Is it ok that monster encounters built for your level are a threat while a trap built for your level isn't? I think that's the primary concern. It doesn't matter that they can be used better, it's that they have to be used better to have impact.
Saying you don't have a problem because your group uses them better and knows how to solve them beforehand doesn't really matter. Traps out of the box work in most other systems, so why don't they have something that just works here?
This is the question of encounter design. An equal level creature is 40 xp. A complex hazard of your level is 40 xp. A simple hazard of your level is 8 xp and it will take 5 of them to present the same threat. The game is not designed for simple hazards to be the same threat level as a creature, I think in large part so that single time triggering effects can have the right accuracy numbers and damage without basically meaning every equal level simple hazard should have a 50/50 shot at taking a PC to 0 hp, which is what an equal level monster vs 1 PC is supposed to be as well.
This is the question of encounter design. An equal level creature is 40 xp. A complex hazard of your level is 40 xp. A simple hazard of your level is 8 xp and it will take 5 of them to present the same threat. The game is not designed for simple hazards to be the same threat level as a creature, I think in large part so that single time triggering effects can have the right accuracy numbers and damage without basically meaning every equal level simple hazard should have a 50/50 shot at taking a PC to 0 hp, which is what an equal level monster vs 1 PC is supposed to be as well.
This isn't really addressing their point, though, which is that solo simple hazards are often inconsequential when in plenty of other tabletop gaming systems, even a small hazard can be of some consequence. This isn't just about one-shotting party members, this is about having some sort of mechanical impact at all, and this lack of mechanical impact has consequences on the narrative as well.
"Anyone who pulled a trap from a list instead of hand-crafting the entire dungeon with meticulous narrative precision is a hack" strikes me as pretty binary thinking. I would also not try to be clever by playing on semantic ambiguity here, it only injects confusion into discussion.Castilliano wrote:
What lens are you reading through that sees a comment explicitly about not drawing a binary between hack and excellence (because even noteworthy authors blend the two) and then warps and magnifies it into "lists suck! Only meticulous precision allowed!"? You are literally quoting nobody and then attacking that strawman. Between that example and your aggressive responses to others I wonder if you're discussing in good faith or merely want to fight, even when some are discussing nuance and application more than correction.
This one:
Castilliano wrote:Dropping in anything w/o narrative purpose is simply hack writing. Mind you, there's a market for that or it wouldn't be so prevalent, but yeah, I'd expect Paizo (maybe 3PP PF2 products in general) to rise above that. There's a literal Hackmaster game out there for such tomfoolery.
Notice how my response quite clearly refers back to your prior comment, which you have since been forced to backpedal on following callouts from multiple users, rather than your subsequent attempt at backpedaling in the quote. I'm not even the only person to have called you out on this either, so attacking my good faith here comes across here more as deflection than anything else.
Your strawman attack does not "quite clearly refer(s) back to your prior comment" when one, you're directly following my other comment. Two, you're quoting, except it's not a quote, it's a lie because: Three, my first comment makes no mention of using lists of traps nor judge lists. Four, my comment only mentions traps should have some narrative purpose to be good enough. No "meticulous narrative precision" nor semblance thereof. I guess I was supposed to realize you were responding to my other comment because you'd completely skipped my clarifications in the second one?
It is not backpedaling to clarify.
I did not notice anybody call out anything I wrote other than following my comment about hacks with a reference to Hackmaster. Citation needed on other callouts by multiple users. I reviewed the thread and found none. What I found was people expressing opinions about narrative purpose and attrition which resembled my own.
Castilliano wrote:And here's a simple word swap that might illuminate: "Simple combats ought to be about lasting impairments rather than damage"
So, you may not be aware of this (or perhaps you are, as it's been pointed out to you several times now), but you have this tendency to treat words sometimes as if they have no inherent meaning. You sometimes use words in completely inappropriate contexts and in what appears to be deliberate attempts to not acknowledge their meaning and implication, such as conflating "Hackmaster" with hack writing as per the above quote. This is another such instance, where you're pretending that encounters and simple hazards are the same, and using "simple" here with regards to combat in a manner that is utterly devoid of meaning. Swapping those words does not preserve the meaning, because combat encounters balanced to the party's level have inherent gameplay value in PF2e that simple hazards do not.
Is this your version of good faith? Calling my mea culpa re: hack/Hackmaster backpedaling and then drilling down on...what exactly? You give no other prior examples, you quote nobody (not even falsely like before), and you seem to forget the audience can actually word search for my name to see who's addressing me. From you we get blanket, aggressive assertions, and not just at me for...what? Disagreeing, and sharing my reasoning? The people here disagreeing with you don't make you wrong; it's obviously a matter of taste.
And again I can clarify: "simple" was kept in the restatement of the thread's title to keep the swaps down to one word. Obviously it's not referencing simple vs. complex re: Paizo's traps, but the meaning of simple, "Having few parts or features; not complicated or elaborate", still expresses the essence I'd intended. Did you not attempt to read it as common English? Oh wait, it was "utterly devoid of meaning". Huh, funny given that you'd explicitly called me out for acting as if words did not having inherent meaning then strip a basic word of its inherent meaning to score a rhetorical point...in good faith I bet.
Imagine if you'd simply begun with your last point re: combat encounters vs. traps rather than aggression. Then maybe we could have extrapolated together on the value of gameplay vs. consequences and their impacts on narrative purpose vs. gaming purpose. But I don't think you're ready for that.
(For those interested in linguistics Google "do words have inherent meaning?" for some interesting essays. Dan McClellan's especially.)
Your strawman attack does not "quite clearly refer(s) back to your prior comment" when one, you're directly following my other comment.
Look, it's really not rocket science. You were trying to claim the opposite of something you said, and I brought up a brief summary of your stance, which as your own quoted post shows was accurate. At some point, you're going to have to stop doubling down, because retreating this deep into denial is getting increasingly silly.
Two, you're quoting, except it's not a quote, it's a lie because:
No, that post really was referring to what you've said; the quote was in my subsequent reply. You really should not be nitpicking at this incredibly fine-grained level of detail and still getting it wrong.
