PF2 Structure Part 4 - Other Scenario Structures

Go to Part 1

The Ring Goes South to Mordor

Hey folks!

In our last article, we talked about what I consider to be the best example of Scenario Structure in PF2 - the Infiltration Subsystem. We talked about its strengths, how it's used in adventures, and what changes or variations might be worth making.

Today, unfortunately, we're going to be a bit more negative. We're going to be talking about Pathfinder 2e's other Scenario Structures, or, in many cases, the lack thereof. We'll start by talking about the other "official" Scenario Structure - Hexploration (yes, this is the only other "official" one) - before going into the less defined structures. This includes Investigations (essentially several Research libraries stapled together in Gatewalkers), Dungeon Crawls (which do not have explicit rules in PF2), Linear Sequences (where things just happen in a given order), and various less detailed structures in APs. We generally won't be going into quite as much detail for each of them, but there's a solid chance I'll remake some or all of them in Part 5.

We've got a lot to get through, so let's jump on in!

Hexploration

The only Subsystem in the GMC apart from infiltration that counts as a proper Scenario Structure is hexploration. It's not bad! But it's also not great.

"Few activities epitomize adventure as much as pure exploration through an unknown wilderness... During their exploration, the PCs travel through and explore individual hexes, finding interesting sites, secrets, resources, and dangers" (GMC 206).

The Core Loop is extremely simple.

1. Start of Day. The GM checks for Random Encounters by rolling a Flat Check. The DC depends on the type of terrain.
2. Hexploration. The group takes Hexploration Activities, either to Travel 1 12-mile Hex or Reconnoiter the Hex they are in to find a landmark. 
• They get a number of Activities based on the Speed of their slowest member.
• They can also take other Exploration Activities like Cover Tracks, Decipher Writing, or Repair in place of one of their normal Hexploration Activities.
3. End of Day. Players can choose to Subsist, counting as if they'd done so after 8 hours of activity. The Kingmaker rules also include cooking rules and some other campsite activities, though my understanding from folks that played is that they weren't integrated that well so we'll leave them alone.

Problems with Hexploration

There are a few problems with the structure as written, however:

• Formatting. Not a problem with the rules per say, but things are presented in a bit of a weird order. It would be nice to have a clear list like I wrote above in the chapter for GMs to quickly refer to when running.
• Missing Steps. Because there's no clear outline (as above), there are a couple important steps that it's really easy to miss, and that (as far as I can see) are not explicitly mentioned anywhere: Tracking the Day / Ticking Durations; Resolving Travel Activities; Deciding on Lookouts; Marking Rations; Daily Preparations.
• Encounter Checks. When do Encounters happen if they're rolled for? On a Critical Success, you get 2 Encounters - do they happen at the same time, or separately? Perhaps most importantly, you only roll for Random Encounters at the start of the day, but the chance depends on the terrain type. What happens if you traverse multiple different types of terrain? Which DC do you use, the one you start in, the one you end in, or the one you spend the most time in? 
• Number of Activities. Why is this based on Speed? It kind of makes sense for Travel and Reconnoiter, since those involve traversing large areas. Even then, though, why does someone who can only travel 5 more feet per Action travel twice as far in a day? I get that it's abstracted, but 12 Miles per Day is much slower than the 20 listed in the Exploration Chapter. I don't think anything would be lost by using 6 mile hexes and twice (ish) as many activities, allowing for more granularity around speed, even if you liked this system.
• On the upside, here, the system does say that hexploration activities represent the PCs time "during daylight hours" - this is still a little vague, and varies depending on season in a way that feels odd to me, but at least serves as a benchmark!
• Non-Travel Activities. Things get even jankier if the players don't spend all of their Hexploration Activities to travel or reconnoiter, but instead do something else. Even the listed options of "Fortify Camp" and "Map the Area" are a bit odd in this context - why does PC speed directly translate to being able to do these more efficiently? For a party with speed 25, these take the entire day, but with speed 50 they take only a third of the day!
• It gets worse when you try to factor in other exploration activities, however.  It says "In general, the various exploration activities found in the sidebar on pages 438-439 of Player Core (except Hustle) can be used as individual hexploration activities, as can skill actions in Chapter 4 of Player Core, at the GM’s discretion." So in a dungeon, this takes 10 minutes, but while exploring it takes an arbitrary amount of time based on your speed? This advice is meaningless, and might as well not be there.
• This is why a structures based on time would be more effective - it makes it easy to see what actions are small enough to ignore and which should take up time.

All of those are genuine, structural problems. While GMs can absolutely solve them, the whole point of a Scenario Structure is so that they don't have to!

There's also just, kind of a lot missing. The subsystem only gets 4 pages, only two of which are actual rules (the other two are guidance for designing hex maps) - this means there's not a ton of interesting choices for PCs to make, apart from which direction to travel.

Hexploration in Practice

I have seen Hexploration used only in 3 modules, though it's possible I've missed some. The first big example I'm aware of was Quest for the Frozen Flame, which I don't have. It also features heavily in Kingmaker - I don't have the physical version, but I did get a pdf from the recent humblebundle! It also shows up briefly in the last chapter of Triumph of the Tusk.

