There's an entire page of PFS guidelines which basically empowers the GM.
My reading of it is that, basically, the GM can do whatever he wants. Of course, as long as the goal is to make the game fun, but that's kind of obvious.
I personally alter PFS adventures, during the adventure but also beforehand when I find parts I dislike and I'd like to see played otherwise. But I also know I'm an extreme example in my playgroups. Most of the other GMs just take the adventure as is and apply it without changing a coma. Sometimes because it's less work. Sometimes because they fear to break a rule. Sometimes because they don't consider it's part of GM's role to adapt adventures to your playstyle.
I wish there was more discussion about GMing on the forums to be honest.
I think, in the case of APs and PFS adventures, that it would be a very nice thing. Giving directly applicable pieces of advice would certainly help beginners and generate discussions about GMing styles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. But a group of regular melee monsters with moderate attacks you can stack a few rooms on the party and they will still likely win.
Based on my understanding, a typical encounter involves monsters that have attack modifier in the "high" category not moderate.
And even if you can successfully fend off one group before the next group arrives, with no time for healing in between the chances of one player character at least being knocked out rises dramatically.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So much depends on the party, and the players expectations for what feels like a exciting challenge.
For some tables, storming the dungeon and winning by the skin on your teeth, with many characters sitting at wounded 2 or even three will be the ultimate sign of an amazing dungeon. For others it will be a miserable near failure.
It takes time to feel out your players expectations, but it can also be valuable to talk about it frequently in play, not just at the beginning. Players change and develop their play styles right along side GMs.
For my tables, a fight where no PC falls unconscious is usually considered a cake walk, not a challenge, and the players would grow bored with the game if the threat of death never felt real. I get that other tables don't like to play that way. Even so, I rarely see characters actually die in my games, but I hear that other tables often experience full TPKs with some regularity. It seems like there are lots of ways to play the game. I recommend to players and GMs to try not to grow to static in their preferences and to try out different methods of play every couple of years. I don't recommend switching methods in the middle of long running campaigns unless everyone is growing very bored with the game, as taking more risks with higher level, heavily invested characters can be really defeating. But testing things out with the occasional module to break things up can be a lot of fun.
I’ve always taken the approach that the waiting monster’s room was more about where it’s lair or more likely, it’s base of operations is. It wanders around, it napped over here instead, it’s feeding somewhere else. I could never simply have ‘you go down the 40 ft corridor from your last fight, and there are 2 chimeras just waiting for you!’ I’ve always had to rationalize how things like that work ever since AD&D. (also on that GM thinking; random weird traps in all areas blows up my thinking; does every grunt orc know how to walk through this room to avoid the disintegration beam just to get to the kitchen? Who designs that?!)
I’m big on ‘punishing’ my PCs for not trying to limit the battlefield. In Giantslayer book 2, there is the Red Lake fort, which has factions of hill giants, an ogre family, and orcs claiming their own territories. My PCs decided to avoid a full frontal gate assault, and did sneak around to the rear, scale the walls, and make it to the rear courtyard, where they saw ogres torturing an orc. Ogres were occupied, so my PCs attacked. In the module, there are at least 2 groups in this area keeping watch. So, to investigate, the guards come to check out the fight. The fight gets larger. The fight gets backed up against the dining hall; this alerts those inside; they come out to fight. It becomes a big encircled fight with ogres all over, and a hill giant guard throwing rocks to the fight as well. Waiting their turn, other hill giants in the main hall keep come out when the last of the ogres are defeated and the group is looking weak. They were watching, enjoying that the ogres were being shredded, then fell upon the group just when the group thought things were over.
As this was going on (14 rounds it went), the orcs in the outer bailey were waiting for something like this happen. THEY began to scale the outer wall to lead to an uprising. They came in quietly, as the PCs went to explore the main keep hall to find the Big Bad. So, the Big Bad fight started to happen, and then as the PCs hear victory music for defeating the BB, they look out the highest tower to see the 30 orcs coming at them from the inner courtyard.
I like, as a GM, to steamroll things together if my PCs are morons. They always surprise me; some battles are greatly tactical; walls of stone to create choke points or cordon off the next group coming. Sickening entangles to make open ground dangerous to new enemies. Invisibility and Silence for the 2 rogue leveled PCs to go forward and clean out the sentry tower. This keep fight? They didn’t back up to use a wall as protection, drop anything environmental, or keep quiet. It’s like they tried to TPK themselves.
But I will not let whole groups of sentient, intelligent beings simply just not investigate what’s going on. That car alarm that goes off? We may not rush to defend, but we’ll go to the curtained window to peak outside to see what’s going on. A car accident in the residential area will bring gawkers out of their houses to the sidewalks to watch. So that’s what I’ll have my enemies do as well.
Cool discussion this thread has moved to.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
Typically, I've noticed, Paizo will have a section of the "dungeon features" at the start of the area. Things like ceiling height, wall thickness and material, as well as doors.