Three, my first comment makes no mention of using lists of traps nor judge lists.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the criticism of how your thinking is binary, and assumes that GMs who don't meet your arbitrary personal standards are hacks. Again, please refer back to your own quoted post.
Four, my comment only mentions traps should have some narrative purpose to be good enough. No "meticulous narrative precision" nor semblance thereof.
You accuse GMs, among other people, of being hack writers for using any games element without a specific narrative purpose. Again, it's in your own quote, and you have been criticized for making that kind of sweeping, inflammatory statement. I'm really not seeing why you would even try to debate your way out of this one; all you're doing is keeping the attention centered on your own mistakes instead of allowing the conversation to move forward organically.
It is not backpedaling to clarify.
Correct, which is why you're backpedaling, rather than clarifying. There is little left to clarify in your original post, and for that matter you haven't even tried to adapt your opinion, so much as just pretend you flat-out said something completely different. I suppose it's a very roundabout way of admitting that you probably should not have accused an entire other game system of hack writing among other things, but it's not exactly a constructive or honest way of going about it either.
I did not notice anybody call out anything I wrote other than following my comment about hacks with a reference to Hackmaster.
I would ask you to notice better, but the thing is, you did, so this is a lie. Specifically, here is the comment explicitly calling you out on that "hack writing" comment, and here is you quoting and responding to that comment in an attempt to backpedal your way out of that too. It's not just "a reference to Hackmaster", it is a defense of Hackmaster and its usage of random game elements against your blanket criticisms of those very same mechanics, so it very much is a callout of your statement. Again, accountability would be healthier than denial here.
Is this your version of good faith? Calling my mea culpa re: hack/Hackmaster backpedaling and then drilling down on...what exactly?
The exact criticism being drilled down on is already made clear: you use words deliberately out of context and meaning in attempts to make glib statements that look superficially clever, but are ultimately vacuous. For instance, deliberately conflating Hackmaster with hack writing, and then trying to cover up for it by talking about writers who "hacked" it. It's a bit slimy.
You give no other prior examples, you quote nobody (not even falsely like before), and you seem to forget the audience can actually word search for my name to see who's addressing me.
Well, seeing how I did in fact cite multiple examples, just produced the relevant links to the posts being discussed, and did a word search to find it on the previous page, I can't say I agree much with your statement here. In fact, it appears your statement is very much the opposite of the truth, and you yourself have been deliberately trying to engineer a false narrative through obfuscation, false claims, and projection (but also not a whole lot of quotes or verifiable examples).
And again I can clarify: "simple" was kept in the restatement of the thread's title to keep the swaps down to one word. Obviously it's not referencing simple vs. complex re: Paizo's traps, but the meaning of simple, "Having few parts or features; not complicated or elaborate", still expresses the essence I'd intended. Did you not attempt to read it as common English? Oh wait, it was "utterly devoid of meaning". Huh, funny given that you'd explicitly called me out for acting as if words did not having inherent meaning then strip a basic word of its inherent meaning to score a rhetorical point...in good faith I bet.
What makes this sputtering, breathless response all the stranger is the fact that I addressed your word games already in the very quote you're replying to:
So, you may not be aware of this (or perhaps you are, as it's been pointed out to you several times now), but you have this tendency to treat words sometimes as if they have no inherent meaning. You sometimes use words in completely inappropriate contexts and in what appears to be deliberate attempts to not acknowledge their meaning and implication, such as conflating "Hackmaster" with hack writing as per the above quote. This is another such instance, where you're pretending that encounters and simple hazards are the same, and using "simple" here with regards to combat in a manner that is utterly devoid of meaning. Swapping those words does not preserve the meaning, because combat encounters balanced to the party's level have inherent gameplay value in PF2e that simple hazards do not.
Emphasis added. I make specific note of your superficial attempts to conflate hazards and encounters, and counter your hollow juxtaposition by pointing out the meaningful differences between hazards and encounters, differences you conspicuously refuse to even address here in favor of just more deflection. The simplicity of encounters has nothing to do with it. Again, the criticism is that you have prioritized style over substance, and the result is a glib soundbite that ultimately says very little.
Imagine if you'd simply begun with your last point re: combat encounters vs. traps rather than aggression. Then maybe we could have extrapolated together on the value of gameplay vs. consequences and their impacts on narrative purpose vs. gaming purpose. But I don't think you're ready for that.
With all due respect, your behavior is your own responsibility. You don't get to blame me for your decision to spend the near-entirety of your post making blanket denials, false accusations, and thinly-veiled insults; that's on you, and to be quite honest with you, I don't think leading in any different way would have gotten you to produce a more worthwhile response. If you just wanted to discuss the difference between combat encounters and traps, you could have done so, and better still, you could have led with this yourself in your prior reply instead of yet again trying far too hard to look clever. In fact, you could even still do so in any subsequent post you write, instead of whatever other diatribe you may be formulating already.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has been a lot of words and borderline personal attacks to say "use or make hazards that suit your table or adventure"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the Stamina rules puts resource attrition back to the game, which would make the isolated simple traps more relevant than they are now.I don't really think so.
A 10 minute rest restore all stamina. So if an isolated traps deal less than about 1/2 your total, you only lost stamina and just take a rest. Not much different than using medicine after a trap.
If the trap deals more than 1/2 your total, you will have lost actual HP. Now...depending on how your party rolls (and I don't mean dice but how they approach a dungeon) if your healer isn't the one taking the damage they can patch everyone up while the others take a breather.
I honestly see this variant as likely to reduce downtime between encounters, because now 1/2 your "HP" can be restored by taking a breather, and you only need spells or medicine to restore half the amount you previously did.
The stamina rules actually imply that too
So that's like the opposite of what the OP wants.