I originally wrote up a bigger analysis for Triumph of the Tusk, but my thoughts can basically boiled down to a few key points. First, putting useful info on your maps (like difficult terrain) is great! Second, the whole point of a hexcrawl is to have the PCs explore an area. That means there should be things worth finding! Factions, secrets, resources to help in the final confrontation, not just random treasure or combats. Third: I don't think hexploration was the right call here. I'm gonna be honest, I get why it's not used very much in APs, it's really only appropriate if it's a huge chunk of it.

I'm not going to dive that deeply into Kingmaker, as that would deserve a whole series of its own! I will note a few things, however. First, the camping and weather rules are each individually longer than the entirety of the core hexploration rules (several times longer if you count only the 2 pages of rules for actually running them, as opposed to building them). Second, it (informally) uses Landmark, Hidden, Secret (though calls "Hidden" encounters "Standard" instead). Neat! Third, it's got a lot going on! Not just camping and weather, but also separate zones with their own random encounters, rumors, and lots of different quests, plothooks, and factions. I don't think every adventure with hexploration needs to go quite as hard as Kingmaker, but I do think that this subsystem requires a lot of fleshing out to make it work. It can't really stand on its own, even more so than other subsystems.

Investigation

While there is no official investigation subsystem, Gatewalkers Book 1 uses a Scenario Structure that it calls investigation, so it's the last of the properly defined structures.

Essentially, there are several research "libraries" called investigation sites. The PCs have 3 days, and each day pick one site to visit. At the end of each day, the GM runs creepy little "visitation encounters." There's even a little end of day checklist, which I love, making sure you don't miss anything!

This is overall a fine structure, though a bit one-note. I would much prefer this to be a more node-based investigation structure, with some of the nodes being research libraries, some of them being social scenes or side-quests to help people, and so on. Still, it's mostly fine!

There are two things I don't like, however. The first is that, in addition to tracking the IP gained at each investigation site, the GM also tracks total IP, and reveals certain information at different amounts of total IP. This is a dissociated mechanic, which I'm generally not a fan of - where does this new information come from? It also feels a bit antithetical to the point of a mystery for the GM to say "Great, well you just happen to notice a pattern that tells you exactly where and when to go, good job you!" rather than the player noticing that pattern for themself. Piecing together disparate clues and drawing conclusions is one of the most fun part of mystery scenarios, in my experience.

The other thing I don't like is that, as far as I can tell, solving the mystery doesn't matter. The PCs get no benefit, none of the information they gain is particularly actionable in combat, and the bad guy just comes and finds them even if they don't figure it out! I wish at least that they some sort of element of surprise that made the ensuing dungeon easier, or that they learned useful information that would help them in combat. Still, that's an adventure writing problem, not a problem with the broader Scenario Structure.

Mysteries

I'll just quickly say that I prefer three clues rule mysteries, as demonstrated in my Strength of Thousands Book 2 Remix. Whether you want a linear structure or a sandbox, it's more fun to find concrete clues in concrete places and put the pieces together yourself, rather than just rolling dice and being told the answer. Even the GM Core agrees, saying "Let the player extrapolate their own conclusion rather than giving them the answers outright" in the "Roleplaying Investigations" section (GM Core 36). A lot of Paizo modules would benefit from following that advice!

Dungeon Crawls

That's all the "official" Scenario Structures! There are also a handful of unofficial ones that haven't been properly deifned, so we'll spend some time going through each of those.

Perhaps the most common Scenario Structure in PF2 is where the PCs explore a location, dealing with the threats within in pursuit of their ultimate goal!

Unfortunately, there are no rules for dungeon crawls in RAW PF2. Believe me, I checked. While old school or OSR/NSR games will usually have well-defined structures for running dungeons, PF2 just has vague guidance. Some of it's even pretty solid, definitely go read about running exploration in the GM Core, but there's no procedure. It honestly kind of feels like Paizo just, assumes that GMs already know how to run dungeons! After all, it's in the name of Pathfinder's predecessor!

I've seen many groups where this lack of structure has caused serious problems, most frequently when running Abomination Vaults. Without proper dungeon procedures and more reactive opposition, it's a boring slog where you kill samey monsters in tiny rooms for 10 levels. This is less of a problem in a less dungeon focused AP, but even there, it sometimes feels like designers just treat dungeons as a container for all the cool fights they expect the PCs to face rather than something interesting and worthy of exploration or care. In my experience, a better structure can do wonders for creating engaging play.

I've already written a post on what I think an easy structure for PF2 dungeon crawls would look like, but honestly, the most important thing is that you have a structure.

Linear Sequences

Another of the most common Scenario Structures in PF2 is the linear sequence. It's what it sounds like! Things happen in an order determined by the GM (or module), and the players are more or less along for the ride.

Sometimes, this looks like Strength of Thousands Book 3 Chapter 2, where the PCs come across encounters in a set order as they pursue their foes through the wilderness. Other times, it looks like the section in Gatewalkers where the PCs fight a bunch of bad guys from different planes before they can travel through a portal.