Probably to cover the "players try to break the walls/doors" tactic, but handy information for being able to tell how well the sound is traveling. Even with the door to the room they're fighting in open, unless the door where the next group is happens to also be open, a lot of "dungeons" tend to have pretty thick doors and walls to limit the ability to hear things nearby.
So much depends on the party, and the players expectations for what feels like a exciting challenge.
For some tables, storming the dungeon and winning by the skin on your teeth, with many characters sitting at wounded 2 or even three will be the ultimate sign of an amazing dungeon. For others it will be a miserable near failure.
It takes time to feel out your players expectations, but it can also be valuable to talk about it frequently in play, not just at the beginning. Players change and develop their play styles right along side GMs.
For my tables, a fight where no PC falls unconscious is usually considered a cake walk, not a challenge, and the players would grow bored with the game if the threat of death never felt real. I get that other tables don't like to play that way. Even so, I rarely see characters actually die in my games, but I hear that other tables often experience full TPKs with some regularity. It seems like there are lots of ways to play the game. I recommend to players and GMs to try not to grow to static in their preferences and to try out different methods of play every couple of years. I don't recommend switching methods in the middle of long running campaigns unless everyone is growing very bored with the game, as taking more risks with higher level, heavily invested characters can be really defeating. But testing things out with the occasional module to break things up can be a lot of fun.
Well said.
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
Probably because we mostly live in homes with plaster walls. I can regularly hear people in the next room of my home and can hear people in the apartment below me if they shout. I could even hear people through a brick wall in some places.
But I don't know how those walls compare to dungeon walls, which are usually at minimum reinforced wood and most often stone. Or doors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
Are we underestimating them?
That seems a strange assertion since the discussion hasn't been limited to dungeons and the most common example used has been two adjacent rooms with linked enemies shouting out for aid during a fantasy combat where "especially loud" is the default setting.The way Perception ramps up in the system, a hefty minus would still be overcome fairly quickly in the scheme of things.
And such setting ramifications should be addressed by the designer. Don't want the next room to hear, say the door's too thick. Do want them to hear, say the door has a gap under it that carries sound well.
(And of course GMs can manipulate such descriptions on the fly to rationalize their own combat preferences.)
Or there could be some backstory or personal dynamics that determine when and why enemies do or don't aid one another.
Yet that's secondary.
The discussion is really about the meta-narrative of enemy lifestyles (why so static?), which segued into how well more dynamic settings balance with the meta-mechanics of combat parity, which are so tight in PF2.
Many desire more dynamism in Paizo's PF2 APs. While dynamism may lead to a mega-battle, that's only a problem when the designer hasn't factored the possibility in (by say putting two or three severe encounters in close proximity with no reasoning why they wouldn't respond). A dynamic encounter could be as simple as two brother giants living in adjacent caves willing to fight together when not fighting each other. Or to use a classic example, Goblins tossing gold down to an Ogre so he climbs up and helps them fight. Or gets paid more by the PCs and leaves again.
On the flip side, a PF2 module's notorious instance has had several TPKs/PPKs from GMs and players assuming two early encounters within line of sight would have to chain together. So GMs either send in the second encounter too early (when the module says they wait) or the players attack (when they could have tended wounds). Which is to say, there's an assumption of dynamism by enough tables that's led to difficulties when in a static environment w/ encounters that imbalance when stacked.
So in your case, RD, you've given us examples of how GMs or designers can rationalize not stacking encounters in a dungeon setting.
Cool, useful if needed.
And you've expressed you don't like mega-battles unless in an open space. Noted.
So do you gravitate toward stacking encounters in an open space (which may lead to the difficulties in the PF2 module example and HUGE problems in the Starfinder AP I mentioned much earlier)? Or is that just the only time you find them acceptable (and dislike when modules say otherwise)?
Or is that you just want the tactical freedom when dealing with large groups of monsters? How big is a mega-battle? (Not that stacked encounters always have mega numbers.)
I too prefer my mega-battles in areas large enough to handle them.
And I prefer designers who account for monster movement and flow with such spacing, even if it makes a few architectural choices look odd.
I also prefer mega-battles be foreseen by designers rather than happenstance by placement. Even if such foresight leads them to nix the mega-battle because of reasons tied the setting or NPCs, i.e. thick doors or personal feuds.
With regard to the thickness of dungeon doors, it is a valid point, where it applies. However, I think this is more a discussion of "dungeons" (the colloquial term we use for an area to explore with monsters, hazards, treasure, plot points to find, etc) than dungeons (literal underground structures that always have thick stone walls and sturdy, well fitted doors.
How well sound is muffled is as valid a variable as the behavior and relationships between creatures, but it is a variable that would be nice to address rather than assume, if possible. And one that would be good to plan around when balancing dungeon denizens, in cases where the sound would carry pretty well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned is that one combat round is only 6 seconds in game time. So even if combat goes 10 rounds that's only 1 minute. Obviously in real time it takes significantly longer so it can feel like those in other rooms should obviously know. However, given the brief length of time combat transpires in the game world that could sometimes be a logical reason for monsters not to think anything is out of the ordinary. A few loud noises or crashes in a dungeon/area full of monsters doesn't seem like it would be out of the ordinary even without adventurers present.