Stamina's Impact
The main gameplay consequence of using these stamina rules is that a quick 10- or 20-minute rest can restore most groups to full or nearly full health via Taking a Breather and Treating Wounds as necessary, allowing more encounters with shorter breaks in between. Additionally, charismatic or otherwise diplomatic characters gain fun and useful ways to bolster their allies.Because spells that heal Hit Points don’t restore Stamina Points, it’s a little harder to heal up completely in the middle of a fight. This can mean that fights become deadly after characters have been beaten down, possibly causing retreats to be more frequent, but the retreats themselves are shorter. The focus of the game can stay consistently within encounters, with less managing of time and resources outside of battle.
Not so. Taking a Breather to restore stamina points requires spending a Resolve Points. At low levels, a PC has only 4 RP at most, and restoring RP requires resting for the night. So if you lost any number of Stamina Points, you move that much closer to a point where the party must withdraw or risk being unable to recover from combat. The clock advances.
With Stamina rules, a single simple hazard costs a daily resource and causes attrition. In normal rules, a PC just spends time using Treat Wounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has been a lot of words and borderline personal attacks to say "use or make hazards that suit your table or adventure"
Even more succinctly: it is a good idea to read the rules on designing hazards if you want to design or use hazards effectively in your campaign.
This thread has been a lot of words and borderline personal attacks to say "use or make hazards that suit your table or adventure"
I'm not sure this is really topical when the topic is one of game design, not just use at the table. I'm really not a proponent of having the GM fix the game at their table, in this case by specifically avoiding a huge swath of simple damage hazards presented to them as valid options for traps, and I would personally prefer things to be made to work at the design level. As has been pointed out at length, there is a design mismatch between simple damage hazards as solo elements and the way the game handles HP attrition, and the GM "using or making hazards that suit your table or adventure" by tiptoeing around this still entails limitations as to what the GM can do with hazards within the bounds of the game's design.
The rules of the game are clear, and linked above. They directly address your concern, and offer your solution to the problem, as well as 2 other approaches to address the problem. You have vehemently argued your solution isn’t intended to exclude the other ways to use simple damaging hazards in ways are relevant to the story or connected to other aspects of dungeon and adventure design.
You seem frustrated by the number of simple damaging hazards, but simple damaging hazards work very well in contexts where they tell a story about the dungeon and when they are not isolated away from any other aspect of the dungeon, so it is useful to many GMs that they exist. Simple hazards are working at the design level, there are even hazards that exist and accomplish what you want them to do, so it is confusing why you keep insisting that they are not working at a design level.
As already pointed out at length, the rules do not address my concerns at all, nor do they offer a solution to the problem. As a matter of fact, as was brought to your attention already, the guidelines in GM Core highlight the problem, and you have twisted this guideline to present it as a solution. It is not. That GM Core advises against using simple damage hazards as solo threats does not prevent the fact that simple damage hazards, as underlined by the guidelines themselves, fail to offer meaningful gameplay by themselves unless propped up in some other way. This is, by the way, guidance you are presently ignoring. If simple hazards were allowed to align better with the way the system handles HP attrition, or its lack thereof, that pitfall would be mitigated.
Furthermore, as was also brought to your attention, telling a story about the dungeon is not a property intrinsic to simple damage hazards. A simple hazard that applies an effect other damage would fulfil that narrative function just as well. The design of hazards is not purely narrative, it is also mechanical, and your "confusion" arises from the fact that you are conspicuously and deliberately ignoring the latter part. Moreover, the fact that all of this has been explained to you several times already confirms that you are not engaging with this conversation in good faith; all you're doing is rehashing debunked talking points. Who is it you're trying to fool here?
You pretend like hit point attrition and simple damaging traps has ever worked in RPGs, but players have always had ways to heal from damage and made decisions to stop and rest (or use healing items) rather than to push forward recklessly, especially from traps presented as solo encounters that have no connection to anything around them, whether they do damage, or cause impairment. 3.x was much worse about this than PF2, and even in the 2nd edition, parties healed up to as close to full as they could without wasting healing resources and went slowly through dungeons heavy with traps unless outside time pressures were being applied. There might be some games that build in time pressure to game mechanics but those tend to be very heavy handed with the stories they can tell, because inherent mechanical time constraints are not very life like and change based on tone and purpose of a campaign.
The issue with solo traps (and even combat encounters, as has been pointed out to you) not meaningfully tied into a larger unfolding story is they are bad adventure design that just exists to take up player time (the ultimate game resource) and possibly give the party some xp and some treasure. Meaningless (narratively) impairment traps don’t change that vs damaging ones. Impairment traps can take longer to recover from than damage ones, but it is a function of adventure design whether that extra time maters or not. It still always falls back on the GM to either design or chose an adventure that gives the party the opportunity to make meaningful decisions and establish stakes for how the challenges of the adventure are tackled.
It is no harder to use a simple damaging trap in PF2 than a simple impairment trap if you follow the game design guidelines and think about purpose when you build encounters and dungeons.
You pretend like hit point attrition and simple damaging traps has ever worked in RPGs, but players have always had ways to heal from damage and made decisions to stop and rest (or use healing items) rather than to push forward recklessly, especially from traps presented as solo encounters that have no connection to anything around them, whether they do damage, or cause impairment. 3.x was much worse about this than PF2, and even in the 2nd edition, parties healed up to as close to full as they could without wasting healing resources and went slowly through dungeons heavy with traps unless outside time pressures were being applied. There might be some games that build in time pressure to game mechanics but those tend to be very heavy handed with the stories they can tell, because inherent mechanical time constraints are not very life like and change based on tone and purpose of a campaign.
Tell me, honestly: what tabletop systems have you actually played? You pretend like traps never worked in TTRPGs before, except there are oodles of TTRPGs with attrition or inbuilt time constraints that accommodate traps of all kinds perfectly fine. Putting aside the obvious examples of D&D and PF1e, systems like PbtA and stress mechanics allow traps to have a meaningful impact without any of the heavy-handedness you mention. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that traps cannot possibly function in TTRPGs or that attrition has never worked in any game, even more so to dismiss all of those other games with such a broad and ignorant statement.
