7 - 10 The Consortium Compact


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't properly started to read the scenario yet, just printing handouts and maps, but the chronicle sheet has a graphic error.
It has the scenario background, not the blank chronicle background on the bottom of the page.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

Think this one is 7-10... :)

I saw the chronicle background too. Took me a moment to realize what looked wrong!

I have a question about the impressive successes. Should we be giving the players any indication of what the impressive success conditions are? They don't seem particularly intuitive.

A: It's mentioned that Delroya doesn't know the identities of the agents, but I can find no indication from the players' perspective that the identity is important outside of allowing the PCs to sabotage the meeting. Am I missing anything here?

B: The players are probably going to hear that the authorities are in the Kortos Consortium's pockets. Why would they think to tell the authorities that the ship is a smuggler's ship?

C: The note for C, at least, hints that Laszo should die, but it seems weird to give PCs only a partial victory for completing exactly the steps explicitly outlined in the mission..?

Grand Lodge 5/5

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber

Just a comment on 'partial victory for completing the explicitly given instructions of a mission' ... this is the very definition of 1 Prestige earned under the current Secondary Conditions theme. :) Not having looked at this at all, I can only comment on the whole concept of 'going above and beyond' is something that's been pushed forward for the last few seasons, conceptually. (Having not read it, I can't comment on how intuitive, or even how likely, the 'full rewards' circumstances are.) That all said, overall I for one am okay with applying the 'secondary conditions' theme to other parts of adventures. Keep those Pathfinders thinking and double-thinking!

And for any comments of, but how would they know, if the theme of 'look deeper' becomes common, it should become a standard - and the only way to do that is to make sure it IS a common theme. 2nd Prestige was only the beginning! (ducks the stoning coming his way...)

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

Sean Hans wrote:

Just a comment on 'partial victory for completing the explicitly given instructions of a mission' ... this is the very definition of 1 Prestige earned under the current Secondary Conditions theme. :) Not having looked at this at all, I can only comment on the whole concept of 'going above and beyond' is something that's been pushed forward for the last few seasons, conceptually. (Having not read it, I can't comment on how intuitive, or even how likely, the 'full rewards' circumstances are.) That all said, overall I for one am okay with applying the 'secondary conditions' theme to other parts of adventures. Keep those Pathfinders thinking and double-thinking!

And for any comments of, but how would they know, if the theme of 'look deeper' becomes common, it should become a standard - and the only way to do that is to make sure it IS a common theme. 2nd Prestige was only the beginning! (ducks the stoning coming his way...)

Thanks for the response! That's not entirely related to the question I was asking, but I appreciate it. :)

My concern was that some of the information was contradictory. There's still a chance of confusion, but on a third read through, I think I was looking past a couple of details in the mission briefing. As a GM, I think what I'm going to do is gently increase the emphasis on a couple things. Specifically:
- The VC box text tells the PCs that Aspis is a long-time enemy but Kortos is neutral, and the PCs should avoid antagonizing them. I initially read this as a suggestion not to go into full murder-hobo mode, but I think this is instead meant to differentiate between viable targets (Aspis) and neutral targets (Kortos). I'll probably make that distinction a little more obvious.
- In the Q&A section, there's a line stating that the Kortos pretends to be a legitimate group dedicated to stamping out smugglers, but that participates in its fair share of illegal activities. I read (misread?) that as, "Kortos pretends to care about smuggling, but doesn't really." It seems like the intended interpretation was instead that Kortos is strongly against smuggling... unless it's their own.

I think finding those two things makes the task completion conditions make a lot more sense. I'll probably reword those a little bit to make them more apparent, so long as the PCs are paying attention to what's being said, anyway.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Terminalmancer wrote:

My concern was that some of the information was contradictory. There's still a chance of confusion, but on a third read through, I think I was looking past a couple of details in the mission briefing. As a GM, I think what I'm going to do is gently increase the emphasis on a couple things. Specifically:

- The VC box text tells the PCs that Aspis is a long-time enemy but Kortos is neutral, and the PCs should avoid antagonizing them. I initially read this as a suggestion not to go into full murder-hobo mode, but I think this is instead meant to differentiate between viable targets (Aspis) and neutral targets (Kortos). I'll probably make that distinction a little more obvious.
- In the Q&A section, there's a line stating that the Kortos pretends to be a legitimate group dedicated to stamping out smugglers, but that participates in its fair share of illegal activities. I read (misread?) that as, "Kortos pretends to care about smuggling, but...

This sounds like a good plan! You're right about the Kortos Consortium basically wanting to protect their own smuggling interests by preventing (or controlling) other smuggling operations.