One thing I don't think I've seen mentioned is that one combat round is only 6 seconds in game time. So even if combat goes 10 rounds that's only 1 minute. Obviously in real time it takes significantly longer so it can feel like those in other rooms should obviously know. However, given the brief length of time combat transpires in the game world that could sometimes be a logical reason for monsters not to think anything is out of the ordinary. A few loud noises or crashes in a dungeon/area full of monsters doesn't seem like it would be out of the ordinary even without adventurers present.
This is an important factor.
If the designer/GM wants an immediate guard reaction, have them equipped and alert. (Of course many monstrosities use no equipment and have hyper-senses or remain in hunting mode.)You want to stagger the combats?
Anything other than equipped and alert will give you that.
Maybe they send a guy to check it out.
Or arrive in "only" a minute.
Or have to armor up since they were resting so it takes 5.
That's previously been a great way to have dynamic encounters without causing excessive overlap. As a player, I'd often appreciate this, or encourage it by opening doors, depending on the duration of my buffs. :)
The addition of PF2's 10-minute lulls throws a wrench in that, as does any expectation to start all battles at full h.p. (which due to Medicine in PF2, is a reasonable expectation unless there's intentional pressure).
That Wild Shape Druid has likely come to depend on Refocusing. This IMO is poor foresight as they should have contingency tactics (and I'd inform them of this in a home game), yet it'd be a natural mindset to adopt in PFS. So how does a designer adapt to this?
Fight/lull/fight/lull (repeat) is pretty bland. Always "knowing" you'll be able to rest while in the middle of a suspenseful arc seems pretty cushy and makes the suspense trite.
So, um, yeah. I'd welcome some lulls being interrupted, not simply by my hand, but by the innate balance built into the combat difficulty levels AND the narrative provided.
"You must save the princess!"
"Is it okay if we rest an hour between fights? We're not that good at Medicine checks."
"Umm..." (sees string of Severe encounters) "Sure. No rush."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
Probably because we mostly live in homes with plaster walls. I can regularly hear people in the next room of my home and can hear people in the apartment below me if they shout. I could even hear people through a brick wall in some places.
But I don't know how those walls compare to dungeon walls, which are usually at minimum reinforced wood and most often stone. Or doors.
I think the sounds of combat, which is defined as a perception DC 10 in PF1, combined with modifiers of +1 for every 10' of distance and +5 per closed door and +10 per ft of wall thickness.
This means even at low levels, assuming someone takes 10, they can probably hear a fight in the adjacent room with no problem, even with the wall and door (and I'm not actually sure those penalties should stack since a 1' thick wall would add +10 but suddenly you put an opening with a door and make it harder? Nah, that doesn't make sense. I think the door penalty only applies if you have walls less than 1ft thick.
If someone has a +10 perception, and takes 10, they can pretty reliably here combat from 50' (+5) and through 2ft worth of walls (+20). 5+20-10 = DC 15.
Of course, those were PF1 values. So they may not be as relevant here in PF2, but the idea is the same.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we underestimating them?
Perhaps not.
Why so static?
Because.
So do you gravitate toward stacking encounters in an open space?
Not particularly, but I will do so if it makes narrative sense to do so. The party will have to learn to flee, plan anew, and come back and try something better.
Or is that just the only time you find them acceptable?
I generally try and avoid massacring the party whenever possible.
Or is that you just want the tactical freedom when dealing with large groups of monsters?
Tactical freedom is always nice, but perhaps not as nice as clear encounter direction.
How big is a mega-battle?
If the enemies outnumber the heroes, I consider it a big battle (in terms of number of combatants, not necessarily difficulty of success). If they more than double the heroes in number, I consider it a mega-battle which is likely both difficult to achieve victory and difficult to run in a manner which is fun for all involved.
Maybe they send a guy to check it out. Or arrive in "only" a minute.
I did this not too long ago.
In a recent game, the heroes were raiding an enemy stronghold. They first cleared out the lower levels and the first floor entrance rooms. Fearing their low hit points and resources, they then spent time patching themselves up and hiding the bodies. While doing so, they were caught red handed by a wondering patrol. Normally, they wouldn't have broken a sweat, but it was a rough fight on account that they were still pretty beat up. Then they continued patching themselves up only to have the chef in the stronghold ring the dinner bell a short time later. When half his regulars didn't show up, he sent a wrecker demon and an imp to investigate. The heroes, still not in top shape, still managed to vanquish the wrecker demon and drive off the imp. Shame they didn't kill it. The imp warned the chef of the intruders and a search party was formed. By then, the heroes had left the stronghold, deeming it unsafe, and barricaded themselves in a utility shed just outside of said enemy stronghold. I gave them an hour before the search party finished searching their stronghold and then discovered them in the shed. After a two-minute siege, the entire party was dead.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does it really matter? None of those rules exist in this edition. Insofar as I can tell, it's much more "handwavium" now.