The issue with solo traps (and even combat encounters, as has been pointed out to you) not meaningfully tied into a larger unfolding story is they are bad adventure design that just exists to take up player time (the ultimate game resource) and possibly give the party some xp and some treasure. Meaningless (narratively) impairment traps don’t change that vs damaging ones. Impairment traps can take longer to recover from than damage ones, but it is a function of adventure design whether that extra time maters or not. It still always falls back on the GM to either design or chose an adventure that gives the party the opportunity to make meaningful decisions and establish stakes for how the challenges of the adventure are tackled.
Also, follow-up question: who here is expressly asking for traps to have no narrative function? I only pointed out that traps have both a narrative and mechanical function, as do most game elements, so it's a little weird that you'd jump once more to the false dichotomy that anyone using traps for their mechanics is not also using them with any narrative purpose. It is entirely possible to do both, and GMs should aim to do both; the problem is that when the mechanics are lacking, that can also impact the narrative, so my proposal would be in service to both.
It is no harder to use a simple damaging trap in PF2 than a simple impairment trap if you follow the game design guidelines and think about purpose when you build encounters and dungeons.
See, this is where the mask doesn't really hold up, because you're using only the flimsiest veneer of politeness here to keep casting aspersion on my GMing skill and my ability to follow guidelines. As has already been explained to you: the problem is not that the guidelines are difficult to follow, the problem is that the usage of simple damage hazards is far more restrictive than it could be. Following the guidelines as written means not using simple damage hazards on their own, and even if we include your proposed deviation and use those traps for signalling (which any other trap could achieve), that is still an extremely limited usage. I am by no means the only person to highlight the value simple damage hazards could provide if their usage weren't so limited, so while you are certainly entitled to see no further value, it is an overstep on your part to repeatedly insist that there is objectively no problem, as well as dismiss any contrary opinion in this regard as a mere inability to follow the rules and guidelines.
Not so. Taking a Breather to restore stamina points requires spending a Resolve Points. At low levels, a PC has only 4 RP at most, and restoring RP requires resting...Using the Stamina rules puts resource attrition back to the game, which would make the isolated simple traps more relevant than they are now.I don't really think so.
A 10 minute rest restore all stamina. So if an isolated traps deal less than about 1/2 your total, you only lost stamina and just take a rest. Not much different than using medicine after a trap.
If the trap deals more than 1/2 your total, you will have lost actual HP. Now...depending on how your party rolls (and I don't mean dice but how they approach a dungeon) if your healer isn't the one taking the damage they can patch everyone up while the others take a breather.
I honestly see this variant as likely to reduce downtime between encounters, because now 1/2 your "HP" can be restored by taking a breather, and you only need spells or medicine to restore half the amount you previously did.
The stamina rules actually imply that too
So that's like the opposite of what the OP wants.
Stamina's Impact
The main gameplay consequence of using these stamina rules is that a quick 10- or 20-minute rest can restore most groups to full or nearly full health via Taking a Breather and Treating Wounds as necessary, allowing more encounters with shorter breaks in between. Additionally, charismatic or otherwise diplomatic characters gain fun and useful ways to bolster their allies.Because spells that heal Hit Points don’t restore Stamina Points, it’s a little harder to heal up completely in the middle of a fight. This can mean that fights become deadly after characters have been beaten down, possibly causing retreats to be more frequent, but the retreats themselves are shorter. The focus of the game can stay consistently within encounters, with less managing of time and resources outside of battle.
So yes, after 4 encounters you potentially are out of resolve and then can't "heal". But it's going to be very obvious (and frustrating) to players if you throw in several traps just to force them to use up resolve before sending them into combat at less than full health.
And even with that you could have just not given the party time to fully heal up using medicine.
An example, very rough, the flying guillotine trap is a level 5 hazard. It will inflict ~16 hp of damage per hit, which is about 20% to 25% of a level 5 characters health. It can damage multiple characters per round, and is likely to get two rounds of attacks in. Now, it's possible that someone has invest in both Ward Medic and Continual Recovery by level 5. Meaning they can treat people in just 10 minutes, and can treat the entire party. But if you give them enough time pressure, you can get them to only take 10 minutes of healing. And if anyone suffered more than 1 hit, it's unlikely to get them back up to full. Repeat a few times prior to the boss fight and you achieve the same end. No need for introducing new rules.
So yes, after 4 encounters you potentially are out of resolve and then can't "heal". But it's going to be very obvious (and frustrating) to players if you throw in several traps just to force them to use up resolve before sending them into combat at less than full health.
I don't think that's really what NECROG1ANT is saying, and I'm confused as to why we're assuming the absolute worst possible intent at the mere mention of the GM using any kind of trap. Reading their response, the impression I got was more that traps and encounters would both work as part of an ecosystem where, in combination, they'd put just the right amount of pressure on the party to create a challenge and encourage them to use their resources wisely, including breathers in this instance. Stamina in this respect does add an element of attrition that is otherwise missing, which is one way among many of letting damage have a more lasting impact by its very nature. On my part, I do want to insist that this is by no means the only way of introducing lasting consequences to solo hazards, but it certainly is a valid one all the same.
I told you exactly why, but maybe you missed it. Because our GM may introduce new hazards or monsters based on clock time, particularly at night. In our games, the world keeps spinning and the villains keep carrying out their evil plots, even when the characters do nothing.
Isn't this exactly the kind of narratively meaningless content everyone keeps criticizing, though? How many new monsters and hazards is the GM throwing at you that this creates pressure you can't just heal away? Because as long as you can keep healing faster than the GM can throw damage at you, taking more time still works in the party's favor.
I agree it is not universal. That's what makes the value of such traps to different campaigns a table issue. Right?
No, because the problem is baseline. Just because your table tries to fix this does not mean the problem is subjective, any more than some other game with a dysfunctional base ruleset suddenly would become objectively functional at its core the moment one table somewhere in the world houserules a fix.
You've said you're not arguing for Paizo to remove or change basic simple traps. But you started by arguing (or, sounding like you were arguing...) that they are nothing but speed bumps, unfit for purpose, etc. and I disagree with you there. They can be very fit for purpose...when the GM pays attention to the second part of the sentence you quoted, and doesn't ignore it.
