Amount of combat in APs

[Sporkedup]

Just kind of a general question as to what exists, what people prefer, and so forth.

I know with the release of PF2, the rules have codified experience gains for completing important non-combat things. I'm currently running Age of Ashes, and there are definitely some major additions of experience (and even a full level at one or two points!) that don't involve combat at all. However, early on this AP feels awfully grindy, book 1 in particular.

I'm just trying, I guess, to take the temperature of what is considered a healthy balance in an AP for combat. There is never enough space to include lots of encounters, potential encounters, and plots/characters to fill in the space always. Do you prefer the books lean more heavily towards combat and let the parties fill in the blanks with more roleplaying shenanigans (or even avoid those, depending on the makeup of the table)? Or do you prefer adventures that offer you plots and characters galore, but possibly lacking in fleshed-out dungeons or frequent combat encounters?

Extinction Curse, in my cursory read-through of the first four books, surprised me a bit by being as combat-heavy as it is. I expected more investigation or roleplay-based progression. Now I assume Agents of Edgewatch will be more heavily leaned towards investigation, exploration, problem-solving, and so forth. But I could be wrong...

What do you think? Do you think APs should be built heavier in the world and lighter in combat, or heavier in combat with a plot built around them? I'm sure this discussion has been had plenty of times before but I couldn't snag any solid discussions.

[Gorbacz]

We're in D&D land, combat-heavy adventures are the baseline expected by the player base.

There are many other RPGs that are less combat-oriented and you walk into them expecting fewer fights and more narrative, but Pathfinder isn't one of them.

[Sporkedup]

Gorbacz wrote:

We're in D&D land, combat-heavy adventures are the baseline expected by the player base.

There are many other RPGs that are less combat-oriented and you walk into them expecting fewer fights and more narrative, but Pathfinder isn't one of them.

I mean, I get that... But there are a ton of APs written and being written, and some of those can be less combat-directed, right? I personally love combat-heavy but just because this is a classic D20 combat game doesn't mean it's constrained to being heavily based around combat always, right?

[Gorbacz]

Sporkedup wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

We're in D&D land, combat-heavy adventures are the baseline expected by the player base.

There are many other RPGs that are less combat-oriented and you walk into them expecting fewer fights and more narrative, but Pathfinder isn't one of them.

I mean, I get that... But there are a ton of APs written and being written, and some of those can be less combat-directed, right? I personally love combat-heavy but just because this is a classic D20 combat game doesn't mean it's constrained to being heavily based around combat always, right?

From the perspective of having played 50+ RPG systems, all Paizo APs are very-combat-heavy. Will likely continue to be, people come to play PF for crunchy wargamey combatiness, if they want an adventure with all roleplaying and one fight, there are games that cater better to that.

[Phntm888]

War for the Crown is heavier on social interactions than most APs, but even with that premise, the first book has a somewhat combat-heavy dungeon crawl at level 2, and has a combat-based rescue mission basically right after you get out of the dungeon crawl.

Paizo's AP line has been successful for a couple of reasons: 1) they tend to be very well-written adventures (allowing for some that aren't, either individual installments or entire adventure paths that seem lackluster), and 2) they don't require as much GM prep as homebrewing a campaign. That last one is a big selling point, especially if you work full-time and have any kid(s). To hit that second point, they need to have the combat encounters fleshed out enough that if they need to be modified (such as by having more or less than 4 players), it's easy to do so either on the fly or with very little time.

Writing an adventure for a generic party (as most Paizo APs are written for) requires making the adventure fun for all concepts. A Human Giant Instinct Barbarian named Ulrich the Bonecrusher, whose entire approach to social interaction is "scare people into doing what I want or kill them", needs to have just as many opportunities to shine in an AP as Alzig von Gunnderstadt, a Human Scoundrel Rogue who considers having to draw his weapon to be a form of failure. AP writers can't know what people are going to play, especially as the number of playable options increases, so since every class has ways to contribute in combat, they err on the side of heavier combat options with some more freeform social roleplay situations, giving both Ulrich and Alzig their moments in the spotlight.

Age of Ashes Book 1 is a dungeon crawl - it's going to be grindy. Agents of Edgewatch might have more non-combat scenarios, but the first book will likely still end with something similar to a dungeon crawl.

There are other systems that do a much better job of replicating heavy roleplay with little combat than Pathfinder. If you want something like that with Pathfinder, you're pretty much in the realm of either homebrewing your own campaign, or seeing if there's something third-party that might be what you're looking for.

[Zapp]

Sporkedup wrote:

Extinction Curse, in my cursory read-through of the first four books, surprised me a bit by being as combat-heavy as it is. I expected more investigation or roleplay-based progression. Now I assume Agents of Edgewatch will be more heavily leaned towards investigation, exploration, problem-solving, and so forth. But I could be wrong...

Based on the two APs released so far, everything suggests hardcore combat is the bread and butter of APs. There's no investigation to speak of (just follow the trail of breadcrumbs), and very little social interaction if you don't count talking to the quest-givers.

Maybe that will change in the future, but I wouldn't bank on it...

[Sporkedup]

Right. My ramblings are less about "can they make a combat-lite AP?" nd more about "how much should/do you prefer/will the APs focus around the combat?"

I love running dungeon crawls but they're also not pushing me much. I got the bug in the first part of Plaguestone, which I started running last month. There are combats, yes, but there is also a big chunk of it involved with performing a murder investigation, chasing a fleeing suspect, getting to know the townies, etc. Felt like an interesting balance, and I was just wondering why particularly this aspect seems to get shuttled aside more in the long APs (when you think recurring characters and plot points would have more power and prevalence).