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
I for one don't mege encounters unless they are in the same open space. Even monsters in an adjacent room are unlikely to easily hear a battle unless something especially loud happens, or someone is thrown against the closed door.
Probably because we mostly live in homes with plaster walls. I can regularly hear people in the next room of my home and can hear people in the apartment below me if they shout. I could even hear people through a brick wall in some places.
But I don't know how those walls compare to dungeon walls, which are usually at minimum reinforced wood and most often stone. Or doors.
I think the sounds of combat, which is defined as a perception DC 10 in PF1, combined with modifiers of +1 for every 10' of distance and +5 per closed door and +10 per ft of wall thickness.
This means even at low levels, assuming someone takes 10, they can probably hear a fight in the adjacent room with no problem, even with the wall and door (and I'm not actually sure those penalties should stack since a 1' thick wall would add +10 but suddenly you put an opening with a door and make it harder? Nah, that doesn't make sense. I think the door penalty only applies if you have walls less than 1ft thick.
If someone has a +10 perception, and takes 10, they can pretty reliably here combat from 50' (+5) and through 2ft worth of walls (+20). 5+20-10 = DC 15.
Of course, those were PF1 values. So they may not be as relevant here in PF2, but the idea is the same.
I think your math is wrong. Base DC 10 - hear sounds of combat. +5 for 50' distance = DC 15. +20 for 2' of walls = DC 35.
+10 perception taking 10 hits a DC of 20. That would be enough to hear a fight 50' away through a door, but not through even a 1' wall.
Or am I missing something?...
Looking at the perception skill on d20pfsrd, which I went to because they collect more things and cross reference across more pages, has a chart which shows "Hears the sounds of battle" as a DC -10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD, the NPC choices which led to the TPK were all acceptable IMO.
Hiding in a utility shed outside the enemy's fortress while it was on alert was stupid. An hour was generous. The (implied) lack of a lookout was an error. And so forth.
(Whether the fortress was too tough by initial design...dunno.)
The issue would be a matter of player expectations and experience.
A veteran group w/ commando sensibilities should accept the blame. Oops.
A newbie group w/ an MMORPG frame of reference might be utterly shocked, and probably should get a bit of advance notice as the difference in playstyle. If it's too late as the game's afoot, perhaps an intelligent or wise PC might get a roll to recognize, "Gosh, that shack would be the next place the fortress folk would look if they searched outside for us, which is what garrisons typically do when attacked." or "Maybe we shouldn't rationalize how our choices could be safe, but rather the ways why our choices might NOT be safe." or "Maybe we shouldn't think like gamers, but as people who have angered a military outpost and need to lay low."
And yes, "clear encounter direction" would be nice and should be the default. Though as I noted sometimes Paizo is clear and it has lead to TPKs/PPKs because GMs/players are expecting the opposite (and PF2 is tightly tuned). Redundant warnings may be necessary. That is, when courting the risk of having unaccounted for encounter stacking.
I desire several things:
-A sense of vibrancy; non-static portrayals of enemies (as per OP)
-Clear encounter direction re: overall expected responses and how altering responses might skew the danger up or down too much. (so as to avoid dangerous accidents on behalf of verisimilitude or breezy encounters that undermine the gravitas of the narrative)
-A variety of encounters and time frames to break the cycle fight/lull/fight/lull/... It'd be kinda neat to see "You have two hours" so that the party has enough time for Refocus lulls, yet has to measure the worth of longer lulls. So many advanced skills seem to address this, yet I wonder if such time-savers have much impact in AP time allotment.
@Claxon: That makes sense, I was just running off your "defined as a perception DC 10 in PF1" without checking.
Yep, looks like I dropped my minus sign there when I wrote it out but included it when I did my math, sorry about that.
Strongholds do seem difficult, the most difficult if it's a unified force.
Which is why they often have different factions, or orders to remain in place (for reasons). Or odd layouts (perhaps due to geography, but ultimately to get some separation.)
In one case, the BBEG explicitly felt their room was the best place tactically to take on the PCs (and arguably it was) so his group wouldn't come out to join the rest. If one makes the other residents aggressive enough (for wealth, glory, bloodlust, whatever) then that naturally gives a rest before at least the final fight.
It seems almost better to design a flow chart the design the map around that. "Gonna have to close a portcullis there."
I wouldn't mind a long, running battle to begin with though, but it'd have to scaled appropriately, something maybe too difficult w/ PF2's tuning (not without a significant sidebar, which is fine by me).
I cut all of what I call "spiders in the cupboard" encounters...
Love it.
And @Tender Tendrils, shoot me thrice before I put ANOTHER room in a paizo dungeon. Gods be damned there are already more than I need for 3 adventures in one dungeon, and half of them are useless and empty.