Here is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. This is your argument and it is not an argument to add more content. That quote is a criticism of the current content, and implies you think it should be rewritten, changed, or improved. That's where we disagree.
Sure, a GM who drops a listed hazard into a dungeon without reading the GMC section on how to use hazards may find their traps less effective. I don't see this as a big problem. It's user error, not a bug in the program.
"This thing works if you fix it" presumes the thing is broken to begin with. You're committing the Oberoni fallacy here, and it stands to reason that if simple hazards need to have special treatment applied in order to function properly, then they're not fully functional out of the box, despite that being the standard for game elements in PF2e.
Again, you are clearly not arguing for merely more new traps. You are arguing the current section is broken because it needs the GM to fix it at the table. Which is I think the point some folks disgaree with you about. As far as I can tell, nobody is arguing against your suggestion that Paizo add more traps with effects different from damage.
If you disagree, that is your prerogative, but if you want to argue it, you're going to need better justification than blaming GMs for a design issue. That argument is probably what grinds my gears the most in this discussion, as it feels like the pure product of this D&D 5e mentality where the DM is held responsible for having to fix things the game breaks, and is fundamentally an argument that focuses entirely on just blaming people instead of trying to have a productive discussion free from blame games. That more than one person adhered to this pernicious line of argumentation is as disappointing as it is ultimately not all that surprising on these forums.
I think we're good then. This was my main point of disagreement with you.
Simple damage traps can serve a useful plot purpose, used correctly. Agreed?
While the statement in isolation is true, I still disagree with you, because you are implicitly and falsely framing an extremely limited narrative function as the sole valid function of simple damage traps, when I am pointing out this limitation as a point of criticism.
In other words: simple damage traps can serve a useful plot purpose if used correctly, but could also achieve a far greater variety of purposes, both narrative and mechanical, if their damage weren't so easy to erase. Agreed?
They are not a good fit for every campaign or play style. Merely one tool in the toolbox which GMs should take or leave as appropriate for their game. Agreed?
And again, the statement is true in isolation, but deliberately ignores how the limitations it assumes are, well... limiting, and so in a manner that need not be the case and isn't the case in many other gaming systems. So no, I don't agree.
In other words: simple damage traps are not a good fit for every campaign or play style, but could be a much better fit for many more campaigns and play styles if their mechanical function were made to work better with PF2e's model of HP attrition. Agreed?
Paizo publishing more, different, unique hazard content (like persistent condition traps) would be welcome. Agreed?
This I agree with unconditionally. More good content is always welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding impairments to all simple damage traps would make them impairment traps, not simple damage traps, and the damage they do would have to be reduced to accommodate that change.
Thus your suggestion is essentially to eliminate simple damage traps from the game...but those traps work just fine in very many circumstances, because damage does matter any time the adventure has been designed well enough that time or narrative constraints exist that make those traps more than speed bumps. This is how the simple damage traps are intended to be used, and that is made clear in the rules.
It seems more like you are suggesting that there be a new list of traps for "solo simple traps that don't connect to other encounters or narrative considerations" and that simple damage traps not be included on this list. That would be very simple to compose, and if you feel like there are not enough hazards on it, then asking for more seems very reasonable and likely to happen.
None of that means that PF2 traps, simple traps or simple damage traps are broken or don't work to fill the role they are designed to do.
So yes, after 4 encounters you potentially are out of resolve and then can't "heal". But it's going to be very obvious (and frustrating) to players if you throw in several traps just to force them to use up resolve before sending them into combat at less than full health.I don't think that's really what NECROG1ANT is saying, and I'm confused as to why we're assuming the absolute worst possible intent at the mere mention of the GM using any kind of trap. Reading their response, the impression I got was more that traps and encounters would both work as part of an ecosystem where, in combination, they'd put just the right amount of pressure on the party to create a challenge and encourage them to use their resources wisely, including breathers in this instance. Stamina in this respect does add an element of attrition that is otherwise missing, which is one way among many of letting damage have a more lasting impact by its very nature. On my part, I do want to insist that this is by no means the only way of introducing lasting consequences to solo hazards, but it certainly is a valid one all the same.
I think you're assuming things from my statement that I'm not intending as well. No offense, you (and everyone in this thread really, including me) have been doing that.
That's honestly why I just dropped our previous exchange because I grew tired of each of us misunderstanding the other.
I wasn't suggesting that NecroG1ant was saying you should throw 4 traps and then a boss fight, just saying that if you did something like that while using the stamina rules it would be frustrating to players. Stamina rules actually have a faster recovery, until you run out of resolve points. What is likely to happen is players will just stop adventuring when they run out of resolve. At which point you have to introduce a time constraint to keep them moving. At which point, you might as well avoid stamina and just introduce the time constraint.
I agree with Claxton, let's stop playing gotcha.
What is your proposal Teridax? Can you restate it here, as revised as you wish to make it based upon the conversation thus far?
What changes to the game are you suggesting be made?
What are the current deficiencies in the game that you are trying to address?
As you answer these questions, please be aware that making statements like
I am by no means the only person to highlight the value simple damage hazards could provide if their usage weren't so limited, so while you are certainly entitled to see no further value, it is an overstep on your part to repeatedly insist that there is objectively no problem, as well as dismiss any contrary opinion in this regard as a mere inability to follow the rules and guidelines.
are pretty easy to misread as you saying that "simple damage traps don't work as they should," when what you are actually asking for is to use traps that are not simple damage traps in situations where the trap stands alone...which is exactly what the rules of the game say to do. So if you position is different from that, I would greatly appreciate it if you can restate your proposal without attaching it to a whole lot of back and forth that seems to be tied mostly to miscommunication and bad faith in each other's arguments.
I agree with Claxton, let's stop playing gotcha.
[...]
