|
I am preparing to run Hydra’s Fang Incident for my players and for the local game day.
I have some questions about the ship, the Hydra’s Fang.
The text calls the ship a galiot. I’m assuming that we are talking the Dutch-German two-masted sailing galliot, rather than a single masted sailed and oared Mediterranean small galley. In either case, 2-3 sailors (depending upon tier) is not sufficient to crew this vessel.
It also seems sort of absurd to give a DC for the players attempting to infiltrate the crew, when there are only two or three other guys on deck. Wouldn’t the presence of five or six non-sailors be a bit obvious?
If the ship were even under a skeleton crew, there would still be six or seven pirates for the party to face? I’m not sure how to handle this. I had thought to have most of the crew occupied with readying the ship to depart port: weighing anchor, tending the sails & rigging, stowing cargo, etc. But on a pirate ship these fellows would be expected to defend the ship. Du Moire’s promise to keelhaul all shirkers would seem to guarantee this.
The deck plan given in the module doesn’t quite correspond to anything that I can tell. Masts extend below decks. There aren’t any hatches listed. I’m not sure what the big box is at amidships. Can anyone give me a clue? Given this I’m going to draft my own deck plans using something a bit more like an actual ship as a reference.
The descriptive text states that the hatch to the cargo area containing the lacedons is “held fast with thick black chains”. There is no mention of what it would take the PCs or the lacedons to disable these chains – presumably this is possible though.
It seems like an interesting adventure, but highly unlikely (or perhaps comical) that a fourth level aristocrat (or an aristocrat/fighter) with no ranks in anything nautical has managed to terrorize Andoren shipping and confound the navies of Cheliax and Andoran.
Does anyone who has GM’ed this adventure have any tips or insights?
CJ
|
I am preparing to run Hydra’s Fang Incident for my players and for the local game day.
I have some questions about the ship, the Hydra’s Fang.
The text calls the ship a galiot. I’m assuming that we are talking the Dutch-German two-masted sailing galliot, rather than a single masted sailed and oared Mediterranean small galley. In either case, 2-3 sailors (depending upon tier) is not sufficient to crew this vessel.
It also seems sort of absurd to give a DC for the players attempting to infiltrate the crew, when there are only two or three other guys on deck. Wouldn’t the presence of five or six non-sailors be a bit obvious?
If the ship were even under a skeleton crew, there would still be six or seven pirates for the party to face? I’m not sure how to handle this. I had thought to have most of the crew occupied with readying the ship to depart port: weighing anchor, tending the sails & rigging, stowing cargo, etc. But on a pirate ship these fellows would be expected to defend the ship. Du Moire’s promise to keelhaul all shirkers would seem to guarantee this.
The deck plan given in the module doesn’t quite correspond to anything that I can tell. Masts extend below decks. There aren’t any hatches listed. I’m not sure what the big box is at amidships. Can anyone give me a clue? Given this I’m going to draft my own deck plans using something a bit more like an actual ship as a reference.
The descriptive text states that the hatch to the cargo area containing the lacedons is “held fast with thick black chains”. There is no mention of what it would take the PCs or the lacedons to disable these chains – presumably this is possible though.
It seems like an interesting adventure, but highly unlikely (or perhaps comical) that a fourth level aristocrat (or an aristocrat/fighter) with no ranks in anything nautical has managed to terrorize Andoren shipping and confound the navies of Cheliax and Andoran.
Does anyone who has GM’ed this adventure have any tips or insights?
CJ
I took my party threw this and I took two TPK's. One at the beggining at act 1 which was just extreme bad dice rolls on the party and awesome on the bad guy side so I wrote it off and had them make new PC's.
The other TPK was in act three when the bad guys tipped the boat. Swim checks, dudes in armor, and guys with natraul swim = death.
I didn't really care for the STR DC 15 check to tip the boat. I think there should have been opposed checks.
I found out later my players couldnt re-run the scenerio but no one survived so no harm no foul.
|
Consider that the ship would have not only the crew on board, but presumably the people who had been left behind in the shop. That adds a couple more hands. It's still far from optimal, but he's a man on the run and thus making do with what he can.
Infiltrating the crew could be feasible under a couple of possible options. They are new recruits, or they are the people who had been left behind are two options that come to mind. The infiltration is really just to get aboard, afterwards there's little reason to continue with the charade. The boarding is meant to be the difficult part, which can be bypassed if the PC's can figure out a way to get aboard without a fight.
The deck plan IS terribly confusing. I treated the large rectangle in the middle as a cabin, which while somewhat bizarre does stick with Paizo's standard of presenting terrain as an opponent in encounters as much as the npc's are.
I didn't worry about where the hatch was located, I treated it as somewhere near the front of the ship but it was immaterial for the combat to take the deck. Once there, they were able to use the hatch at their leisure. I don't actually recall what I used for the players to be able to get through the last door, but my inclination would be to go with a strength check of some sort.
A final note regarding the captain himself - while nautical knowledge is useful what he needed in order to get the reputation he had was the social skills of manipulation. Bluff, intimidate, sense motive, these would all aid in managing a crew who would know better than he how to work the various functions. I would have liked to have seen some nautical skills in his repertoire, but they wouldn't be necessary to become the terror that he was. He just needed the right people.
|
|
It seems like an interesting adventure, but highly unlikely (or perhaps comical) that a fourth level aristocrat (or an aristocrat/fighter) with no ranks in anything nautical has managed to terrorize Andoren shipping and confound the navies of Cheliax and Andoran.
