| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rereading this in preparation to run it, a couple of questions occurred to me.
Nothing in the AP itself actually compels the Player Characters to perform the play, and quite logically, there are some good reasons not to do the play.
Yes, this does mean the players have to find an alternate means of infiltrating the Mayor's estate, but that should not be beyond a resourceful party.
My second question depends on the first.
I point this out, because The Sixfold Trial is a Richard Pett adventure - which is another name for "meatgrinder."
Now, even now, very now, I also foresee this issue.
I am not sure I understand you.
Why you describe is fine once they have agreed to do the play, but do you have a plan for them deciding not to do it?
The PCs are not forced to. And the reasons for not doing the play are entirely valid.
This leads to Mr. Jacobs's comments.
But in the end, if you have PCs who are just too timid to go on adventures... that might be a symptom of an entirely different problem. It might help to just point-blank ask the players WHY they're afraid to go on adventures; if the reason's something like "We always feel tricked into going on adventures that are too tough with not enough reward," or "We don't like roleplaying and just want to kill things," then you know how to fix things so that they're more fun for them.
This kind of thinking shows an exceptional weakness of Mr. Jacobs's skills as a game designer.
I think it is more like. "Why go through this highly dangerous play where we might all die(and in fact one Dm reported a TPK.) When we could sneak into the manor when everyone is at the play?"
It is not 'We might all get killed and are afraid of that' it is 'We might all get killed in this stupid play and effectively end the campaign." Because if Team A gets TPK'd, yes you can send in Team B to sneak into the manor but then Team B loses out on the Fame and experience
from the play. The play is one of the stumbling blocks that is linked to the Fame subsystem. Like The Morrowfall, if the party doesn't get it or even loses it then there goes the entire reason that the AP started.
It's a Shakespeare quote. Look it up. :)Now, even now, very now, I also foresee this issue.I am not sure I understand you.
Really? I have not been able to find the reference for it?
Iago - Othello - Act 1 Scene 4. Iago begins his machinations.
The first act of Othello only has three scenes. So, I am still at a loss.
That would be Act 1, Scene 1 page 4 (pagination by at least one site on the net).
I have two comments about this:
1) If your players are predictably the type to avoid doing things of the nature the play, why did you choose to run this AP in the first place?
2) If their wariness of the play wasn't predictable when you initially started, what do you do any time the PCs deviate from the written adventure? You come up with alternatives. If you think they'll be too weak heading into the Knot, find a different way for them to gain some XPs. If you think they'll fall behind the curve for fame points, find other ways for them to make some up. If they avoid fame as much as they can (PCs might choose to do this), let them reap the consequences of doing so in the endgame.
And no, I don't see it as a weakness in the design that an extremely fun part of the adventure path may not appeal to all players nor that there isn't room to print a Plan B in adventure text if that's the case. The format of a published adventure has some inherent limitations the GM is expected to compensate for to bring the adventure to life for his players.
And no, I don't see it as a weakness in the design that an extremely fun part of the adventure path may not appeal to all players nor that there isn't room to print a Plan B in adventure text if that's the case. The format of a published adventure has some inherent limitations the GM is expected to compensate for to bring the adventure to life for his players.
Nor do I.
What I see as a weakness in the designer is the quick jump to "if your players are too cowardly" line.
Passive-agressive?
If the players want to do a break-in there are plenty of ways to handle it.
1.Bribe servants and guards for info about the manor and any rumors floating around.
2.Try to get floorplans from any builders
3.Expensive, but getting a divination about 'The place where we must find the Crux of our solution' "Attic" is an excellent clue.
4.Perhaps a noble(One of the would be guests) wants to hire the PCs to find something in the Knot. They float the PCs some cash for bribes and perhaps a few clues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My reaction to the suggestion that we act in this play was that it was an overly convoluted plan to get the Pathfinders their building back, based on the suggestion (by a Pathfinder) that getting the Pathfinders their building back could potentially eradicate the Shadowplague. As a character with the Paranoid drawback, I felt that the chances the Pathfinders were using us was much higher than the chance that this plan would actually work.
My reaction to the suggestion that we act in this play was that it was an overly convoluted plan to get the Pathfinders their building back, based on the suggestion (by a Pathfinder) that getting the Pathfinders their building back could potentially eradicate the Shadowplague. As a character with the Paranoid drawback, I felt that the chances the Pathfinders were using us was much higher than the chance that this plan would actually work.
This was my point.
Even without the drawback, the plan seems kind of high risk. for a maybe?
Would not simply breaking into Vaneo Arvanxi during the party have less risk for the same result?
I guess busting in when most people are at the play is doable, but if they get invited they have almost free run of the place when everyone passes out. A break in means they pretty much have one shot at it instead of a few days. Plus they have a chance at extra XP/Gold from hobnobbing