As you answer these questions, please be aware that making statements like
I am by no means the only person to highlight the value simple damage hazards could provide if their usage weren't so limited, so while you are certainly entitled to see no further value, it is an overstep on your part to repeatedly insist that there is objectively no problem, as well as dismiss any contrary opinion in this regard as a mere inability to follow the rules and guidelines.are pretty easy to misread as you saying that "simple damage traps don't work as they should," when what you are actually asking for is to use traps that are not simple damage traps in situations where the trap stands alone...which is exactly what the rules of the game say to do. So if you position is different from that, I would greatly appreciate it if you can restate your proposal without attaching it to a whole lot of back and forth that seems to be tied mostly to miscommunication and bad faith in each other's arguments.
Not only is this you playing gotcha, this is you playing gotcha with yourself. My position is that simple damage traps don't work as they should, given the larger context of gaming using those traps with meaningful mechanical impact, and the system being discussed limiting that mechanical impact due to how it handles HP attrition differently. You can't use traps in PF2e like you would in most other games, is the point, and that limits the kinds of stories those traps can be used to tell.
But still, let's answer the questions in earnest:
What is your proposal Teridax? Can you restate it here, as revised as you wish to make it based upon the conversation thus far?
What changes to the game are you suggesting be made?
What are the current deficiencies in the game that you are trying to address?
To start with the last question and problem statement: I would like it to be made easier for simple traps to be used as solo threats in a way that carries meaningful mechanical impact, not just narrative impact. The deficiency right now is that simple damage traps often lack this impact innately, hence why existing guidelines have to caution against using them. Were I to put forth concrete proposals, they would be as follows:
Teridax, thank you for breaking it down like that. Something that jumped out at me right away as something I was not understanding about your position is that, for you, “simple hazards work out of the box even for solo hazards disconnected from other elements of the dungeon” meant ALL simple hazards, not just that there are simple hazards that work in those situations, which is why the statement appeared true to me and not to you.
You kind of break your proposal down into 3 suggestions:
1. More impairment simple hazards seems like one everyone agrees should happen and will happen over time. Bringing it up anyway to make sure it happens and to establish player interest in such a thing is a fine idea and one I support.
2. Guidance on converting simple damage traps into impairment traps. I understand that this gets at the “making all simple traps work for solo traps” part of the problem you are trying to address, and I feel like it could definitely happen within the PF2 player community or by a third party, but it is not something I would want developers putting much “official paizo time” into, except in the form of making more different kinds of hazards, some of which might be very similar to other existing traps. The reason I feel this way is because having comparable alternatives can be easier and faster than trying to do modifications and an updating list of hazards that work well as solo traps feels like it would accomplish the task of supporting new GMs just as well, without having to dial in a system that doesn’t really feel like it would be less complicated than the existing “design a hazard system.” An addition to that system that lists different kinds of effects that would be reasonable to add to new traps at different levels does sound like a good add on to me and is maybe enough to cover your idea.
3. Clocks. I generally really hate artificial constraints on time in RPGs, but I do think there have been some very good applications of time management scenarios that have been fun in specific APs. The second book of the outlaws of alkenstar had one that was a real trip. Generally, I think utilizing aspects of the existing victory points systems would be the best approach for GMs to use for something like this. The infiltration system in particular feels relevant. If every hour spent in the dungeon generally added an alertness counter to the dungeon, and leaving doors unlocked/open and traps triggered adding those points too, then even a half an hour spent healing after a trap and failing to carefully disarm it would be meaningful. The trick is that different dungeons are going to need different systems and different consequences for it. I see the newer APs trying to do stuff like this a lot.
Thank you for breaking it down like this. I won't debate the merits of whether a certain idea is worth "Paizo time", as while I do find many ideas worthwhile I also fully empathize with prioritizing other game elements first. For what it's worth, I don't consider anything here a priority or a game-breaker, just stuff that could be improved.
Something that jumped out at me right away as something I was not understanding about your position is that, for you, “simple hazards work out of the box even for solo hazards disconnected from other elements of the dungeon” meant ALL simple hazards, not just that there are simple hazards that work in those situations, which is why the statement appeared true to me and not to you.
Yes, so to be clear, one of the use cases I had was "the party is tracking a hunter hiding in their own den, and so the GM wants to implement something like pit traps and other damage traps to have the hunter try to harm the party." All of the traps are intended to be in service to the narrative, as this hunter is a trap-setter and is trying to catch the party as they would other prey, but whereas in other games those could create mounting pressure and a feeling of ever-present threat, in PF2e the delivery could easily fall flat, as most parties can easily heal through this damage every time. In effect, what could have been a narratively powerful dungeon that married mechanics and theme would devolve into a bunch of speed bumps as described in GM core, and thus fall short both narratively and mechanically. If instead I had an easy template that let me, say, convert the damage from that hidden pit into a -5 Speed penalty for a certain duration (the implication being that the party member injured their leg or the like), then that pit could have more meaning, especially if I were to then follow it up with another hazard, perhaps a complex hazard this time, where Speed is particularly valuable.
With time constraints, you don't have to get artificial at all.
In any place with traps, it's reasonable that you have an Alarm (not necessarily exactly per the spell) in multiple places in the dungeon and that some minions when encountered would attempt to run away and alert the dungeon boss.
Now, the PCs need to get to the boss before they escape.
Honestly, the fact that most dungeons don't actually end up like that is something that bothers me.
To me it's kind of like the idea that if armed intruders showed up at the Whitehouse, the president isn't sticking around to see how it turns out. The president will leave with any important items, and let his security team handle the situation.
And in this scenario, the boss doesn't need to be the overall boss. It can be a lieutenant or other trusted underling above the rank and file but not the final boss.
With time constraints, you don't have to get artificial at all.
In any place with traps, it's reasonable that you have an Alarm (not necessarily exactly per the spell) in multiple places in the dungeon and that some minions when encountered would attempt to run away and alert the dungeon boss.
Now, the PCs need to get to the boss before they escape.
Honestly, the fact that most dungeons don't actually end up like that is something that bothers me.
To me it's kind of like the idea that if armed intruders showed up at the Whitehouse, the president isn't sticking around to see how it turns out. The president will leave with any important items, and let his security team handle the situation.
And in this scenario, the boss doesn't need to be the overall boss. It can be a lieutenant or other trusted underling above the rank and file but not the final boss.