Mechanical crunchies are not the only source of power. A natural leader who can gather NPCs with the skills needed can accomplish much.
|
Hi
Played this mod at GenCon UK. The 'big box' amidships was a grating, I think, to allow cargo to be winched into the hold. We had the stairs to lower deck aft, by the cabin. As to the 'Thick Black Chains' our Fighter type power attacked them to pieces.
Interstingly had another ship-borne combat in a LG scenario at GenCon, though this one was already over before the dice were thrown. (Clr/Warmage/Mystic Theurge cast Solid Fog, then Lssr Acid Orbs, Beguiler Cohort throwing Mass Whelm for 9D6)! This Pathfinder mod was a challenge - the LG one was a hectic paperwork excercise in planning.
Cheers
Paul H
|
|
So I ran Hydra’s Fang Incident last night. I was very impressed with the imaginative locations and kernel of the plot. I think that the tablets made a good, if somewhat superfluous, McGuffin. I like the idea of pursuing pirates but I don’t think this would ever be something that first level characters should undertake. It does strike me as a module that was initially crafted for much higher level and then “nerfed” to make it survivable for 1st level characters.
I had some real problems believing Dread Pirate “Darcy” as the scourge of the waves. Even at Tier 4 he is a somewhat laughable opponent who appears to have learned absolutely nothing about the sea or life on a ship. With a name like Du Moire I gave him an outrageous French accent and he became comic relief. I also assumed that the “real” pirates were elsewhere and had left Dread Pirate Darcy with the expendable leftovers.
Encounter one seemed to be really sort on relevant descriptions. Who were the dead folks, presumably one of them was Lubor Staizkal? How did they die? What is in the boxes of goods being shifted around in the back room? And how are the leftover pirates going to remove the boxes? The ladder is greased, so presumably they aren’t taking them out that way. Are they just tossing the room for any small portable items of value (which might make sense)? Have they found anything and what was it? I glossed over this when I ran it, but upon reflection it would have been nice to know a little more about what had just transpired in Lubor’s shop.
The foes left over in the shop posed no problem for my players. They were a combat optimal party (for the most part) with a raging half-orc barbarian wielding a great sword. I think combat lasted all of three rounds even after I added a warrior-rogue from the higher tier.
I’m not sure why the second encounter would involve combat. The Consortium Agents are duly appointed authorities. Yes the Consortium is a criminal organization – but they are the criminal organization recognized by law. I turned this into a role playing encounter. It would have been fun to have the party tangle with a sea cat cub and the possibility of getting thrown in the bay – but nothing led me to believe that the Underdocks wasn’t a public place where combat would draw more Consortium Agents.
I skipped the third encounter. It just didn’t seem credible or terribly relevant. I also didn’t want to spend 30+ minutes dealing with the 3.5 swim and drowning rules. To balance the loss of the sahuagin I beefed up the 1st encounter and gave Pirate Darcy a level of fighter and an additional brigand on hand.
My party did a credible job of bluffing their way on board the Hydra’s Fang mostly by telling the truth – Darcy was in trouble for killing a Consortium Enforcer and their agents were on their way. Given that Captain Darcy was on the lookout for the return of the rest of the crew (the real pirates), there was little chance of the party sneaking on board. I upped the tension by having longboats filled with Enforcers in the distance. I reconstructed the deck plans of the Hydra based on an actual sailing ship and abstracted the irregular terrain encountered by combatants. Even so taking out Darcy (even with an extra level of fighter) and the “junior pirates” wasn’t much of a challenge to the party. More time was spent by the party bickering over what to do with the body and the things found on it than actually rendering the foes dead.
I also redrew the cargo hold and placed a compartment with a chain-wrapped door at the aft end. Simply wrapping the door with chains would stop the “slaves” from escaping – it also got rid of the need for a rogue with the ability to open locks. The lacedons weren’t much of a challenge once the party cleric showed up and backed them into a corner.
All things considered it was a fun module to run and I think my players had a good time. All but the Osirion accomplished their goals and they got a hefty chunk of change out of it. It did seem like the module was heavily combat oriented – but the unscripted roleplaying bits were probably the most fun. It also seemed like very much of a fifteen minute adventuring day module. The encounters went from one right to the other with little pause (which is good and bad). Fortunately none of them were terribly vicious and the foes (at least for my group) soon fell.
I was disappointed with some of what appeared to be contradictions between the intro and flavor text and the proof in the pudding. Dread Pirate Darcy, even with his full plate of elite aristocrat skills and INT 15, didn’t seem very believable as the scourge of the Andoran coast and a threat to the Chelish navy. I played Freeport and other “pirate-y” campaigns, and DP Darcy didn’t cut the mustard – even at his most fearsome in Tier 3-4. Given all I have heard of Savage Tides I would have expected better.
CJ
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Great! My group did the same thing by bluffing as new crewmembers, praising Darseille's achievements. Thus I let them board the ship without the cumbersome climb checks.
Anyways, one thing bothered me about the first encounter. How does the Katya-- or whatever-- hover? How?!
Regarding the Consortium Agents, my group didn't start fighting with them at the spot. They left, only to have the group's wizard cast sleep and then take them out. Honestly though, there should have been some scripted ways to bypass them.