All y'all's points make sense.

I guess as someone coming from 5e and seeing actual quality adventures here on the Pathfinder side (my god, a table I play D&D at tried running Hoard of the Dragon Queen), it just makes me wonder at all the different areas Paizo's storytelling could go.

Because yeah, other systems might succeed more at light combat, but I have to find massive sprawling adventures that are well written and engrossing, they pretty much to me seem to own that design space. And there are lots of kinds of stories to tell.

[ekaczmarek]

For what it's worth, I think it's easier for AP writers to design combat around an unknown party rather than investigations or Role play. Combat (I would assume) works the same way and is approached similarly by every party, but investigations and role play are a little dicey because those are where a group's approach will start to wildly differ more often. Also I assume they have done some sort of market research or have some sort of feedback that indicates combat is why people come to Pathfinder.

[Sporkedup]

I just wonder a bit if game styles have shifted a lot more than is easy to see on these forums. When Rise of the Runelords came out, D20 fantasy tabletop was in a very different place.

For better or worse, the rise of things like Critical Role has likely shifted the expectations of a large chunk of gamers (in addition to what many new converts expect). Now I don't think the CR style is particularly worth trying to emulate, but I also do think that there is more of a market for adventures built stronger around skill-based explorations/investigations/who knows what. And I also think PF2 is very well designed to take advantage of these kinds of things.

I'm not trying to say combat-heavy campaigns are bad or unfun. I still love em. Just wondering if people want or expect the occasional very different AP.

[Zapp]

Sporkedup wrote:

All y'all's points make sense.

Bonus point for using "all y'all's"! :)

[Zapp]

Sporkedup wrote:

Just wondering if people want or expect the occasional very different AP.

I think people read your thread title and came here to answer it.

Maybe you'll have better luck starting a thread titled "should Paizo write APs with the emphasis shifted from combat onto exploration and social?" (to use the "pillars" terminology)

Cheers

[Sporkedup]

Zapp wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Just wondering if people want or expect the occasional very different AP.

I think people read your thread title and came here to answer it.

Maybe you'll have better luck starting a thread titled "should Paizo write APs with the emphasis shifted from combat onto exploration and social?" (to use the "pillars" terminology)

Cheers

You're not wrong. I can be a very awkward communicator. I get distracted and ramble!

My point was to see discussion about how it is, how it might be, and what people prefer. Not to argue with people who said anything I wasn't in line with! I apologize if that's how it came across.

I just think it's interesting to take the temperature of what kind of APs people prefer. Curiosity only. :)

[Andostre]

Just going to point out that (with the exception of Society play, which I know little about), it's okay to tweak an AP or an adventure for your players. Granted, this goes counter to someone's point above that the appeal of an AP is to have adventures ready to go, but if a GM is comfortable with it, making changes to an AP is... fine. There's not really any mechanic out there that's going to declare that someone hasn't run AP X because it wasn't true to source enough.

I ran Kingmaker for some friends, and the one-encounter-a-day exploration pattern was starting to get stale, so I dropped some of the encounters that didn't seem to be more than XP fillers, and replaced them with things that seemed to appeal more to my players' personal stories or that advanced the overall story line.

Changing encounters to align with my PCs' strengths and preferences, which often meant less combat, made things more fun for everyone involved.

[Sporkedup]

Andostre wrote:

Just going to point out that (with the exception of Society play, which I know little about), it's okay to tweak an AP or an adventure for your players. Granted, this goes counter to someone's point above that the appeal of an AP is to have adventures ready to go, but if a GM is comfortable with it, making changes to an AP is... fine. There's not really any mechanic out there that's going to declare that someone hasn't run AP X because it wasn't true to source enough.

I ran Kingmaker for some friends, and the one-encounter-a-day exploration pattern was starting to get stale, so I dropped some of the encounters that didn't seem to be more than XP fillers, and replaced them with things that seemed to appeal more to my players' personal stories or that advanced the overall story line.

Changing encounters to align with my PCs' strengths and preferences, which often meant less combat, made things more fun for everyone involved.

Agreed! I love doing that. But I think my players are starting to see that the bulk of these "other activities" always seem to stray from the plot at hand.

Personally, I think it's far, far easier to create random encounters or extend existing ones if more combat is needed, but it's a lot harder to fluff out the plot of an adventure on the fly.

[Thebazilly]

Fundamentally, RPG systems are shaped by what has rules and statistics. The majority of Pathfinder's rules (and DnD/d20 systems in general) are focused on tactical combat. Since around 75% of the system is dedicated to that, it makes sense that around 75% of an adventure is combat. And since there are comparatively few rules governing social interaction, a social NPC statblock of a few listed skills will take up much less page count than a monster statblock with abilities, HP, etc.

That said, I don't have a problem with playing Pathfinder and spending a whole session interacting with NPCs and never picking up a die. But that's a difficult thing to put in a published adventure when you don't know the temperament of the party.

[Joana]

Sporkedup wrote:

Personally, I think it's far, far easier to create random encounters or extend existing ones if more combat is needed, but it's a lot harder to fluff out the plot of an adventure on the fly.

I'm the other way around. I use every statblock in a published adventure, but the plot often ends up pretty far astray from what Paizo intended. My players will engage with a random NPC or zig when the adventure expects them to zag or come up with a wild theory that sounds more fun than what's in the book, and our game will go off in a completely different direction -- but they'll still fight every statblock given, even if it's in a totally new location and context. I enjoy shaping a narrative infinitely more than doing the requisite math.