PF2 Structure Part 2 - Non-Scenario Subsystems

Go to Part 1

Hey folks!

by Satibalzane on Deviant Art

Today, we're going to be going through the non-Scenario Structure Subsystems in PF2 to ground our analysis going forwards. We'll be doing some amount of analysis of these systems, but will mostly be setting up for future articles.

Part 1 hogged all the intro space, so we're gonna keep this intro short. Let's jump in!

Victory Points

"This section explains how to build your own subsystems for tracking success via Victory Points. Many other subsystems throughout the chapter use these as well, though often by a different name" (GMC 184).

Most of the time, you are accumulating Victory Points by making checks (+1 on a success, +2 on a critical success, -1 on a critical failure), though you might also try to avoid losing VP (I can't recall an example in an AP, though it makes sense in theory) or have multiple competing pools of VP to manage (like Infiltration, where you try to get Infiltration Points but avoid getting Awareness Points).

Overall, this is a great system! It's flexible and it works well. It functions very similarly to the much lauded clocks from Blades in the Dark, though trading the (very useful) visual element for a bit more flexibility (you can have different results at different tiers and can have higher point totals). I'm a little wary of Table 3-1 Victory Point Scales, but I'm not confident in that wariness, just uncertain how these numbers will work in actual play (especially given how many Paizo subsystems in APs end up requiring way too many rolls).

Encounter Structures

While most of these don't actually use the rules for encounter mode, they are still what I think of as Encounter Structures. Essentially, I think of Encounters as any discrete challenge put in front of the players, whether that be a chase, a negotiation, or a combat.

Influence

"Influence is a short-term subsystem wherein the PCs accumulate Influence Points during a social encounter with an NPC to represent their increasing influence... The influence subsystem divides a social encounter into rounds, with the number of rounds representing the length of the social event" (GMC 187).

The two core activities are "Influence" where "You attempt to make a favorable impression on an NPC to convince the NPC to support your cause." and "Discover" where "You watch or study an NPC to learn more about that NPC’s preferences."  You can use a variety of "Influence Skills," often including physical skills to impress them. You can also target or discover "Resistances" and "Weaknesses" that alter how easy certain approaches are.

Overall, I think this is a really solid core system! I love weaknesses and resistance, though I wish more APs used the bit about "gaining automatic Influence Points or even automatically influencing the NPC regardless of how many Influence Points the PCs have achieved so far" which in my opinion feels much more impactful than just a +/- 2. I love letting players use a variety of skills, and I love the system having a set number of rounds so that everyone gets to roll, but also they can't just keep trying forever. I think my favorite thing about this section though is the example it uses, where for each increasing Tier of Influence Points you earn, you get a better deal! Not just "here's some random treasure," but "this person is increasingly willing to help you with that goal you are pursuing."

While it's a solid system at it's core, however, I think it's overused. The most egregious example is in the first chapter of Stolen Fate where the subsystem is used for an investigation. That's right, yous olve mysteries by... getting three random people to like you... thereby helping them remember things... Idk fam. I think this is the only place I've seen it be this mis-used, however - I've also written about Strength of Thousands Book 4, where influence is used as a Scenario Structure when, it isn't. It's an Encounter Structure, and not a very robust one at that. It's pretty specific about what it's trying to do. For what it's worth, it seems Paizo is learning - Spore War book 1 has a much better structured Influence-based scenario, where the NPCs have hard lines, firm disagreements, and actual asks that the PCs must honor in order to get them onboard!

Overall, decent when used well, but I think it could be improved. I have a stylistic preference for replacing $10 words with actual arguments for why the NPC should help the PCs, though I recognize that it comes with the tradeoff of making it harder to use non-social skills. More than that, I think GMs should build to the guidance in the GMC more than to the examples in APs, and try to keep the challenge focused on the core narrative/negotiation.