I get what you mean, to make things believable, but I would describe "there's a series of rooms used for habitable space, banana painting and whatever these guys are into, before the next room of consequence" paraphrasing, instead.
. But a group of regular melee monsters with moderate attacks you can stack a few rooms on the party and they will still likely win.Based on my understanding, a typical encounter involves monsters that have attack modifier in the "high" category not moderate.
And even if you can successfully fend off one group before the next group arrives, with no time for healing in between the chances of one player character at least being knocked out rises dramatically.
Depends on the lvl. 1 to 10 is rougher than 11 to 20. There seems to be a mathematical shift at about lvl 11 where parties can start ripping things apart because casters can suddenly shift battles substantially in the party's favor and martials do a lot of damage.
The hardest levels are those early levels (1 to 4) where things are real swingy and a bad round can take someone out. Casters don't have many spells or magic items. Spells are fairly weak to moderate in effectiveness.
5 to 9 or 10 it is slightly better. You can do some decent AoE. Melees start to hit harder with striking weapons, get weapon spec, and expert attacks. Skills like Demoralize are better. You start to get some good feats.
Lvl 11 is where things seem to really start shifting where a party can take some on tough stuff. More hit points, master in weapons, 6th level spells start to get genuinely powerful, low level spells like 4th level invis or haste are easy to use. Greater striking weapons come into play.
15th level the party can really hammer a lot of stuff. AoE rips things apart. Casters reach master casting. Melees get greater weapon spec. 8th level spells are nasty. Magic items get more potent. You can move quite a few encounters together and the party can take them on. The only thing you don't want to group together is enemy casters because enemy casters change everything. But you can stack quite a few martial creatures onto a party and they will still win.
My guys are lvl 15 right now. I can stack a lot on them and they can usually take out an entire complex of monsters and still be ready to go on.
And druids are awesome. Just yesterday my druid saved the ranger's animal companion by transforming into a huge dragon, tossing the door that fell on the bear off it, then ripping apart the monster attacking the bear. This was after blasting a creature with tempest surge. Druids I think are the most versatile and effective offensive caster at this point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone has been reading "The Five Room Dungeon"
In all seriousness, I do agree that APs are pretty dungeon heavy. I often find myself glossing over a lot of the rooms when I read them, unless they seem particularly thematic or tied to the overall plot.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel people are underestimating just how thick dungeon walls and doors are. Aren't most rooms closed off too? Wouldn't that greatly limit how far sound carries?
Depends on how realistic you want the experience. If you ever get a chance to LARP in a cavern complex, you'll see just how far that sound travels. The ringing of Steel on steel seems to be remarkable how far it goes and how well it travels through mundane materials. YMMV
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone has been reading "The Five Room Dungeon"
In all seriousness, I do agree that APs are pretty dungeon heavy. I often find myself glossing over a lot of the rooms when I read them, unless they seem particularly thematic or tied to the overall plot.
Wow!
I had not heard of The Five Room Dungeon before, so I searched it via Google and read Run A Game: The Five Room Dungeon.
Remember those xulgath caves in Trail of the Hunted that I mentioned in comment #42? In adapting them to PF2 and to my players, I was following the five-room dungeon motif. I didn't match it perfectly, but the elements were there.
The basic five-room dungeon (The Ultimate Guide to 5 Room Dungeons) is:
Room One: Entrance And Guardian
Room Two: Puzzle Or Roleplaying Challenge
Room Three: Trick or Setback
Room Four: Climax, Big Battle or Conflict
Room Five: Reward, Revelation, Plot Twist
Room Two, Roleplaying Challenge, came first, out of order. Gahrestrohmeister, a deep gnome rogue 3, had raided the xulgath cultists in revenge for the relatives they had killed. The cultists had cut off his retreat back to the Darklands, so he escaped to the surface instead. He had spotted the party, which had two gnomes, and approached them skittishly as potential allies.
Room One, Entrance And Guardian, was the shrieker mushrooms and the two guards at the entrance, rooms K1 and K2. The party used Deception on them. The replacement guards had come from K3, so I include that in this part, too.
Room Three, Trick or Setback, is also called "Red Herring" at Run a Game. One path from room K2 lead to room K6. That room was supposed to have cave fishers, but PF2 Bestiary 2 was not yet published, so I replaced the cave fishers with slurks. The party realized that they had no need to fight the slurks. Those monsters were content to stay in their room.
Room Four: Climax, Big Battle or Conflict, took some build up. The party took time to heal in room K3. I had added a Xulgath Skulker from PF2 Bestiary 1 to the caves. She overheard the party from room K9 where she quietly guarded the sacred frogs. She sneaked over for a look and decided to head back to alert the high-level xulgath barbarian in room K10 and three lowly Xulgath Warriors. The barbarian was still upset about Gahrestrohmeister's escape, so he ordered the other four to guard the exit to the Darklands while he would confront the party by himself. The party's rogue/sorcerer--who spoke Draconic, the xulgath language--had a Red Dragon bloodline and xulgath barbarian had a Black Dragon instinct. They argued the merits of the dragons as they fought, for the barbarian could respect someone who followed the way of a dragon. The party won after a moderate-threat battle.
