forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

zedturtle wrote:That reminds me, I've got some reading and writing to do, myself.

- - - - - -

For the theft, I'm thinking a goblin should be involved. Either via dead body; or, more interestingly, as a live scapegoat. I'm thinking the thieves would release him into the festival right after taking the Sickle. Capturing him alive would be ideal, but not likely. Then witnesses could report (with suitable successes) that the goblin appeared to come out of nowhere and other people (Men) were seen lurking around the Marshall's tent.

Thoughts? Complications? Suggestions?

The thieves have an inside man. The goblin is delivered as a fresh corpse, and the inside man claims to have caught him in the act and killed him. But there are subtle clues that his story doesn't add up, and that's what puts the heroes on the right path.

Just an idea.

Elfcrusher wrote:The thieves have an inside man. The goblin is delivered as a fresh corpse, and the inside man claims to have caught him in the act and killed him. But there are subtle clues that his story doesn't add up, and that's what puts the heroes on the right path.

Just an idea.

A good idea. A very good idea! It gives the PCs another person to interview... I'm thinking 4 interviews:

Ava (or other Thane)

Marshall Torbald

a child (name to be determined)

the inside man (name to be determined)

Each might be able to be done in 15 minutes; that means an hour spent on Encounters (I'm trying to keep this at a con-friendly time of around 4-ish hours).

Based on my experience with running Call of Cthulhu con games I'm gong to say playtest the investigating thing but talking to people always takes more time than you plan for (mostly through dithering about who to talk to and what they mean) and cutting the interviewees down to three may work better for your four hour time limit.

Hermes Serpent wrote:Based on my experience with running Call of Cthulhu con games I'm gong to say playtest the investigating thing but talking to people always takes more time than you plan for (mostly through dithering about who to talk to and what they mean) and cutting the interviewees down to three may work better for your four hour time limit.

Good points. Only the child and the inside man will be critical; I'll probably remove the Thane from the equation for con play.

For reasons, I decided not to use a child as a NPC. Feedback is extraordinarily appreciated. I know the Insight tests are a bit beyond the standard Encounter rules; I suppose I could just make it be three successes and then they automatically know, I suppose...

Sorry Blubbo, I know it's all fancy, but that's the Journey. Feedback extremely sought after...

Combat rules tomorrow.

Denouement as soon as possible.

Looking like eight pages will do it, and I might even have space for a cover. (Even though these will probably never be printed in any major quantity, I can't get away from thinking about production stuff. And, heck, I probably will print up some of these when they're done. Maybe I can do the convention circuit next year and hand them out to the players afterwards...)

Just a quick idea for a Hazard:

"Tracks lost:
The footprints you were following do suddenly disappear. It seems as if the leading party managed to cover their tracks. The Hunter must success at a Hunting roll or lose the trail for a long time. If the trail is lost, add 1 to the Lead."

Very impressive looking, and very nice work!

Some proofreading:
under the Thane Arrives--
(1st paragraph) there will (be) some person
(2nd p.) the thane will charge the heroes (with)

As I said before, I would have no problem at all with having the PCs be suspected by the Thane since that would give them greater incentive to solve this, and I would not fear any failed rolls since you could even have everyone end up "knowing" they did it, and have them both chasing the culprits and fleeing the festival (even running a double Hunt: them after the bandits, and the Thane and some people after them). Solving the case would have a double payoff, then: solving the case and returning the Sickle as well as clearing their own name.
But I do believe that for a more simple starter adventure your choice works very well (and is fitting with the Hero PCs of TOR).

re. your Insight tests that can be made after 3 successes, as you yourself point out, it does not seem very fitting.
One example: you write that a Hunting roll at TN 14 will point out the fact the Goblin was already dead, meaning that even without succeeding in the Encounter, or even starting it, the PCs can see that the man is lying.
To better fit with the Encounter rules, I would go along with the idea that if they succeed in the Encounter (not failing the Tolerance) then they obtain results based on how many successes they accumulated (from 0-1: they feel something is off... to 7+: their clever questioning has forced the man to confess and give up all he knows).

Very nice work.

zedturtle wrote: Sorry Blubbo, I know it's all fancy, but that's the Journey. Feedback extremely sought after...

No worries zedturtle, it is really looking awesome.

As far as feedback:
If the heroes are unable to get information from Rathwulf about The Falrock, it feels a little forced for them to get the information randomly from one of the other characters. I would almost say that the thieves do a terrible job of hiding their tracks (at least at first in their haste to get away), and that their real advantage is their lead. The fact that the thieves went north should be a given (in the end). This section of the adventure should be a chase. I think that it not only adds more tension, but it also helps you tie your Encounters to the subsequent retrieval together very nicely:

After the crowds announce that the Sickle has been stolen, and its time to begin the investigation, the PCs could all make an Insight roll before doing anything. Success here gives them hints or helps them figure out who to interview first. As Pangea just wrote, and I agree with the assessment, rather than 3 successes to know whether an NPC was lying, they should have a regular Encounter. If they succeed in their first Encounter, perhaps with the NPC who only has a little information but is more willing to help, that NPC can point to another potential witness like Torbald (a 2nd interviewee less willing to help, but able to provide better information). Finally, success in the 2nd Encounter can lead to the last interviewee like Rathwulf, who knows the truth but is lying.

If the PCs fail at that initial Insight roll, or during the Encounters, they will just waste more time talking to the wrong people (people who just know rumors, people who know nothing, etc) ... but eventually they WILL get to interview those 3 main witnesses. And, again, if they fail at those 3 main Encounters, they will eventually at LEAST find out that the thieves went north, find the trail easily, and can begin their pursuit... but at a great disadvantage and a big Lead.

What shouldn't be a given is how much information the PCs learn about what happened (the details), the true facts of the case, and how quickly they are able to get it. With enough failure, the PCs might really believe it was a pack of Orcs who stole the sickle, or all kinds of perhaps crazier ideas.

To summarize:
More failed Encounters equals less facts/more false information, and a bigger Lead for the thieves.
More successes in all of the Encounters (total) equals a strong understanding of what really happened, and a smaller Lead for the thieves.

The more true information provided about the facts can simply be an in-story benefit, but if you want to add mechanical benefits, you can equate this information with success dice that can be used in recovering the Sickle - whether the dice are used in the chase or the battle.

Sorry, I know I'm rambling here, repeating myself.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, this is exactly what I need. I will try to tweak things; I'm hesitant to introduce the PCs being under suspicion... that will definitely cause that part of the scenario to run long.

More later...