The sahuagins.. well, indeed it was a very irrelevant fight, but my group managed to hold it and kill them bastards. Truthfully I too would have taken the whole encounter out. Makes one wonder why on Earth it was there in the first place.
Last encounter with the lacedons made the players frightened. They cast the arcane lock from the scroll found earlier on the door and put made ready actions to open the door, attack the ghouls behind the door, and then close the door. It was epic, since it took them exactly 10 rounds to kill them and get the tablets out.
|
|
Anyways, one thing bothered me about the first encounter. How does the Katya-- or whatever-- hover? How?!
This is "hover" in the literary sense - as in to stand over - rather than in the game mechanics sense. She is standing in the same square as the dead body or perhaps the body is in the square in front of the door and she is the adjacent square.
My party was disappointed to discover that she wasn't a hot little teen-aged girl who needed their help!!
CJ
|
|
This is "hover" in the literary sense - as in to stand over - rather than in the game mechanics sense. She is standing in the same square as the dead body or perhaps the body is in the square in front of the door and she is the adjacent square.
Anyways, one thing bothered me about the first encounter. How does the Katya-- or whatever-- hover? How?!
This was my interpretation of the scene as written and the impression I got from playing in the scenario as well. I actually asked Deussu about this during the game. The answer was "No, she hovers. It says so quite clearly." Oh, never mind then. I guess she's really light-footed. ;)
Regarding the Consortium Agents, my group didn't start fighting with them at the spot. They left, only to have the group's wizard cast sleep and then take them out. Honestly though, there should have been some scripted ways to bypass them.
Sorcerer, mind you... Looking at the rewards for completing the scenario I noticed an oil of invisibility. Where was this item found? Was it placed in the scenario so that the Consortium guards could be bypassed by a rogue or some such to gain the wooden token behind them that would convince the guards that this party of adventurers are actually agents of the Consortium?
|
|
This was my interpretation of the scene as written and the impression I got from playing in the scenario as well. I actually asked Deussu about this during the game. The answer was "No, she hovers. It says so quite clearly." Oh, never mind then. I guess she's really light-footed. ;)
My bad. Those bastards confuse those without excessive English vocabulary! And it does say quite clearly she hovers! ;)
Sorcerer, mind you... Looking at the rewards for completing the scenario I noticed an oil of invisibility. Where was this item found? Was it placed in the scenario so that the Consortium guards could be bypassed by a rogue or some such to gain the wooden token behind them that would convince the guards that this party of adventurers are actually agents of the Consortium?
Okay, sorcerer. The oil of invisibility was with Darcy.
|
|
I just ran this again, and ran into a real confusing element. Against the lacedons, there's supposed to be a fire started when the lantern is knocked off.
My problem is two fold. Firstly, this is a small whale oil lantern. There's not a lot of fuel that would allow a damp hold to burn to danger levels within a minute. Secondly, the hold has taken on a foot of brackish bilge water. Yes the oil would burn on the surface... but so what?
How does this small lantern falling and breaking in a foot of brackish bilge water manage to engulf the entire ship in a raging conflagration in a matter of minutes?
|
|
I just ran this again, and ran into a real confusing element. Against the lacedons, there's supposed to be a fire started when the lantern is knocked off.
My problem is two fold. Firstly, this is a small whale oil lantern. There's not a lot of fuel that would allow a damp hold to burn to danger levels within a minute. Secondly, the hold has taken on a foot of brackish bilge water. Yes the oil would burn on the surface... but so what?
How does this small lantern falling and breaking in a foot of brackish bilge water manage to engulf the entire ship in a raging conflagration in a matter of minutes?
Is it really important that the ship burn? I sort of skipped that bit. I had a several longboats full of Consortium Enforcers due to arrive soon. My players didn't really want to be there to greet them -- so they had plenty of motivation for departing quickly after dealing with the lacedons.
I also added a bit-part NPC...a fellow Enforcer attempting to run down DP Darcy for murdering and robbing Lubor Staizkal. I didn't give him a name, but he had an enormous mustache.
The hold is also filled with cargo and other crap (figuratively). There could be a lot of tarred cordage (ropes for the ship), that catch fire pretty easily. We have no idea what the cargo is -- but it could certainly be leaky urns of volatile oil...or whatever.
Most ship's lanterns are made to NOT immediately set fire to the ship when knocked over. Dread Pirate Darcy might have skimped on this though. More troubling than the ship's lantern is the make-shift galley (kitchen) described in the hold. That just seems dangerously foolish. Generally you want to put your galley were a cooking fire (quite common) isn't going to threaten to engulf your vessel in flames. But DP Darcy doesn't have any ranks in anything nautical, so I wouldn't put it past him to do something this stupid (though he does have an INT 15).
I would set the ship on fire if it added to the story/plot/danger, otherwise skip it.
CJ
|
|
"I didn't really care for the STR DC 15 check to tip the boat. I think there should have been opposed checks."
By style, I am more a cinematic GM than strict rules guy, but i still had some deaths in my GenCon scenerios. I play it very 50/50.
I did give my groups opposing strength checks. And then a balance check if strength fails. ( One critter in the water completely tipping the boat of three seemed a bit much.) and indeed, the encounter is a bit deadly for 1st levels.
scares players though. still fun.
|
I ran this tonight, and I had no hesitation in skipping the sahuagin encounter entirely. 6 1st level PCs against 2 CR 2 opponents in a situation guaranteed to play to the opponents' strengths and a huge weakness of the PCs? No thanks - I can see the TPK writing on the wall without a comprehend languages spell.