Room Five: Reward, Revelation, Plot Twist, was a plot twist. The xulgath stalker, seeing that the powerful barbarian was defeated, had led the xulgath warriors down to the 2nd level and was organizing the xulgath on that level into one big assault force, an extreme-threat encounter. She had even taken the sacred frogs with her. The party knew of the skulker, because the barbarian had been talking to her as he approached the party.
The 1st level had several other xulgath cultists to defeat who did not fit the Five Room motif. The cult needed to be a reasonable size without requiring a 3rd level, so filler cultists were necessary.
The 2nd level had a similar Five Room story structure, though in that level Room Two, Roleplaying Challenge, came after Room Four: Climax, Big Battle or Conflict.
The changes to a basic 11-room dungeon crawl by me and my players had added meaning to the adventure. Gahreestrohmeister had made the cave-clearing mission one of personal revenge and rescue. The deception at the entrance had been my players' way of showcasing their personal style. The peaceful reconnaissance of the slurks had highlighted that the party had a mission and was not overcome by bloodthirst. The climactic battle with the barbarian following the discovery of remains of human sacrifice made the mission worthy. And the plot twist at the end, when the party realized the next level was going to be organized against them, returned fear to the story.
A plot-based Five Room Dungeon is a stark contrast to a major weakness of monsters sitting in their rooms waiting to die. The waiting dungeon style has little meaning. It is merely combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a game and not a simulation of anything.
Uh, think about what you just said.
Someone has been reading "The Five Room Dungeon"
In all seriousness, I do agree that APs are pretty dungeon heavy. I often find myself glossing over a lot of the rooms when I read them, unless they seem particularly thematic or tied to the overall plot.
Wow!
I had not heard of The Five Room Dungeon before, so I searched it via Google and read Run A Game: The Five Room Dungeon.
I heard about it on an pathfinder play podcast I followed last year (yikes, it actually finished early this year) called "The Mythos Manual". The DM in that liked structuring his dungeons in that style, and it worked well for a podcast that only lasted an hour per episode.
I'll note that you are encouraged structure your dungeons so that the rooms don't always come in the same order, so you're fine there Mathmuse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a lot of discussion here trying to make allowances for why the snapshot is a usable system - the wall thickness, distance, fractured alliances, its a delicious trope that has been enjoyed for decades etc. And I’m not saying the snapshot isn’t useful, just that that is all it is, and that it can be more.
I think what might help is merely for a little more direction for GMs. In the module/AP. Like folks have been saying in this thread.
Clearly there are GMs who for whatever reason “run it as written”, with little ad lib, improv, causation etc... And the point about PFS being less flexible could also be useful intelligence. If there are GMs who would appreciate or benefit from a “tactics” or “development” note for every room then perhaps that should be a goal. Oh noes, wordcount. Unfortunately, you can decry that such efforts might be misplaced, or overwrought or unnecessary, but they a) can’t hurt (by providing advice, not proscriptive direction) and b) need not be exhaustive. Ask the writers to be a little more proactive in their narrative setup. It might even cause them to be a little reflective and design in a way that is more reactive and dynamic. I’m not saying they aren’t already, but a concerted push toward that style might be beneficial to all.
P.S. A very good example of the dynamic dungeon is Wolfgang Baur’s The Gryphon’s Legacy - a fortress that details where particular creatures are depending on time of day, how the assault might be progressing etc.
And I definitely agree with shroudb’s breakdown upthread in the different ways of playing RPG’s. It really isn’t only a boardgame with some added narrative flourishes, and hasn’t been for nearly 50 years. Not for everybody. Just earlier today I wrote in a PbP Discussion that for me RPGs are a way to “experience vicariously a bunch of stuff and possibly learn some things about myself, others, the universe, and the human condition. With laffs, tearz and some whakt out die rolls you couldn’t preconceive.” I’m sure you could reduce that to “board and role” but that would be doing what the game means to me a disservice.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting to see the Five Room Dungeon making a return - I remember reading about it in the early 2000s, looks like John Four has developed the concept further since then. Will need to study.
Anyway, APs... yeah, actually I'd say they're not the same as PFS scenarios when it comes to telling the GM what to do. PFS scenarios are usually pretty clear on what they expect you to do, and contain 2-4 potential fights. They're also pretty clear on what timeframe they expect stuff to happen in. Yeah, they're often generous with lulls in between encounters.
APs meanwhile, have dungeons with so many encounters in them that it's unlikely that you crack them in a single day. So you need sensible spots for short rests (Treat Wounds) and long rests (regain spells).
Some dungeons lend them to this naturally. Iron Gods has you going through a lot of crashed spaceships which have separate decks, and a lot of doors. Also, a lot of things that can survive for 9000 years in a crashed ship are fine waiting another day. But you also get some other dungeons, like in Plaguestone where every room on the flipmat has a monster.