Research

"In the research subsystem, PCs accumulate Research Points and learn new information or gain other benefits upon reaching specific thresholds... Research challenges work best when the PCs face a time constraint, rival research group, or other form of external condition that presents additional pressures... A research challenge has two components: the library, which is an area containing the various research checks PCs need to attempt to learn about the topic... and a research stat block, which details the topic being researched" (GMC 190).

I quite like this subsystem! I use it improvisationally a lot when PCs have big questions they want to find answers to in Downtime. In some cases, I think it's better to let go of the strict progression of fact A at 2 RP, fact B at 4 RP, and so on, instead letting PCs ask specific questions and finding answers on a success (or possibly requiring 2+ RP for harder questions). Not to say the structured progression is bad, by any means, it can be a useful abstraction.

As with all these subsystems, there are APs where I think it's used well and others where it's used worse, but that's usually either a case of not giving enough structure around it to make the choices meaningful or of putting too much reliance on it, either by treating it like a Scenario Structure or by having it, again, replace a proper Mystery Structure (I'm looking at you, Spore War Book 2).

Great system! Should maybe be thought of as more of an overlaid Campaign Structure than an Encounter Structure in some cases, but that probably depends on how it's used.

Chases

"The chases subsystem helps you create cinematic scenes where the PCs must quickly overcome obstacles, from following someone through a crowded market to carrying a desperately urgent message over a dangerous mountain pass... During a chase, all the characters must overcome a series of obstacles" (GMC 192). There are a number of variants - the PCs might have to catch up to a foe (who progresses 1 Obstacle each round), they might be fleeing from one, or they might be racing.

Overall, chases are great! There's an old post talking about how tough the math is (essentially, if the bad guys automatically progress one obstacle, and the PCs need a number of Chase Points equal to the number of PCs, then they need to Critically Succeed more than they get a normal Failure), but modern AP design has fixed this problem by reducing the number of Chase Points needed. Indeed, the GMC and GMG list all the same obstacles with the same DCs, but the Crowd example they use has only 3 CP required in the GMC, and 4 in the GMG. You can also see the difference between an older AP like Strength of Thousands Book 5, which requires 5 CP (for 4 PCs) to avoid an encounter, versus the multiple chases in Triumph of the Tusk that not only require fewer the 4 CP, but also tie into the rest of the adventure in cool ways by giving rewards for going faster! Great design, I really love the subsystem usage in that AP overall.

I really like the system for when the party is being chased and are trying to evade a foe! When the PCs are themselves doing the chasing though, I've noticed that it often makes more sense and feels less dissociated to track the individual positions of PCs, rather than strictly tracking Chase Points. So if the fighter vaults over the Fruit Card, she bypasses it, and she might even grab the rogue before she jumps on a critical success! I also like to be very generous about letting one PC bypass an obstacle for everyone - for example, casting shatter on that fruit cart! Apart from crits and creative solutions, however, everyone must bypass obstacles separately, which might lead to them getting split up! If combat breaks out, I track the combat and chase rounds at the same time, letting folks join the fight after they catch up.

Another variation I've used, especially when I'm improvising chases, is to pad out a smaller set of obstacles with "run good!" checks (either Athletics or Acrobatics). Not much more to say here, great to pull out in between every obstacle or two if you're coming up with things on the fly, but actual obstacles are probably better if you have time.

All that being said, I really like the core structure of chases, and as Triumph of the Tusk shows there's a lot of cool variations you can do with it (it had some chases where the PCs make 1 check per obstacle and the total Chase Points represents how fast they went). Dealing with specific obstacles is great!

Duels

"Sometimes conflicts become personal. It’s not the entire group against a challenge, but one character struggling against the skills of a single adversary" (GMC 202).

These are less of a separate Encounter Structure and more of an add-on to combat. Unlike most of the above, this means that Duels actually use the "Encounter Mode" as presented in the book! Essentially, combat duels are a one-on-one combat where the participants re-roll initiative every round and can use special reactions based on what they roll. Spellcasting duels are the same, except instead of those skill-based reactions they can more easily counterspell each other (even without the feat).