Particularly since one character was a heavy-armor paladin...
Otherwise, though, it went remarkably smoothly. The players are a remarkably uncurious group, though, so they learned nothing of Du Moire's history and thus were entirely taken aback to discover that Cheliax and Andoran were both interested enough in this guy to give them favors for having taken him out. When I handed 'round their chronicles, they were quite confused. Ah well.
|
|
For the Sahuagin fight, I got that clarified by Josh before Gencon (it should probably have been made available to everyone running it though) but the water is only like 2-3 feet. Only a threat to Gnomes and Halflings in heavy armor hehe.
The text seems to imply that it's only that shallow before the characters pass through the locks and enter the harbor itself.
|
Contributor
|
I just played in this scenario this evening. It was a lot of fun.
Our GM also ruled that the water was deep enough for characters to drown, based on the description that the water was more shallow closer to the docks. However, he allowed us the opportunity to talk to the sahuagin. After taking some damage and making a couple of good diplomacy rolls, we were able to convince the creatures (who explained they were enemies of Du Moire) that we were not really members of his crew, but were just as much his enemies as the sahuagin were. They let us go on the condition that we would kill him and present proof when we were done.
As for the size of the Hydra's Fang's crew, that jumped out at me, as well. Having not read the scenario, I assumed the crew were either killed during Du Moire's last actions at sea or were slain by our party in the shop.
|
|
For the Sahuagin fight, I got that clarified by Josh before Gencon (it should probably have been made available to everyone running it though) but the water is only like 2-3 feet. Only a threat to Gnomes and Halflings in heavy armor hehe.
If the water is only 2-3 feet deep, they probably aren't in the harbor where you would anchor a boat.
I guess I'm also wondering in a busy harbor how the sahuagin can pick out the exact boat that is headed for the Hydra's Fang. Considering the boat has past the locks, it is presumably out in the harbor where there are countless other small boats headed toward the numerous other vessels at anchor. And how do the sahuagin know that they can overwhelm the occupants of the small boat? They clearly believe that they aren't a match for the two crewmen and Captain Darcy...otherwise they would have swarmed aboard the Fang and dealt with their hated foe.
Possible Solution:
One solution might be that in order to get to where the Hydra's Fang lays at anchor any small boat has to pass through a narrow and shallow "passage" between some large derelict vessels. The sahuagin are lying in wait in the passage waiting for any small boat headed toward the Fang. They know that any boat moving through the passage is going to the Fang as it is the only vessel at anchor in this particular anchorage (the anchorage is somewhat secluded and Darcy bribed the harbor pilot to use it). The sahuagin can easily discern that the row boat headed toward the Fang is being crewed by novice seamen (too much splashing, unsteady oar strokes, bad navigation, etc.). Hence they know that they have a pretty good chance of swamping the boat and dropping the boaters into the shallow waters of the passage. Also, given the orientation of the passage and the Hydra's Fang, any lookouts posted aboard the Fang are unlikely to see the sahuagin's assault.
Can someone tell me what purpose the locks serve? They seem like they are there for added security...but I'm not terribly sure.
CJ
You have to remember the intent of this piece. It's a 4 hour tournament adventure. Dissecting it to find unrealistic crew complements and ship design is unfair to the author. The adventure works for what it's intended for. If you're going to use it as part of an ongoing home campaign, of course it's going to need some tweaking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to remember the intent of this piece. It's a 4 hour tournament adventure. Dissecting it to find unrealistic crew complements and ship design is unfair to the author. The adventure works for what it's intended for. If you're going to use it as part of an ongoing home campaign, of course it's going to need some tweaking.
I have pretty high standards, but one's that as a writer have always been willing to meet if I was being paid for my work. But generally I'm not paid to write...so perhaps as a professional writer you have a different perspective. PFS modules are going to get a lot of play. Everyone who comes into the Pathfinder Society is probably going to play this module. At least half of the players and GM's are going to ask, "where's the rest of the crew and why is Captain Darcy only a 4th level aristocrat?".
Most Paizo/Pathfinder products more than exceed what I consider my standards. In fact, I expect this from Pathfinder, which is why I continue to buy their products. I am a strong advocate for the PFS campaign. It has been stated that writing modules for PFS will serve as a training ground for future writers of Pathfinder/Paizo products. As such it is our duty to provide feedback and if necessary criticism. But I'm probably NOT going to be the Sunny Review Guy.
CJ
|
|
Almost none of my PCs completed their faction orders when I ran this last night. First, having paladins along meant that there was no question of the Qadirans attacking the harbour patrol and stealing the logs out of the harbour master's station. Second, the pirate lord was grappled and his men swiftly overpowered, so it became clear that he had no chance and he surrendered. They took his signet ring, but other than that turned him over to the cops and failed their missions. If there had been any Taldans they would have succeeded, but they were the only faction unrepresented.
|
Contributor
|
]I have pretty high standards, but one's that as a writer have always been willing to meet if I was being paid for my work. But generally I'm not paid to write...so perhaps as a professional writer you have a different perspective. PFS modules are going to get a lot of play. Everyone who comes into the Pathfinder Society is probably going to play this module. At least half of the players and GM's are going to ask, "where's the rest of the crew and why is Captain Darcy only a 4th level aristocrat?".
CJ
Dude you rock! I love criticism, and in this case I see that ther is a lot here that begs for explanation, for whatever the reason.