Or that notorious clearing in Age of Ashes where it's just a bit odd for monsters that can see stuff happening further over there to kinda shrug when adventurers come, kill some monsters on your right, and then go back into the woods only to come back next day and kill some monsters on your left. And the map just about stops on the edge of the clearing so it's just a bit awkward to even play out the players trying to do a guerilla style attack from the treeline because the map is sliced off. This could have been a great place for a minigame centered around the PCs trying to draw off some of the monsters away from the main mass so they can deal with them. Apparently the scenario gives the GM reasons why the NPCs don't all cooperate but it's not like the players can read the GM's mind. So all you see is a ridiculous situation and the cartographer is clearly against you.
Now, you can as a GM try to improve on this in various ways. But the problem is, the AP doesn't tell you that. APs don't really tell you very much about how to divide up huge dungeons in workday-sized chunks. Of course, we know not all parties can handle the same workday, and the AP should be tuned to your own group. But where is the GM advice in the introduction to tell that to new GMs?
A lot of people when they start out with the game say something entirely reasonable, like "I'm going to try this with the out of the box rules like it was meant to be, before changing anything, because I don't know the game very well yet." What they don't know is that they're supposed to start changing stuff almost from day 1. And if they knew it, there's not really that much guidance on how to go about doing that.
So APs as a complete, ready to roll product? Good for the beginning or overworked GM looking for something pre-prepped? Not so much.
|
|
Five seems like not a lot. But when you ask yourself, "do fifteen fights really all serve a meaningful role in the plot" you usually find there's some that you can shed.
Now that the encounter difficulty system doesn't rely on wearing people down before a bossfight, do we really need that many encounters?
And reading the Five Room Dungeon article, actually what it proposes is a lot less than five fights; probably more like 2-3, with the other rooms having something else in them, such as puzzles, traps, moral choices, RP encounters and some other things.
Now I don't think the five room dungeon concept is really the end of the lesson. It needs some serious adaptation if you want to use it as a model for capturing a garrisoned castle for example. Castles usually have many rooms.
But not all of those rooms are meaningful, and fighting guard patrol #10 isn't quite as original. Maybe we could abstract a bit? What if capturing a castle was modeled a bit like a five-zone dungeon, where for example the whole outer battlements count as a room, and all the guard patrols scattered there are one giant encounter, but that starts out dispersed?
Five seems like not a lot. But when you ask yourself, "do fifteen fights really all serve a meaningful role in the plot" you usually find there's some that you can shed.
Now that the encounter difficulty system doesn't rely on wearing people down before a bossfight, do we really need that many encounters?
And reading the Five Room Dungeon article, actually what it proposes is a lot less than five fights; probably more like 2-3, with the other rooms having something else in them, such as puzzles, traps, moral choices, RP encounters and some other things.
Now I don't think the five room dungeon concept is really the end of the lesson. It needs some serious adaptation if you want to use it as a model for capturing a garrisoned castle for example. Castles usually have many rooms.
But not all of those rooms are meaningful, and fighting guard patrol #10 isn't quite as original. Maybe we could abstract a bit? What if capturing a castle was modeled a bit like a five-zone dungeon, where for example the whole outer battlements count as a room, and all the guard patrols scattered there are one giant encounter, but that starts out dispersed?
The rooms could be enormous with lots of people.
The next section for my Ironfang Invasion campaign will be the Ridgeline Camp. The hobgoblin army there in the module is the one that conquered Radya's Hollow. However, since my players have temporarily jumped ahead one module and are preventing the conquest of Radya's Hollow, I have to provide an army big enough to conquer a walled village. I have seven players, so an extreme threat challenge to 7 PCs would be (7/4)(160 xp) = 280 xp. Double that, since my players are very good at splitting up the enemy into multiple encounters, so I want the camp to be 560 xp total. I am thinking of grouping together four Hobgoblin Soldiers creature 1 into a Hobgoblin Troop creature 5 to simplify the combat. The party just reached 7th level, so each Hobgoblin Troop would be worth 20 xp. Thus, I would need 28 troops if the only occupants of the camp were troops. However, Ridgeline Camp also has some Ironfang Sharpshooters creature 6 and Captain Dargg creature 8 and a few other creatures, so we need only 15 hobgoblin troops.
By Five Room Dungeon style the center of the camp with Captain Dargg and 15 hobgoblin troops would be Room Four, Climax, Big Battle or Conflict. That force would be 360 xp, which I view as merely 206 xp per PC due to the 7-player party. The remaining 200 xp (114 xp per PC) will be in the other metaphorical rooms.
My players have handled 208 xp per PC before, so they can handle this.
Room One, Entrance And Guardian, will be the sharpshooters on the watchtowers. Room Two, Roleplaying Challenge, will be the hobgoblins' tentative allies. Room Five: Reward, Revelation, Plot Twist, can occur on their victorious return to Radya's Hollow as I tie up loose ends. I don't have Room Three, Trick or Setback, planned, but maybe my players will create it.