Escape only works in some situations, basically where the location itself isn't important to the boss or the PCs.
In many cases, the far more effective approach is for any such alarm to gather that security team and prep to take out the intruders in one big ambush rather than let the PCs keep taking out small groups piecemeal. It's a thing I have problems with even without an explicit mechanism.
I mean, both are valid right?
In my mind, you're going to get groups of bad guys joining into larger forces to fight the enemy, and you're going to get the leader of the location prepared to escape. A location might be important to the NPC, but if they're defeated it means they definitely can continue on with any plans. I think you need a special category of enemies that are actually willing to fight to the death. In most circumstances I would expect a realization that team evil isn't easily dispatching the PCs, and thus should be prepared to exfiltrate.
I only expect NPCs to fight to the death when they are so fanatic they don't fear death, they don't realize the PCs are a significant threat, or when the location they're at is so important the NPC would rather die than lose it. Now, I expect that to happen every campaign, especially at the climax. But I don't expect it to happen with most BBEGs of any particular arc of a campaign.
As an aside, I quite like dungeons that have been designed with multiple rooms of combatants coming together and streaming together making for longer encounters, assuming the person designing it has accounted for the more challenging nature of such an encounter and doesn't just overwhelm the PCs. It also rewards a party capable of really infiltrating without alerting the enemies with potentially an easier final encounter (assuming the designer includes some sort of mechanism to block the final encounter from the other NPCs).
In any place with traps, it's reasonable that you have an Alarm (not necessarily exactly per the spell) in multiple places in the dungeon and that some minions when encountered would attempt to run away and alert the dungeon boss.
So here's the thing: what you're describing is a perfectly valid scenario that would make for an interesting and dynamic dungeon. I don't think, however, that it's the only way traps should pan out in a dungeon, and even if you were to list a number of similar scenarios, that would still not go against the fact that many other scenarios that would be easy to implement in other games are not so easy to do right now in PF2e. The fact that you have to change tack and do something different is a sign that there are limitations at hand, and it is those limitations that I am criticizing. FWIW I do like the idea of time constraints, hence my proposal for an optional clock system, but I also don't think every scenario needs specific time constraints either, especially not just to make solo simple traps work mechanically.
|
|
Not so. Taking a Breather to restore stamina points requires spending a Resolve Points. At low levels, a PC has only 4 RP at most, and restoring RP requires resting for the night. So if you lost any number of Stamina Points, you move that much closer to a point where the party must withdraw or risk being unable to recover from combat. The clock advances.
With Stamina rules, a single simple hazard costs a daily resource and causes attrition. In normal rules, a PC just spends time using Treat Wounds.
So yes, after 4 encounters you potentially are out of resolve and then can't "heal". But it's going to be very obvious (and frustrating) to players if you throw in several traps just to force them to use up resolve before sending them into combat at less than full health.
And even with that you could have just not given the party time to fully heal up using medicine.
An example, very rough, the flying guillotine trap is a level 5 hazard. It will inflict ~16 hp of damage per hit, which is about 20% to 25% of a level 5 characters health. It can damage multiple characters per round, and is likely to get two rounds of attacks in. Now, it's possible that someone has invest in both Ward Medic and Continual Recovery by level 5. Meaning they can treat people in just 10 minutes, and can treat the entire party. But if you give them enough time pressure, you can get them to only take 10 minutes of healing. And if anyone suffered more than 1 hit, it's unlikely to get them back up to full. Repeat a few times prior to the boss fight and you achieve the same end. No need for introducing new rules.
True, one could solve the issue of simple hazards not being a true obstacle to the PCs by denying the party to fully heal before the next fight. I would argue that doing so is more likely to frustrate than players than using Stamina, but YMMV. Another source of frustration, at least for me personally, is the pressure for someone in the party to take those Medicine feats you mentioned, and Stamina reduces that pressure. Also, the flying guillotine trap is a complex hazard, which isn't really what the thread is about. Complex hazards are encounters unto themselves.
Furthermore, Stamina and time pressure are not at all mutually exclusive. I use both in the campaigns I run.
True, one could solve the issue of simple hazards not being a true obstacle to the PCs by denying the party to fully heal before the next fight. I would argue that doing so is more likely to frustrate than players than using Stamina, but YMMV. Another source of frustration, at least for me personally, is the pressure for someone in the party to take those Medicine feats you mentioned, and Stamina reduces that pressure. Also, the flying guillotine trap is a complex hazard, which isn't really what the thread is about. Complex hazards are encounters unto themselves.
Furthermore, Stamina and time pressure are not at all mutually exclusive. I use both in the campaigns I run.
It's true that time pressure and stamina aren't somehow forced to be exclusive. I do think that proposing the stamina system doesn't resolve the original concerns on it's own (again it will decrease downtime between combats, until resolve points are exhausted). Stamina does reduce/eliminate the need for someone take the medicine skill and the associated feats, though I don't have a problem with them. I rather find it to be a positive thing that someone can invest in. The stamina system does diminish their power a bit.
What you say is true, that the guillotine is not a simple hazard, but it has the same problem as simple hazards if not used in a more productive way. Even regular combat encounters have this problem. If the party comes through, at most they've wasted some of their resources but are likely to be at full HP and without lasting ailments given enough time.
I think the time pressure element of dungeon exploration feels punishing to players when it feels completely like it is a kind of arbitrary dependent on GM whim. When there is nothing the players can do to get a sense of how active the halls of a dungeon are before they are in a position where they really need/want to rest and don’t know how they can make that happen.
In the one hand, a formal system can make that more transparent to the players and make it a function of chance or trackable risk, but that can also make the players extra paranoid and risk adverse as well, which is why the default of the system is to leave it all very flexible.
I think I might try having an awareness system based off the infiltration system for each major faction in a dungeon and see how that goes, with different levels that will change how enemies react and both encounters and traps would factor in to that.
In the one hand, a formal system can make that more transparent to the players and make it a function of chance or trackable risk, but that can also make the players extra paranoid and risk adverse as well, which is why the default of the system is to leave it all very flexible.