The answer is Darcy isn't a real pirate, he's not supposed to be, he's a rich kid playing pirate with dad's money.
Now that his money's gone (after he pissed off daddy) and his ship's in sad shape from the attack in Wittleshine, he really can't back it up anymore.
That was the premise/intent.
|
Contributor
|
For the Sahuagin fight, I got that clarified by Josh before Gencon (it should probably have been made available to everyone running it though) but the water is only like 2-3 feet. Only a threat to Gnomes and Halflings in heavy armor hehe.The text seems to imply that it's only that shallow before the characters pass through the locks and enter the harbor itself.
yep.. that's what I implied.
In retrospect, I should have been specific; but I left it open to allow the GM a slight bit of leeway when adjudicating players sinking in armor.|
Contributor
|
"I didn't really care for the STR DC 15 check to tip the boat. I think there should have been opposed checks."
By style, I am more a cinematic GM than strict rules guy, but i still had some deaths in my GenCon scenerios. I play it very 50/50.
I did give my groups opposing strength checks. And then a balance check if strength fails. ( One critter in the water completely tipping the boat of three seemed a bit much.) and indeed, the encounter is a bit deadly for 1st levels.
scares players though. still fun.
Actually, its pretty easy to tip a full boat, and there's not a heck of a lot you can do strength wise to resist it, as there's nothing to resist against.
I forget how the text in the final piece is written, however I strongly suggest that anyone in the boat be given an AoO vs the sahuagin when it show up to rock the boat. If the attack hits, then the sahuagin releases its grip and cannot make the tip check that round. It seems a little more cinematic than an opposed check.
|
|
Dude you rock! I love criticism, and in this case I see that ther is a lot here that begs for explanation, for whatever the reason.The answer is Darcy isn't a real pirate, he's not supposed to be, he's a rich kid playing pirate with dad's money.
Now that his money's gone (after he pissed off daddy) and his ship's in sad shape from the attack in Wittleshine, he really can't back it up anymore.That was the premise/intent.
Thanks Tim. That really does help.
I look forward to your next adventure.
CJ
|
|
A 100 gold bribe seem to be absurd for starting first level characters. I mean that's well over a year's bribe or 250 day's pay for both regular guardsmen. Then again why didn't hear the battle over head... And if they were bribed by the pirates why didn't they have more gold on them. Our party just decided they were not really guards and were just pirates pretending to be corrupted guards to absurdity of the bribe. Although little did we know they were actual guards... Nevertheless none of us had enough to pool together 100 gold.
Getting on that boat was another hassle luckily our ranged attack was decent enough to kill the mooks. But the problem was with the sea captain surrendering, I was Andoran and there was other good characters in the group. So this brought alignment problems and party conflict and the argument lasted longer then the actual battle...
Read spoiler....
|
Regarding the encounter with said pirate. We wound up fighting our way on board. We were very fighter heavy. He realized he was overwhelmed so when the druid in our party offered him a chance to surrender without consulting the rest of the party he was surprised when several of us jumped the NPC even after he surrendered. I was playing a Cheliaxian and there were two Taldorians in the party. The Taldorian fighter immediately attacked the boss completely ignoring the surrender point in order to complete his faction quest. The other factions, who had no need to kill the pirate and were perfectly content to turn him over to the authorities, were shocked by this act and tried to intervene. Seeing that the NPC was being attacked I then stepped into the fray in order to complete my faction quest which also included his death. So it created a player vs player encounter. No one died but it did create a negative opinion of the faction quest trees because they felt there was a conflict of interest. By having a player spontaneously negotiate a surrender of an NPC that needed to die in order for others to complete theirs quests it created a conflict between the two parties. The Taldorians and myself felt that we could not share our reason for killing him because it was a matter of faction secrecy. I had personally planned on tieing the NPC to a mast and taking care of him as the party moved to the lower portion of the ship but the Taldorian fighter forced my hand. Should the DM have handled it differently? I have not read the mod. but the impression I got from the DM was there was nothing in the Mod. to address that potential scenario. Thoughts oh mighty Tim.
|
|
Wait, what?! No one's faction quest requires Darcy to be left alive! You've had some serious misreading there, sir. Or then the DM made a mistake, or the player understood his quest wrong.
Quests are...
Cheliax: Kill the bastard, gruesomely.
Andoran: Kill the bastard, get the signet ring.
Osirion: Get the key.
Qadira: Get the log.
Taldor: Get the coin.
These faction quests are designed to be (or at least should be) non-contradictory with each other. Contradictory faction quests would indeed make it more of a player vs. player type of thing.
|
|
Wait, what?! No one's faction quest requires Darcy to be left alive! You've had some serious misreading there, sir. Or then the DM made a mistake, or the player understood his quest wrong.
I think the issue here is faction goals (kill Darcy) conflicting with another character's alignment (killing bad), not two faction alignments conflicting.
|
|
The thing is that the "pirate" surrendered, this brought up role playing problem that prevents the good players.
Also btw how do you get the log and coin w/o fighting the guards? This would bring up role playing ethics that prevents or makes it difficult choice for a paladin or lawful good character to bribe the watchman much less kill the watchman.
|
|
Wait, what?! No one's faction quest requires Darcy to be left alive! You've had some serious misreading there, sir. Or then the DM made a mistake, or the player understood his quest wrong.I think the issue here is faction goals (kill Darcy) conflicting with another character's alignment (killing bad), not two faction alignments conflicting.
