An Introductory Adventure

[Pangea]

I'm hesitant to introduce the PCs being under suspicion... that will definitely cause that part of the scenario to run long

As I said, when writing that my feeling was that I would like the possibility for the PCs being suspected, I do think it would make things longer, and I agree with your feeling (it could work as the opening of a campaign, but would not fit that well in a pure intro' scenario).

[zedturtle]

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

Yeah, I guess the only tricky bit is I haven't figured out how to have an official-by-the-book Encounter and then an official-by-the-book Journey. Having Torbald overhear the thieves' destination as they knock him unconscious is only semi-plausible and Ethal's even less understandable.

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.

Alright, I was initially resistant to this idea, but on a reread I think you've got some great ideas. It means a complete rewrite of the Encounters page (and probably pushes it to a second page, but I'm okay with that. One thing I've been thinking about is that I'm still very terse in the writing; the structure of the game is good for introducing the game, but I'm not doing a lot of hand-holding for newbie LMs. Part of that is me not wanting to step on C7's toes; I doubt they want a "starter set" version of the rules floating around. But I can still provide more advice to folks without having to reprint rules sections.

[zedturtle]

Page 7. Stats and roleplaying notes for playing the various bad guys.

Pages 4, 5 and 6 are in transition, as with the ideas above. The basic upshot of page 6 is if the heroes can catch the thieves before they reach the Falrock they only have Cenric and the thieves (1 for every 2 heroes, round down) to deal with. If they get to the Falrock, then Jarn is there and the fight is much harder.

Right now, I'm struggling with why Cenric wasn't sent by himself (or maybe just Rathwulf and Cenric). I'm leaning towards that there was a different plan originally, the men managed to ambush a couple of goblins on the way down and Cenric came up with the new plan. But any other suggestions are highly welcome.

[Glorelendil]

How about for Battle you "advise" a trio of town elders on how to defend the town from an attack, and they evaluate your ideas?

EDIT: The number of successes you roll is the number of the judges who approve of your plan.

[Blubbo Baggins]

Yeah, I guess the only tricky bit is I haven't figured out how to have an official-by-the-book Encounter and then an official-by-the-book Journey. Having Torbald overhear the thieves' destination as they knock him unconscious is only semi-plausible and Ethal's even less understandable.

Alright, I was initially resistant to this idea, but on a reread I think you've got some great ideas. It means a complete rewrite of the Encounters page (and probably pushes it to a second page, but I'm okay with that. One thing I've been thinking about is that I'm still very terse in the writing; the structure of the game is good for introducing the game, but I'm not doing a lot of hand-holding for newbie LMs. Part of that is me not wanting to step on C7's toes; I doubt they want a "starter set" version of the rules floating around. But I can still provide more advice to folks without having to reprint rules sections.

Well, I'd think you can have things be official-by-the-book, if you keep referencing the page #s of the books they need to look at to use. Instead of explaining how an Encounter works, you can simply say, "Torbald knows the following facts: 1, 2, 3, etc." Then, "For the Encounter, set Tolerance (see page XX in LM book) for Torbald based on X minus these other variables" (as you have already done). Torbald responds to Courtesy, Persuade, etc. but Awe is probably not helpful. Then following this put: "0 Successes - this result (+1 to Thieves' Lead), 1-2 Successes - one piece of info, 3-5 successes - two pieces of info, 6+ successes - all the facts he knows." So the rules of how an Encounter actually works aren't in there.

[Glorelendil]

To extend what Blubbo wrote, this adventure might be a great opportunity to take another crack at explaining encounters in a clear way. I've only recently finally understood how they work. I remember reading Marsh Bell and thinking, "He's gonna hire them one way or another...why do you need to roll?"

In fact, that might be a great way to introduce an explanation, in a side-bar. E.g., something to the effect of:

Q: "Why do players need to roll when the outcome is pre-determined by the adventure?"

A: Encounters are not meant to produce binary outcomes; encounters determine how favorably the Loremaster Character views the player-heroes by the time the conversation is done. Thus, exceeding Tolerance is not necessarily a bad thing; it merely means the players have used up their chances to increase that favorability. Exceeding tolerance after a lot of successes could mean, for example, that the LM Character is greatly enjoying the conversation but now has other matters to attend to

I don't know if that language would do it: it's hard to know what is clear and what isn't after you already understand something.

[zedturtle]

I don't know if that language would do it: it's hard to know what is clear and what isn't after you already understand something.

The bane of rules writers everywhere.

[zedturtle]

Yeah, I guess the only tricky bit is I haven't figured out how to have an official-by-the-book Encounter and then an official-by-the-book Journey. Having Torbald overhear the thieves' destination as they knock him unconscious is only semi-plausible and Ethal's even less understandable.

Alright, I was initially resistant to this idea, but on a reread I think you've got some great ideas. It means a complete rewrite of the Encounters page (and probably pushes it to a second page, but I'm okay with that. One thing I've been thinking about is that I'm still very terse in the writing; the structure of the game is good for introducing the game, but I'm not doing a lot of hand-holding for newbie LMs. Part of that is me not wanting to step on C7's toes; I doubt they want a "starter set" version of the rules floating around. But I can still provide more advice to folks without having to reprint rules sections.

Well, I'd think you can have things be official-by-the-book, if you keep referencing the page #s of the books they need to look at to use. Instead of explaining how an Encounter works, you can simply say, "Torbald knows the following facts: 1, 2, 3, etc." Then, "For the Encounter, set Tolerance (see page XX in LM book) for Torbald based on X minus these other variables" (as you have already done). Torbald responds to Courtesy, Persuade, etc. but Awe is probably not helpful. Then following this put: "0 Successes - this result (+1 to Thieves' Lead), 1-2 Successes - one piece of info, 3-5 successes - two pieces of info, 6+ successes - all the facts he knows." So the rules of how an Encounter actually works aren't in there.

Your example shows one of the flaws with this idea, the rule the page number in the LM book is different then the revised book of course.

[Blubbo Baggins]

Yeah, I did realize that as I was typing the suggestion.

Why not ask C7 folks how they feel about the final draft, before you publish it?

[zedturtle]

Yeah, I did realize that as I was typing the suggestion.

Why not ask C7 folks how they feel about the final draft, before you publish it?

Well, I'm never going to publish it, as in ask people for money for the final product. If you mean "publish" it by releasing it on the intarwebs to roam free; they may or may not be able be able to respond to it... doing so may violate the terms of their license.

I'm kind of hoping that the lack of moderation on this thread is an indication that everything I've done so far is kosher (not good, not bad, just not breaking the rules).

- - - - -

P.S. I'm really fatigued, so no updates today. Maybe updates tomorrow.