers of an off-topic post I guess... the discussion has moved on while composing the post! I promise I'll move closer to the topic... somewhat.

I'm still giving 4e a workout, so no Pathfinder RPG for me (though I'll look at it in case I want to justify all those 3.5e books I still have). Paizo's still getting my money for their Pathfinder modules anyway, so no loss there.

My main problem is that those mags are coming out FAR faster than we're playing them. I guess it didn't help that we played Savage Tide until 4e came out (the campaign petered out when it came time to make deals with all those demons... their heart just wasn't in it and I was getting high-levelitus as a DM). Now I'm sitting here looking at my recent conversion of the Haunted House from issue 2, then looking at issue 13 that arrived in the mail recently, and thinking "will 5e come out before we get to play this?".

 

[Treebore]

Hm... the dangers of an off-topic post I guess... the discussion has moved on while composing the post! I promise I'll move closer to the topic... somewhat.

I'm still giving 4e a workout, so no Pathfinder RPG for me (though I'll look at it in case I want to justify all those 3.5e books I still have). Paizo's still getting my money for their Pathfinder modules anyway, so no loss there.

My main problem is that those mags are coming out FAR faster than we're playing them. I guess it didn't help that we played Savage Tide until 4e came out (the campaign petered out when it came time to make deals with all those demons... their heart just wasn't in it and I was getting high-levelitus as a DM). Now I'm sitting here looking at my recent conversion of the Haunted House from issue 2, then looking at issue 13 that arrived in the mail recently, and thinking "will 5e come out before we get to play this?".

Face it, your a module collector. So am I, and I'm glad I am. Besides, with the quality of the PAthfinder modules they are a pleasure to read in their own right.

 

[drothgery]

Punishing players for behaving contrary to DM's wishes is something that occurs to most DMs, although hopefully most of them discard it.

If you have players wanting to rest to full after every combat at 15th level, this is a player issue.

Below 7th level or so, it's absolutely a rules issue.

Following on to this point...

Allow me to re-iterate, once again, that groups where the PCs have a 15-minute (or one combat encounter, really) adventuring day all the time are few and far between above very low levels in 3.x. It seems like a lot of people are saying "15 minute adventuring days aren't a problem because my group didn't do that all the time". And that's true of most of us who think 15-minute adventuring days are a problem, too, I think.

It's more that PCs stop and rest when they don't think they can survive another tough encounter. Which means if the first combat encounter of the day uses a lot of daily resources -- either by accident (the guards on the orc lair were really tough) or design (scry/buff/teleporting the BBEG), they'll call it a day unless they're 'on the clock'. And you can't use a 'ticking clock' scenario too often without it being contrived.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I believe it was Erik Mona who at one point came out and said that they were aiming for a certain market and if you had a problem with Alignment and Vancian Magic, you were not the target audience and would not like the end result. (He might have used other specifics but that was the gist). Which translates I think into the reality that those who have the biggest problems with 3e are going to end up not liking Pathfinder RPG and those who advocate radical overhauls of the basic system are going to be the ones least likely to be listened to.

I haven't seen anyone really complaining about alignment or Vancian magic. Folks are getting shouted down for lots of other things, though.

I worry that the Pathfinder guys are mistaking a loud minority as speaking for everyone. They're smart guys, but it's an easy mistake to make.

 

[Sunderstone]

It's not a mental problem for low level parties heavy on casters. Either they're combat-ready, or they're not. It's a mental problem in the same way that someone can be "a little pregnant" -- for those affected by it, it's very real.

.

Most tpk posts in obituary threads support the theory of a "balanced" party being a better choice than a group heavy on just casters.
So it's kind of a problem on the players side, not the games fault. These games are usually written for a balanced group.

Is it a mental problem? Only if the group feels like an unbalanced party will get very far.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Allow me to re-iterate, once again, that groups where the PCs have a 15-minute (or one combat encounter, really) adventuring day all the time are few and far between above very low levels in 3.x. It seems like a lot of people are saying "15 minute adventuring days aren't a problem because my group didn't do that all the time". And that's true of most of us who think 15-minute adventuring days are a problem, too, I think.

It's more that PCs stop and rest when they don't think they can survive another tough encounter. Which means if the first combat encounter of the day uses a lot of daily resources -- either by accident (the guards on the orc lair were really tough) or design (scry/buff/teleporting the BBEG), they'll call it a day unless they're 'on the clock'. And you can't use a 'ticking clock' scenario too often without it being contrived.

The mechanics of the game are ignorant of motive.

The "per day" mechanics-- and DMs who defend them-- paint players who rest after the first encounter because they want to and players who rest after the first encounter because they have to with the same broad brush.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Most tpk posts in obituary threads support the theory of a "balanced" party being a better choice than a group heavy on just casters.
So it's kind of a problem on the players side, not the games fault. These games are usually written for a balanced group.

Is it a mental problem? Only if the group feels like an unbalanced party will get very far.

I humbly suggest that any game that breaks unless players do X, Y and Z every time is not a game with the sort of flexibility and expansive nature that RPGs are said to have.

I'm not talking about a group that's made up of cloistered clerics wandering into the Tomb of Horrors. There needs to be more give in the system than saying "well, of course you died, you didn't have a cleric!"

That goes for any game. Even 4E's explicitly role-based system is better, since the "leader" role can be taken on by clerics or warlords (and soon, other classes), and they play quite differently, which means that someone at the table doesn't "lose" and is forced to play the cleric in order for the game not to break.