Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8155363" data-attributes="member: 70468"><p>I have a similar issue with PF2 (and modern systems in general), but it’s the opposite side of that same coin. I look at it this way. If you’re balancing challenges out to an appropriate level of difficulty, then all you’ve done is recreate the experience of those percentile tables from old-school D&D with a lot more indirection. Bleh. Fie to that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It kind of goes both ways when official adventures get trotted out in a discussion regarding other ways of playing the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>“Sandbox” often gets taken to mean some kind of *crawl, but it’s a bit broader than that. A sandbox is a game where the PCs make decisions, and what happens next follows from the consequences of those decisions. Basically, you generally start with a world in a status quo, and then you inject the PCs.</p><p></p><p>I’d argue that an adventure like <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/270795/Winters-Daughter-OldSchool-Version" target="_blank">Winter’s Daughter</a> is a sandbox because it doesn’t prescribe any particular narrative direction. Aside from the hook serving as a default action for the PCs, it doesn’t prescribe any particular outcome. Due to how it’s structured, <em>something</em> will come of it, but what exactly is left open (to be answered by playing through the adventure).</p><p></p><p>If that seems like a stretch, consider a campaign where the PCs arrive in town. There are several in proximity, and they all have problems needing to be solved. As time goes by, the problems will get worse. As they solve problems, they’ll get stronger by nature of not having been solved quickly enough. This still isn’t a crawl, but it’s a sandbox because how and what gets solved comes down to the decisions the PCs make.</p><p></p><p>I mention “getting worse” just as a way to keep things in step with PF2’s default power curve. For example, one town has problems with bandits. The town is especially worried because they’ve seen an ogre with the bandits. Eventually, if nothing is done, the ogre will call for help from other ogres, and the ogres will take over the bandits, and now you have a bunch of marauding ogres threatening the town. The bandits aren’t all killed by the ogres, so now they’re potentially a faction you can enlist to help fight the ogres, but the town’s not going to like that. What do you do?</p><p></p><p>How all that gets solved comes down to what approach the PCs take. That’s if they even bother. They could prefer hanging out in the dragon hotsprings or going after undead instead. As a rule of thumb, if you could run two parties through the same scenario and get wildly different results (differing beyond the details), then you might have a sandbox.</p><p></p><p>As for a traditional *crawl, I think you can do it as long as you use Proficiency Without Level. The reason isn’t to make higher level monsters easier but to allow lower level ones to stay relevant longer. If you’re just setting up a map for PCs to explore, they’ll eventually get more powerful, and dealing with new areas that were created with lower-level threats would feel boring if those threats aren’t worth anything. However, it might be possible to to keep the standard power curve and emphasize henchman and sidekicks as a way of keeping those lower level areas interesting.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, if the claim is that PF2 doesn’t have a lot to say on running a sandbox or provide tools for that, then that’s true, but that’s true of 5e and most other modern systems. You end up having to lean pretty heavily on techniques shared by GMs because that stuff just doesn’t get put in books anymore. I can’t comment on older ones that did (beyond my familiarity with OSE), but I expect there wasn’t much more than the procedure to go by (so no advice either).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’d say yes to “extra-special” but not necessarily to focusing on challenge. I think a set piece battle focuses more on creating dramatic moments and setting up the PCs to do cool things. If you have a swashbuckler, then there will be chandeliers to swing from. That kind of thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’d suggest just ignoring whatever is suggesting that and let the PCs be smart and get their advantage. It may “break” the adventure, but that doesn’t really matter as long as everyone is having fun.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8155363, member: 70468"] I have a similar issue with PF2 (and modern systems in general), but it’s the opposite side of that same coin. I look at it this way. If you’re balancing challenges out to an appropriate level of difficulty, then all you’ve done is recreate the experience of those percentile tables from old-school D&D with a lot more indirection. Bleh. Fie to that. It kind of goes both ways when official adventures get trotted out in a discussion regarding other ways of playing the game. “Sandbox” often gets taken to mean some kind of *crawl, but it’s a bit broader than that. A sandbox is a game where the PCs make decisions, and what happens next follows from the consequences of those decisions. Basically, you generally start with a world in a status quo, and then you inject the PCs. I’d argue that an adventure like [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/270795/Winters-Daughter-OldSchool-Version']Winter’s Daughter[/URL] is a sandbox because it doesn’t prescribe any particular narrative direction. Aside from the hook serving as a default action for the PCs, it doesn’t prescribe any particular outcome. Due to how it’s structured, [I]something[/I] will come of it, but what exactly is left open (to be answered by playing through the adventure). If that seems like a stretch, consider a campaign where the PCs arrive in town. There are several in proximity, and they all have problems needing to be solved. As time goes by, the problems will get worse. As they solve problems, they’ll get stronger by nature of not having been solved quickly enough. This still isn’t a crawl, but it’s a sandbox because how and what gets solved comes down to the decisions the PCs make. I mention “getting worse” just as a way to keep things in step with PF2’s default power curve. For example, one town has problems with bandits. The town is especially worried because they’ve seen an ogre with the bandits. Eventually, if nothing is done, the ogre will call for help from other ogres, and the ogres will take over the bandits, and now you have a bunch of marauding ogres threatening the town. The bandits aren’t all killed by the ogres, so now they’re potentially a faction you can enlist to help fight the ogres, but the town’s not going to like that. What do you do? How all that gets solved comes down to what approach the PCs take. That’s if they even bother. They could prefer hanging out in the dragon hotsprings or going after undead instead. As a rule of thumb, if you could run two parties through the same scenario and get wildly different results (differing beyond the details), then you might have a sandbox. As for a traditional *crawl, I think you can do it as long as you use Proficiency Without Level. The reason isn’t to make higher level monsters easier but to allow lower level ones to stay relevant longer. If you’re just setting up a map for PCs to explore, they’ll eventually get more powerful, and dealing with new areas that were created with lower-level threats would feel boring if those threats aren’t worth anything. However, it might be possible to to keep the standard power curve and emphasize henchman and sidekicks as a way of keeping those lower level areas interesting. Anyway, if the claim is that PF2 doesn’t have a lot to say on running a sandbox or provide tools for that, then that’s true, but that’s true of 5e and most other modern systems. You end up having to lean pretty heavily on techniques shared by GMs because that stuff just doesn’t get put in books anymore. I can’t comment on older ones that did (beyond my familiarity with OSE), but I expect there wasn’t much more than the procedure to go by (so no advice either). I’d say yes to “extra-special” but not necessarily to focusing on challenge. I think a set piece battle focuses more on creating dramatic moments and setting up the PCs to do cool things. If you have a swashbuckler, then there will be chandeliers to swing from. That kind of thing. I’d suggest just ignoring whatever is suggesting that and let the PCs be smart and get their advantage. It may “break” the adventure, but that doesn’t really matter as long as everyone is having fun. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
Top