Having played Blades in the Dark, which uses a clock system, my experience has been that clocks tend to make the party take more risks, not fewer. Because time is of the essence, the party can't afford to dot every i and cross every t; they have to decide what their priority is and make difficult choices, which sometimes means taking risks instead of hedging their bets. The game also has this absolutely amazing flashback mechanic that I think is also worth porting as an optional rule, as it helps avoid over-lengthy prep sessions by letting players say "well, turns out my character prepared for exactly this eventuality all along, and here's how!", so that can help mitigate risk somewhat, but one of the fundamental aspects of clocks in that game is that they put constant pressure on the party to make the most of their time.
Besides, simple damage traps do have another purpose: showing up in combat encounters, as a cheap XP filler that still does hefty damage (once). For when you want to spruce up your encounter with a level -3 opponent but worry that opponent isn't worth the effort.
This is actually one of the main reasons why I don't want to remove simple damage hazards outright, the other being that taking content away from a game is generally inadvisable (look at how people reacted to certain rituals being made mythic-exclusive). Simple damage hazards may struggle to have a mechanical impact as solo threats out of combat, but function fully as additional threats in encounters, so there is value in having those kinds of hazards even if they don't work well in other scenarios.
I think I like putting them on doors leading to the known enemy encounter. Maybe use it as punishment for players who obviously prebuff outside the door. They're worth so little XP that you won't feel bad not awarding players that 8XP!
I suppose it comes down to taste, but devising mechanics specifically to punish players really rubs me the wrong way. As a GM, I'm not here to punish my players, I want to make sure everyone at the table has fun, so if something's not working the way I want, I'd rather change things in ways that make more sense or are more rewarding (or just talk to my players). I don't personally consider prebuffing to be a huge deal, but if the party is very loudly and obviously prebuffing right outside an encounter area, my first instinct would be to have the noise alert the monsters. In fact, if I wanted to spice things up a little, I could make each buff spell cast entail a Stealth check against those monsters' Perception, just to inject a bit of tension into what would otherwise be a very routine set of actions. As a side benefit, this would also make feats like Conceal Spell comparatively more valuable in that they'd allow you to automatically prebuff stealthily.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I look at this a lot through a PFS & AP lens, cuz that's what I've a played a lot in the last decade. And standalone uninteresting simple traps haven't really happened often enough to be much of a problem. But, Teridax has a point that they're a story trope that's a bit hard to mechanically deploy in a satisfying way. So instead of them not getting used because they're not good enough on their own, maybe we can make them good enough to use?
One gripe I have with simple hazards is that they tend to be very binary. Either you find them or you don't. And then they might make an attack roll and miss or hit you. If they hit (or crit; even on-level "trivial" simple hazards have higher to-hit than a fighter) they do a lot of damage, because they only get one shot at it.
Sounds a lot like the design problem of 1E save or die effects doesn't it?
The ones that use basic saves are already a bit better. They could still be impactful with a bit lower damage, because even on a successful save they'll scrape you a bit (until Master saves kick in). But if you have plenty of time to heal up, it's not good enough. So we need different consequences.
Maybe that's a good way to design: every standalone trap (actually, maybe every encounter ever, but that's a longer story) should have a Consequence for failure. Don't just plunk down a trap and call it quits. Pick a Consequence from a list of suggestions or come up with your own. For example:
- Inflict a short-term debuff. In one PFS scenario failing some jungle exploration skill challenge made you start the next fight Sickened 1.
- Miss out on some treasure/consumables that get crushed by the trap as collateral damage.
- Raise enemy alarm, giving them a bonus to initiative during later fights.
- Raise awareness points.
I like Unicore's suggestion of a alarm/clock system inspired by the Infiltration and Awareness mechanics. I normally feel Infiltration is a bit rigid, but you could loosely apply it to dungeoneering. For example:
- Triggering a hazard increases awareness
- An encounter with creatures that you make sure don't escape, still increases awareness
- Taking breaks after encounters, or maybe more than a single 10m break after an encounter. This probably needs to be not precisely a +1/10m formula because that could go too fast.
As awareness goes up, things get a bit harder. Enemies get bonuses to initiative, they start sending out patrols to look for the PCs, or they know well enough when the PCs are due to arrive that they can use prebuffing accurately. As the players roll initiative, you move few more pawns into the encounter with enemy reinforcements. It's important that you make it visible to the players that this is extra, because enemies are responding to them.
Sometimes the players will have a good run and not increase awareness very much. You can't avoid it entirely when every fight adds a point of course. But players should be able to sense the difference between doing well and doing poorly, even though both are still within tolerance for appropriate game difficulty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the time pressure element of dungeon exploration feels punishing to players when it feels completely like it is a kind of arbitrary dependent on GM whim. When there is nothing the players can do to get a sense of how active the halls of a dungeon are before they are in a position where they really need/want to rest and don’t know how they can make that happen.
In the one hand, a formal system can make that more transparent to the players and make it a function of chance or trackable risk, but that can also make the players extra paranoid and risk adverse as well, which is why the default of the system is to leave it all very flexible.
I think I might try having an awareness system based off the infiltration system for each major faction in a dungeon and see how that goes, with different levels that will change how enemies react and both encounters and traps would factor in to that.
It can feel that way, which is why you shouldn't use it all the time.
But most of the time I'm not looking to "make traps have a lasting impact" or anything like that right.
Even if I am, you can have the party explore the majority of the dungeon with no apparent time constraint. And then, not far from the boss there's an alarm that goes off and the party needs to run through traps in the hopes of catching them. Still don't do it all the time because it will be get old, just like using a ton of traps every dungeon.
But you also have a point that players don't know how active or how risky sitting in a dungeon is.
For my group, I'd like to think it's pretty obvious. Barring mega dungeons, trying to "sleep" in the dungeon is going to result in something happening that won't be in the players favor. It may just be the people in the dungeon leave. It may be the players get caught by a surprise attack.
The real question is how long can you sit in a corner and heal your wounds before someone is likely to find you. And we haven't really developed a system for that.