Parden Navdi. That is correct the goals of the faction quests were not conflicting. The goals of the characters(Through the alignment sensibilities) however did in fact conflict with several of the faction quests. This does also go deeper than alignment. The Andorian Fighter in question had an alignment of NG and was asked to cut the man's heart out as well as take his ring. Had each persons faction quest taken them in a direction where some one had to be assassinated then regardless of their alignment they would have done what was requested because they would have had the rightous justice of a higher calling informing their choice. There is some potentially grey area there of how do you pair people of radically different backrounds together when all you have keeping them together is a general quest while also giving them a quest that plays into their immediate personal goal. The preverbial god before country syndrome. I think this played out in my example. One could argue well your first priority is to finish the quest given you by the PFS. From a roleplaying perspective one might reasonably think "Well my nation is involved with PFS because they understand what needs to be done but when my country says they need me then I must make it work. Otherwise they would not trust me with such tasks." If you have the shot take it sort of thing. Thus never realizing what the consequences of your actions within the party might be. In the first mod I played ,Silent Tide, the secondary quest was quite clear in letting me know my goal was to remain incognito from party members. This one never mentioned such secrecy. I suspect the Andoran quest didn't say "make sure no one sees you take the item or be sure to make his death look like an accident should he not die in battle.
So I guess in these instances the DM must take control of the situation and make sure that the spirit of the game is maintained while still providing all players at least one opportunity to accomplish their secondary objective.
I think the issue here is faction goals (kill Darcy) conflicting with another character's alignment (killing bad), not two faction alignments conflicting.
This is exactly what happened when I played this scenario. D'Arcy surrendered, and suddenly everyone at the table got all tense. Many of us wanted to kill him, but nobody was willing to go against the perceived intentions of the rest of the party to let him live.
Nobody accomplished their orders; everyone left a bit edgier than they came in.
There might be nothing in the module that says D'Arcy should surrender, but if I was a rich kid playing pirate with my parents' money and I got caught out, that's sure as heck what I'd do. If I run this, I might make him a really angry drunk or maybe a delusional psychotic because - in the interest of keeping the table happy - I think it best that he fight to the death.
ummmm.... did you forgot to add something?
I think he was quoting for truth.
|
Contributor
|
Regarding the encounter with said pirate. We wound up fighting our way on board. We were very fighter heavy. He realized he was overwhelmed so when the druid in our party offered him a chance to surrender without consulting the rest of the party he was surprised when several of us jumped the NPC even after he surrendered. I was playing a Cheliaxian and there were two Taldorians in the party. The Taldorian fighter immediately attacked the boss completely ignoring the surrender point in order to complete his faction quest. The other factions, who had no need to kill the pirate and were perfectly content to turn him over to the authorities, were shocked by this act and tried to intervene. Seeing that the NPC was being attacked I then stepped into the fray in order to complete my faction quest which also included his death. So it created a player vs player encounter. No one died but it did create a negative opinion of the faction quest trees because they felt there was a conflict of interest. By having a player spontaneously negotiate a surrender of an NPC that needed to die in order for others to complete theirs quests it created a conflict between the two parties. The Taldorians and myself felt that we could not share our reason for killing him because it was a matter of faction secrecy. I had personally planned on tieing the NPC to a mast and taking care of him as the party moved to the lower portion of the ship but the Taldorian fighter forced my hand. Should the DM have handled it differently? I have not read the mod. but the impression I got from the DM was there was nothing in the Mod. to address that potential scenario. Thoughts oh mighty Tim.
I didn't address the situation in the mod, because the dilemma never popped up in play testing. Its definitely a RP situation. Again I'm not looking at the final PDF, but my pre-edit draft. But the Chelaxian Faction mission is to make sure DuMoire disappears... His father doesn't want anyone to know that his son (and his money) is behind any of the embarring incidents.
There isn't anything for the other factions that says DuMoire needs to stay alive, certainly I didn't provide any motivation to keep him alive, other than him begging and sniveling for his life. I did deliberately put that in to cause ethical conflict (choose faction or ethics), and that's probably what caused the conflict. But really, its seems more of a conflict of ethics, not faction interests. That said, I could see how things got yucky.
I think the DM probably ran the adventure well, and in this case, a player lacked subtlety when attempting to perform his faction quest. and that more than anything, probably pissed off the the druid. I'm sure he flet like all his hard work in forcing a surrender was stymied, and thats a pretty crappy feeling.
As a player, I would have pulled the druid aside, and said "look, I don't know what you promised that guy, and I don't want to make you go back on your word, however... I NEED him dead. If you'd rather not participate in my gristly chore, you can wait for me in the rowboat. I'll catch up"... Rather than 'RAAAAA! Kill him!!!"
|
Contributor
|
As an aside,
if a player completes a faction quest, that's good, if they don't its still good.
If every faction quest is attainable, then the faction that wins at the end of the year is the faction who has the most players. That would suck.
So if DuMoire lives and the Chelaxian PC doesn't get his point, so be it.
I'm Qadiran anyway, I'd much rather take him prisoner and sell him back to his father.
I would encourage anyone who has frustration stemming from this adventure to be patient and not feel as though they have to throw in the towel now.
Hydra's Fang was one of our first four scenarios ever for this system.
We called our first season "season 0" because its our playtest season. Its an opportunity for us to work out kinks like faction missions and how they relate to alignment. Its a chance for us to get this thing right before we launch it again in season 1 using the PRPG.