These rules are fine! I think they do what they're trying to, which is to throw some neat little spice on a one-on-one combat, but this system definitely left me wanting more (hence my writeup on expanded duels).

Campaign Structures

There are a few subsystems that are neither Encounter Structures nor Scenario Structures per say, but rather broader structures for tracking things on a campaign level.

We could arguably also throw Kingdom Building and Warfare from Kingmaker into this category, but I know that they didn't have enough playtesting time on those so I'll leave them alone for now other than to say that I sure am interested in what a better version of those would look like!

Reputation

"Sometimes it's crucial to know how groups of people feel about the PCs. That's where reputation comes into play. The reputation subsystem is a simple way to use Victory Points to determine how the PCs stand with such groups" (GMC 200).

This system is interesting! Honestly, I've never used it, nor have I seen it used in APs, but it seems cool. My main thought is that it seems possibly a bit overcomplicated, with the thresholds being pretty large - I might halve them or use something closer to the Blades in the Dark Faction Status just to keep things simpler, and have the thresholds for gaining Reputation therefore be a bit more difficult.

Leadership

"While many groups of PCs are isolated heroes who get the job done on their own, other groups enjoy gathering allies and building new organizations of their own. The leadership subsystem allows your PCs to do just that!" (GMC 204).

Another interesting system, but I think it might be a bit overcomplicated for most purposes. I don't think everything needs to track neatly to Levels, though I get why Paizo likes making that true. It's also a bit underwhelming that a Level 20 PC can only recruit Level 4 NPCs... Or is it 9? Not entirely sure how to read this table. Either way, the design intent seems clearly to be that followers can't help in combat, but it feels a bit strange from a worldbuilding perspective. And idk, I don't find adding in NPCs to combat to be that difficult as a GM, it wouldn't be that hard to write up some guidance for it! I get that most NPCs should be lower level so they don't overshadow the heroes, but this seems to be going a bit too far in that direction.

Other Subsystems

There is one subsystem that isn't really a game structure at all.

Vehicles

"A villain on the run steals a carriage and sends the characters on a chase through the city, or the characters find an ancient airship and decide to take it for a spin... The majority of the rules in this section are for using vehicles in encounters, but vehicles are also useful during exploration and even downtime play" (GMC 210).

The vehicle rules are pretty solid! I like the different propulsion methods, though you'll want to read through them ahead of time (making improv a little challenging). I love the Drive action allowing you to modulate how many actions you are spending, trading speed for handling and difficulty. There are aspects of these rules that are a little complicated, and it's definitely not the kind of system you can just pull out when you need it (you should prep the rules head of time), but I think it works well!

I would love to see some expansion on using vehicles in other modes, but maybe that's something that's better to leave to a case-by-case basis (like SoT Book 5 does with it's skimmer-back "chase" through the desert).

Closing Thoughts

Overall, a very solid set of subsystems! Here are some general takeaways, in no particular order:

• Victory Points are a very solid foundation, though I think APs sometimes have the numbers a bit high (I've said before that if you just halved the number of VP an AP asks for, you're probably in the right ballpark).
• Subsystems are at their best when they focus on fictional obstacles, whether discrete obstacles in a chase or the pairing of a good central negotiation question plus good weaknesses/resistances in an influence challenge.
• There is a lot of really great advice in these subsystems that GMs should make sure to follow! APs don't always do so, and can accidentally undermine the benefits of these structures.
• It's important to differentiate Scenario Structures vs. Encounter Structures (or other Game Structures), though with some work we might be able to hammer one into the other (we just have to do that work).

Next time, we'll take a closer look at the Influence Subsystem and what it does well as a Scenario Structure, before taking a look at the less developed Scenario Structures that PF2 has.

See you then!

Part 3: The Infiltration Subsystem