This Scenario Structure is fine! It works well enough for what it is, though it's worth noting that it doesn't give PCs much agency between encounters, and it's therefore probably a good idea to use it sparingly and use other structures as often as you can. Keep the linear sequences for big dramatic moments when you want PCs focused on the encounters themselves, not on navigating them.

Timelines

A variant on the linear sequence that I think more APs should often use instead is the timeline. 

A simple version looks like the mini adventure in Book of the Dead, where the PCs must survive several encounters overnight. Between fights, they can heal, nap, or rebuild their defenses. Because they have so much time, however, they might get creative! If their defenses fail, they might move to a different building. They might also try to lure the zombies to a specific building and then torch it with them inside, or do any number of other more creative things! Giving them time to prepare opens up the possibilities tremendously, especially if you litter the adventure with cool things to interact with.

In even more open timelines, the PCs have the opportunity to disrupt things! If they catch the enemy saboteur when he arrives at the restaurant at 12pm, he can't plant the bomb at 12:45pm and it won't go off at 1pm. If two competing raid teams were going to target the same place tonight, but the PCs take out one of them first, then now the other team gets free access to their target! These sorts of timelines essentially boil down to "what happens if the PCs don't intervene?" and are the bread and butter of sandbox play.

Note that timelines require a little extra work compared to normal linear sequences, as you'll want to define how time works (travel time in particular). On the other hand, they're really easy to improvise in a more sandboxy game, and are great for handling delayed consequences!

Everything Else

There are various other attempts at Scenario Structures scattered throughout Paizo modules, but as far as I can find they all tend to have similar problems. Sometimes, the PCs have a grab bag of quests to do, and it's not clear how long things take, how much time they have, or how things interrelate. Other times, Paizo just grabs a subsystem like the chase or influence rules and assumes it will work (see Part 2 and my posts on Mzali for why it probably won't). A lot of these subsystems also end up requiring way too much rolling in a way that makes me question whether the designer ever sat down and gave serious thought to how it would play out at the table.

Whatever the specifics, a lot of Scenario Structures in PF2 modules are effectively unfinished. They fail to ask the key questions of game structures: "(1) What do the characters do? (2) How do the players do it?" Sometimes they provide answers to those questions, but ones that are absurd if you try to actually put them into practice at the table.

Example: Crossing the Ash Desert

In some cases, it's even more vague. I'm going to use a particular example from Strength of Thousands Book 6, just because I wrote about it recently, but things like this occur throughout Paizo modules. Now, let me be clear, this chapter is extremely cool! However, not only is the chapter as a whole a bit hard to run without the kind of structuring I did in that article, it also contains perhaps the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

To reach one of their sub-objectives, the PCs must cross the Ash Desert. They have two choices on how to do so: they can either walk and it takes 3 days each way, or ride a sand sailer through it in 1 day. You'd think the faster option would be better, right? Wrong. Not as written, at least.

You see, as the party travels, they must deal with burning ashes falling from the the incense stick above them (it's a tiny table magical fable kinda vibe). If walking on foot, they only deal with it once per day, or 3 times total. If taking the sand sailer, however, they roll every hour, because they are flying through burning ashes in the air! And... how many times is that? How many hours is a normal travel day? I don't think that's defined anywhere in the rules, but it sure matters in this case. Let's be generous to the module and assume it's only 8, and not 10 or 12. That's still a lot of rolling - 8 saves each for each of 4 PCs and the sand sailer, 8 piloting checks, 8 damage rolls (each being 6d10 + 14d6 damage from meteor swarm), and however many rolls are required for healing and repairing the boat afterwards. Not counting that healing/repairs, that's 208 dice rolls, 48 of them checks and the rest damage. That's too many dice rolls for no clear reason that I can tell - it's not like the party can't just sit still and heal up afterwards, since there aren't random encounters or similar.

So, not only does traveling faster expose you to more danger (and make you waste a bunch more time at the table), but time doesn't even matter! There's no time limit, there's no "if the PCs walk, the bad guy sees them coming!," nothing. The best case for the PCs if they take the vehicle is that it burns up after the first hour, giving them a break as they take more time walking. Even if they do walk, though, that's still 12 saved against 20 dice of damage (60 total) that truly does not matter, since it's almost impossible for the PCs to die here (this is a broader problem with Paizo's out-of-combat hazards, like weather).

What I ended up doing is I required my party to make 8 total checks, one per hour, to avoid the fire. Each check had to be made by a different person, helping however they wanted. A critical failure would have seen the vehicle destroyed. Otherwise, because one PC had legendary Crafting and the quick repair feat, they ignored the damage! (Without that feat or with lower proficiency, failures would likely have just cost them time.) I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution - maybe a chase or a 4e style "x successes before y failures" challenge would've been better - but paired with making time matter it worked well enough!

That's all for now! Next time, we'll talk about how to build better Scenario Structures: which ones are easy to steal from other systems, which ones don't need much prep at all, and what the core requirements are for the more complicated ones. See you then!