There are some minor problems with Hydra's Fang that should have been fixed in development. (The sea cat, for example, should not be an option of something to be attacked by in Tier 1-2 before you board the ship.) This doesn't reflect poorly on Tim, who I think did a wonderful job with the scenario, it reflects poorly on a brand new system we are just starting to work the kinks out of.
We've been very open and clear about this being a playtest season. We love this sort of feedback, thrive on this sort of feedback, and cannot grow the system without it. I have a folder in my email, as an example, that's FULL of player feedback that I'm incorporating in version 1.2 of the guidebook.
So please don't feel frustrated enough to quit because of one scenario. Our system is getting better, the development cycle is getting better, and its all because of feedback. Leaving the system behind will in all likelihood deny us your valuable input (the royal "your," not anyone specific).
I should also mention that Tim's working on his second scenario right now and his outline made my inner geek jump up and down for joy. I wish I could know nothing about it and play it for the first time in a few months. Alas, I've sacrificed that joy to bring it to all of you. :-)
|
|
I see three inevitable things here.
First, competing factions are inevitably going to cause competing players. There is absolutely no way around that. The moment you introduce any aspect of competition, people are going to compete. And just as inevitably, that is going to lead to conflict.
Second, alignment (ethical/moral) conflicts are, by their very name, conflicts. As long as more than one of either is open to players that will inevitably lead to conflict between players, as well as conflict within each player. (As it did in this case, where the conflict was, in a way, a conflict over individual interpretation of the same alignment as opposed to actual conflicting alignments.)
Third, when you create background motivations for players, and indeed make them a primary element of the experience, players are inevitably going to adopt them wholeheartedly. It is rather unreasonable to expect otherwise. That will inevitably lead to conflict as, no matter how much the campaign history is not intended to develop based on a popular vote for faction, players are going to expect to play to their backgrounds, and advance those backgrounds in every possible way and at every possible opportunity. (Again that appears in this case where the end boss was dead man walking from the missing briefing, with the faction mission being superfluous justification, and gratuitous reward for doing what I would have done anyway.)
You cannot tell people to role-play, give them a role-play motivation, dangle role-play rewards, then tell them to suddenly stop short whenever it might cause issues. In such a case I see no reason to even bother role-playing to begin with. If that is the standard, then I want a character with no faction, whose only motivation is to collect xp, gp, and access. I can play an RPGA Living campign for that.
Now if all this means that a whole bunch of plots and tasks are suddenly not possible to use in PFS, oh well. At some point a decision about degree of conflict needs to be made.
Or it might mean that a statement should be made that players should assume other players might have faction, or other role-playing, goals that would normally actively conflicts with their background, alignment, or general rational preferences (such as the suggestion of staying behind and catching up, which means splitting the party), and that every now and then a bit of a suspension of such is in order. Otherwise it does not matter how you parse it, you inevitably have two (or more) people both saying, with completely equal justification, "What? I am not allowed to role-play my character because someone else objects?" This is not to suggest sanctioning actively counter-productive acts; always starting fights without letting someone try to negotiate, refusing to attack with surprise and insisting on always trying to negotiate, rushing through doors without checking the rest of the party is ready, and similar actions. It is to suggest that the default assumption regarding "unusual" actions should always be that someone is acting towards an unknown role-play motivation, and that it should be given the benefit of the doubt. There is almost always time to ask questions about it after the session, or even as the session progresses if there is time.
|
|
I see three inevitable things here.
First, competing factions are inevitably going to cause competing players. There is absolutely no way around that. The moment you introduce any aspect of competition, people are going to compete. And just as inevitably, that is going to lead to conflict.
Stop right there. No. Absolutely not. There is nothing inevitable about any of this.
First, the PFS Player's Guide specifically states that "competing players" are breaking the rules. If there's a disagreement, the organization within the game that the PCs are members of and the organized play group the players are a part of both expect them to work it out without coming into direct competition. An inability to do that is a failure on the part of the players, not the setup - if the situation allows for any means of nonviolent resolution (and they really, really do), the players and the PCs are both obligated to pursue it.
Second, the dynamics of an individual play group may or may not even allow such disputes to come up. Many groups have long since worked out means of conflict resolution, so to suggest that a faction dispute is inevitable is simply untrue.
Finally, faction secrecy is being held up as justification for conflicts when nothing in or out of the scenarios demands it. If one of the PCs' faction goals demands that someone die, they should probably speak up about it before the boss fight comes. Avoiding conflicts means establishing goals ahead of time, and, as I said before, the PCs are obligated to avoid conflicts with each other wherever possible. At my table, the Chelaxian PC made it very clear she intended to kill Du Moire and dump his body into the ocean - after some clarification that Du Moire was a dead man from a legal perspective already, even the paladin was okay with that. Thus, no conflict.
Saying it's "inevitable" is simply making excuses for players who refuse to accept the social contract of the game group and PFS Organized Play. If they can't find a way around such disputes, they shouldn't be playing.
|
|
Stop right there. No. Absolutely not. There is nothing inevitable about any of this.
No, you stop right there as it is absolutely inevitable.
First, the PFS Player's Guide specifically states that "competing players" are breaking the rules. If there's a disagreement, the organization within the game that the PCs are members of and the organized play group the players are a part of both expect them to work it out without coming into direct competition. An inability to do that is a failure on the part of the players, not the setup - if the situation allows for any means of nonviolent resolution (and they really, really do), the players and the PCs are both obligated to pursue it.