Also, Run a Game said, "There's no reason you can't modify the five-room dungeon formula to suit your needs. Do you want a lot of combat? Add two combat scenes. More roleplay? Add some more NPCs. Want to make it longer? Stick two or three five room dungeons together, or add some scenes in the middle. More exploration? Add a maze with some puzzles, traps and wandering monsters in the middle."
I don't plan to compare every section of my campaign to the Five Room Dungeon. However, I do like my dungeons to have varied themes inside them.
Yeah, its a general problem in Paizo APs.
Its even less believable in Starfinder, at least in a technological "dungeon" when there would be security cameras and a speaker system or otherwise easy communication among the enemies.
Every modern Starfinder armor comes with comm units built into them (and comm units come with lights built into them too). XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of the rules system, each individual fight has a certain degree of challenge.
If you make combats hard enough to make each of them count, joining two
groups of enemies is going to be very dangerous for the party.
If you instead make weaker individual encounters, then the PCs will stomp on them and complain that there is no challenge.
That's why you need to either accept a lesser degree of realism, or some extra effort by the GM to handle things on the fly and make them work in a way that maximizes the group's fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Five seems like not a lot. But when you ask yourself, "do fifteen fights really all serve a meaningful role in the plot" you usually find there's some that you can shed.
Now that the encounter difficulty system doesn't rely on wearing people down before a bossfight, do we really need that many encounters?
And reading the Five Room Dungeon article, actually what it proposes is a lot less than five fights; probably more like 2-3, with the other rooms having something else in them, such as puzzles, traps, moral choices, RP encounters and some other things.
Now I don't think the five room dungeon concept is really the end of the lesson. It needs some serious adaptation if you want to use it as a model for capturing a garrisoned castle for example. Castles usually have many rooms.
But not all of those rooms are meaningful, and fighting guard patrol #10 isn't quite as original. Maybe we could abstract a bit? What if capturing a castle was modeled a bit like a five-zone dungeon, where for example the whole outer battlements count as a room, and all the guard patrols scattered there are one giant encounter, but that starts out dispersed?
You're doing exactly the kind of idea development that Johnn advocates in his wider advice on the subject - I seem to recall he suggests treating megadungeons as "fractal five room dungeons", and definitely doesn't limit his "rooms" to be single rectangles (groups of physical rooms which behave as a single encounter area would be absolutely de rigueur and work well for a fortress, for example, and also speak to some of the chained encounter discussion also).
The point of course is to provide some narrative structure, mini-story arcs, to the adventure experience, not to rigorously box into a set design paradigm. I find it works best when treated in than vein.
I should say also that Johnn (certainly more recently) is coming from a rather less planning detail (or should I say more emergent?) approach to GMing than a Paizo module is looking to deliver, and an emergent GM needs easy tools like this to hand to cope with having no firm idea where/what the players will do next.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every modern Starfinder armor comes with comm units built into them (and comm units come with lights built into them too). XDYeah, its a general problem in Paizo APs.
Its even less believable in Starfinder, at least in a technological "dungeon" when there would be security cameras and a speaker system or otherwise easy communication among the enemies.
Yeah, I'm playing through Dawn of Flames right now and there are so many enemies that should swarm the players because there's no reason for the enemy not to communicate with each other.
I really wish combat were stated to be more waves of enemies (and planned that way) so that 4 turns after the combat starts 3 more enemies join because they were 4 rooms away (or however far it takes to narratively justify it).
Off topic, but Dawn of Flames has a special place in my heart. Honorary Officer Mims nearly caused a pvp incident when another player wanted to take him out and I...objected. With a gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off topic, but Dawn of Flames has a special place in my heart. Honorary Officer Mims nearly caused a pvp incident when another player wanted to take him out and I...objected. With a gun.
Same, except it's was 4 people who wanted Mims to join our crew as a honorary member of the team with a position of "Captain of Snacks and Fun" and 1 person who quickly realized they were going to die if they didn't capitulate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like it when the dungeon has consequences mapped out for when the PCs just spam rests. Specifically, when there are mechanics plotted our for how to respond with pre-built wandering patrols. This doesn't have to always be the case, but it is useful and can be a useful reminder that monsters are not frozen in time waiting in their respective rooms to fall on an adventurers sword.
Krsipy XIV has a great suggestion for future APs - judging by how many folks have favorited it, seems like something worth considering for devs
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4391e?Of-Structuring-and-Encounters-A-discussi on-on#3
One instance of this in practice is 5E's Princes of the Apocalypse. When a dungeon is not entirely cleared out and the PCs stop to rest, there are random tables with different encounters for the DM to roll (if they so choose). Sometimes the dungeon is reinforced with different monsters, sometimes nothing happens, but it reinforces the idea the dungeon is not on "pause" while the PCs recoup. I also appreciate that as someone purchasing an AP, because it takes some of the more math-intensive prep of plotting out themed encounters off my shoulders.