|
I ran a playtest of To Delve the Dungeon Deep tonight. It's a good little adventure. I particularly enjoyed the part about the huckster skulk prophet. However, I had difficulty with two portions of the module.
1. The first was the Suicide Well in Area 12. In the text for the room, it states that "...any creature that [looks down into the well] is subject to a suggestion that urges it to throw itself into the hole." However, the suggestion spell text states that "asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell." This is confusing. The wording should probably be changed. How would/did you handle this apparent contradiction?
(Also, because this is an introductory scenario, and the Haunt rules are found in the Advanced Player's Guide, they would make a good appendix -- with a note in the room description referring the GM to it. It's not clear that players are supposed to enter initiative when someone looks down the well unless you have the Haunt rules at hand.)
2. The second issue was regarding how I perceived two of the three factions introduced in this scenario were presented. Amara Li of the Lantern Lodge was a friendly, generous person. But Major Colson Madris of the Andoran faction was described as ostentatious and pompous, and dropped a mild insult on the party. And the brusque exchange with Trade Prince Aaqir al’Hakam (Qadira) made my players decide to only take him one of the many trade agreements they found in the structure.
This seems to me to be inconsistent with the stated purpose for the First Steps adventures. I am all for colorful characters, but I had to do some improvising in order to feel that I had communicated the aims and objectives of the factions involved. Am I making much ado about nothing?
1. The first was the Suicide Well in Area 12. In the text for the room, it states that "...any creature that [looks down into the well] is subject to a suggestion that urges it to throw itself into the hole." However, the suggestion spell text states that "asking the creature to do some obviously harmful act automatically negates the effect of the spell." This is confusing. The wording should probably be changed. How would/did you handle this apparent contradiction?
Specific overrides general. Since the scenario says that the haunt tells the PC to jump, that's what the suggestion's effect is. Remember, it's an undead creature not a spell being cast so it doesn't have to perfectly imitate the spell description.
(Also, because this is an introductory scenario, and the Haunt rules are found in the Advanced Player's Guide, they would make a good appendix -- with a note in the room description referring the GM to it. It's not clear that players are supposed to enter initiative when someone looks down the well unless you have the Haunt rules at hand.)
I think the scenario included a small description with the fact that the well always goes on Initiative #10. A reference would be nice, but I don't think it was needed.
2. The second issue was regarding how I perceived two of the three factions introduced in this scenario were presented. Amara Li of the Lantern Lodge was a friendly, generous person. But Major Colson Madris of the Andoran faction was described as ostentatious and pompous, and dropped a mild insult on the party. And the brusque exchange with Trade Prince Aaqir al’Hakam (Qadira) made my players decide to only take him one of the many trade agreements they found in the structure.
This seems to me to be inconsistent with the stated purpose for the First Steps adventures. I am all for colorful characters, but I had to do some improvising in order to feel that I had communicated the aims and objectives of the factions involved. Am I making much ado about nothing?
It didn't specifically say it in this one, but you are supposed to drop a little propaganda for the Andoran and Qadiran factions when talking with the PCs. What you added was fine.
Also, there are some other parts to their personalities that are supposed to shine through (mostly with the Sense Motive checks the scenario gives). Amara Li is compromising especially in regards to mixing the culture of the east with the west. Colson Madris is arrogant and pompous but he honestly cares about what he believes in and honestly cares about the PCs safety. Aaqir al'Hakam may be manipulative and legalistic but his is still proper and civil, giving the impression of being very knowledgeable (he IS a diviner after all).
|
|
:Specific overrides general" is a concept familiar to people who frequent gaming message boards. In an introductory scenario, I don't believe you should assume that the GM or players are familiar with such conventions. It could be clarified by only a minor change in the wording.
The convention in Pathfinder adventures -- and it is a good one -- is that they include stat blocks for creatures that appear in supplements other than the Bestiary, while Bestiary creatures get page numbers. It seems to be that it would be a logical extension of this convention to include rules that do not appear in the Core Rulebook. It would make even more sense in an introductory adventure. The rules for Haunts appear in the Advanced Player's Guide (and in Skinsaw Murders). And, yes, the room description does have a note about the Haunt going on initiative 10 in the surprise round (which is standard for a Haunt), but that reminder does no good if the GM doesn't know how a Haunt works.
It didn't specifically say it in this one...
But it's an intro adventure. Shouldn't it?
Also, there are some other parts to their personalities that are supposed to shine through... (edit) Colson Madris is arrogant and pompous but he honestly cares about what he believes in and honestly cares about the PCs safety. Aaqir al'Hakam may be manipulative and legalistic but his is still proper and civil, giving the impression of being very knowledgeable (he IS a diviner after all).
Beautifully said. I wish this was in the adventure. But it's not.
I agree on both counts. I used the Field Guide to fill in a lot of the information.
I think the alternatives would have been either to include more information in the scenarios which is highly unlikely (word count and not wanting to overload a new GM) or to include references to products which is also unlikely as it makes the scenario feel tattered and make new GMs feel less confident about it without the extra books.
|
In part one the players are instructed to give these folks the same respect they would their venture-captain. Since this is a series, it is assumed the players have played part one and know this (something the GM may want to remind the players about).
It seems that a group that did not return all the trade agreements they found, could be easily found out by their venture-captain who would be within his rights to confiscate the documents since they are not listed on the Chronicle sheet (only one may be kept). Nevermind having to pass a group bluff check when the Trade Prince asks if it was the only document they found.