And that statement is nonsense.
As I said, it is totally absurd to think that you can create a competition and not have people compete within it.This does not in any way require overt disagreement, which you must assert for your position to be in any way defensible. Everyone can fully work together to the overall goals, but they are, absolutely and inevitably, going to be competing on the other aspects.
What you are suggesting is some peculiar situation where the quarterback must call an equal number of running and throwing plays so the running backs and wide receivers are never in competition for who gets the most plays, gains the most yards, or scores the most touch downs, and that indeed those running backs and wide receivers must always advance the same number of yards each time so as not to compete.
Or it suggests that a pitcher must not try for so many strikeouts, and indeed must allow a certain number of batters to reach first, so that the players can register a number of put outs, and the infielders can register double plays.
Just because they are all looking for superior individual acheivement in no way means they are not cooperating.
When you get past your absolutely wrong assertion that competition is automatically a destructive failure, no matter the additional context, it is easy to see that the disfunction is in the statement and expectation and not in the play.
Second, the dynamics of an individual play group may or may not even allow such disputes to come up. Many groups have long since worked out means of conflict resolution, so to suggest that a faction dispute is inevitable is simply untrue.
That is within an individual group. My statements address an overall organized play structure, which quite obviously encompasses multiple groups. Just because you can cite an anecdotal experience of one group, or even multiple groups, in no way makes it impossible for any other type of group to exist. And, given the vast array of such groups, it is in fact true that conflict is inevitable.
Finally, faction secrecy is being held up as justification for conflicts when nothing in or out of the scenarios demands it. If one of the PCs' faction goals demands that someone die, they should probably speak up about it before the boss fight comes. Avoiding conflicts means establishing goals ahead of time, and, as I said before, the PCs are obligated to avoid conflicts with each other wherever possible. At my table, the Chelaxian PC made it very clear she intended to kill Du Moire and dump his body into the ocean - after some clarification that Du Moire was a dead man from a legal perspective already, even the paladin was okay with that. Thus, no conflict.
If you had read what I wrote you would realize that I addressed it. Faction secrecy was irrelevant in this case. The mission briefing and character background was the primary factor.
As for whether the specific course of the discussion in this case could have led to a different resolution, that is why such table variations means that conflict is inevitable, despite your wish to dismiss it.Saying it's "inevitable" is simply making excuses for players who refuse to accept the social contract of the game group and PFS Organized Play. If they can't find a way around such disputes, they shouldn't be playing.
And just as I said, you are doing the exact same thing, insisting that your role-playing or perception of "fun" is more important than mine. It takes two to make a conflict. Telling someone they must always ignore their background if someone else objects is just as much making an excuse for people refusing to accept the social contract of the game group and PFS organized play as it would be if I were suggesting that role-play is an excuse for anything, which I categorically rejected but you want to ignore.
I will repeat:
If characterization is always to be surrendered at any hint of conflict then having such is not merely a waste but actually duplicitous. If such a liberum veto is the case I see no reason to have any character background or concept, or any faction affiliation.
There are ways to work around that, and without having to demonize anyone in the process. The question is whether players are open to them.
|
|
We called our first season "season 0" because its our playtest season. Its an opportunity for us to work out kinks like faction missions and how they relate to alignment. Its a chance for us to get this thing right before we launch it again in season 1 using the PRPG.
There are some minor problems with Hydra's Fang that should have been fixed in development. (The sea cat, for example, should not be an option of something to be attacked by in Tier 1-2 before you board the ship.) This doesn't reflect poorly on Tim, who I think did a wonderful job with the scenario, it reflects poorly on a brand new system we are just starting to work the kinks out of.
We've been very open and clear about this being a playtest season. We love this sort of feedback, thrive on this sort of feedback, and cannot grow the system without it. I have a folder in my email, as an example, that's FULL of player feedback that I'm incorporating in version 1.2 of the guidebook.
So please don't feel frustrated enough to quit because of one scenario. Our system is getting better, the development cycle is getting better, and its all because of feedback. Leaving the system behind will in all likelihood deny us your valuable input (the royal "your," not anyone specific).
I would like to also clarify, just in case anyone wants to read too much in what I have written, that I understand all of this.
I am not calling anyone on the Paizo side anything negative.
I do think the applicable section of the PFS Guide is underwritten, but I equally acknowledge that it is nearly impossible to write such a section that anticipate every possible type of conflict.
I do not think the adventure was anything egregiously wrong, just that it did contain a very high stress element that can never be worked around, no matter what intentions are. I could write several pages worth on such elements in adventures and adventure concept design, and it would all come back to a simple statement of the difficulty of using such.
My intent is to point out that such stress points are inevitable (yes, I will continue to use that word no matter what), and that the only way to reasonably deal with them is to both acknowledge them and work with them, rather than hope they really are not "that bad" and will just go away.
Fortunately, Joshua's responses indicate that he is looking to work with them.
Then we'll happily disagree and I'll leave you to hopefully find a system that works for you.
The opinions expressed about Pathfinder Society in this thread are not what Pathfinder Society is attempting to achieve. While conflict can happen (because people are people) our goal is to set up the missions in such a way as they won't *specifically* cause conflict. Seeing that two missions in this scenario could actually cause specific conflict (bordering on PVP) was unforeseen and has been taken into account for future scenarios.