Also, while many authorities in Diobel are certainly in the pockets of the Kortos Consortium, not all of them necessarily are. Some of the authorities are in fact rivals of the Consortium. Plus, the Kortos Consortium consists of a number of different factions with varying goals and interests. Not all of them would necessarily support an open alliance with the Aspis, especially one that involves blatantly illegal practices. (I suggest taking a look at Towns of the Inner Sea if you want to know more.)

Finally, the suggestion that PCs might choose to go to the authorities as a viable option is mainly intended as a method to reward lawful PCs who want to handle the situation in a fashion fitting their alignment. Some PCs might be interested in breaking as few laws as possible during the scenario, and we wanted to make that option viable.

Dark Archive Venture-Agent, Washington—West Seattle aka melferburque

Terminalmancer wrote:


A: It's mentioned that Delroya doesn't know the identities of the agents, but I can find no indication from the players' perspective that the identity is important outside of allowing the PCs to sabotage the meeting. Am I missing anything here?

this confused me as well, did I miss something crucial that would allow the PCs to identify the agents without tossing the entire bar?

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

melferburque wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:


A: It's mentioned that Delroya doesn't know the identities of the agents, but I can find no indication from the players' perspective that the identity is important outside of allowing the PCs to sabotage the meeting. Am I missing anything here?
this confused me as well, did I miss something crucial that would allow the PCs to identify the agents without tossing the entire bar?

I wouldn't worry about whether the PCs are able to get the actual names/identities of the agents in this encounter. The intention with the "impressive success" condition here was to reward PCs who are able to spot the agents (rather than just disrupting the meeting without ever figuring out who the agents are).

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

I'm prepping to run this in a few days, and I just wanted to comment that I absolutely LOVE this scenario. All of the evergreen scenarios to-date, the challenges seem to have been geared towards more novice GMs. While this one is set up so that novice GMs can still run it just fine (with the sample courses of action chart that I also love), in the hands of a veteran GM, the "allow creativity" sections gave me a stupid grin on my face as I was reading.

Once I run it I fully plan to post a review, but for now, I just wanted to post with my compliments, Mike!

Although, one tiny question - the art on the cover. Is that supposed to be Inspector Allencroft, or just some random agent?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

In the product thread John said it's just the iconic Pathfinder Chronicler, no one specific to the scenario.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

Ah ha, another item for the "clarifications revealed in product page and not PFS boards" list :P

Thanks Eric!

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

Mike Kimmel wrote:

This sounds like a good plan! You're right about the Kortos Consortium basically wanting to protect their own smuggling interests by preventing (or controlling) other smuggling operations.

Also, while many authorities in Diobel are certainly in the pockets of the Kortos Consortium, not all of them necessarily are. Some of the authorities are in fact rivals of the Consortium. Plus, the Kortos Consortium consists of a number of different factions with varying goals and interests. Not all of them would necessarily support an open alliance with the Aspis, especially one that involves blatantly illegal practices. (I suggest taking a look at Towns of the Inner Sea if you want to know more.)

Finally, the suggestion that PCs might choose to go to the authorities as a viable option is mainly intended as a method to reward lawful PCs who want to handle the situation in a fashion fitting their alignment. Some PCs might be interested in breaking as few laws as possible during the scenario, and we wanted to make that option viable.

Thank you! Also, not knowing much about the Kortos, reading through Towns of the Inner Sea helped immensely. Now I know the context you were putting things in, it all makes much more sense. I really appreciate the tip!

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Bramnik wrote:

I'm prepping to run this in a few days, and I just wanted to comment that I absolutely LOVE this scenario. All of the evergreen scenarios to-date, the challenges seem to have been geared towards more novice GMs. While this one is set up so that novice GMs can still run it just fine (with the sample courses of action chart that I also love), in the hands of a veteran GM, the "allow creativity" sections gave me a stupid grin on my face as I was reading.

Once I run it I fully plan to post a review, but for now, I just wanted to post with my compliments, Mike!

Although, one tiny question - the art on the cover. Is that supposed to be Inspector Allencroft, or just some random agent?

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I'd love to hear how your games go.

Terminalmancer wrote:
Thank you! Also, not knowing much about the Kortos, reading through Towns of the Inner Sea helped immensely. Now I know the context you were putting things in, it all makes much more sense. I really appreciate the tip!

No problem. I'm glad Towns of the Inner Sea was useful. (It sure helped me when I was doing research to write the scenario!) Let me know if I can help with anything else.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just ran this tonight. I didn't emphasize anything, and they easily got impressive on both missions (meeting and Laszlo).

The players loved it.

They started the meeting mission by intimidating "Pal", who promptly gave up the name of the Kurt's Agent. And they convinced "Pal" to put a micky in his drink. Meeting couldn't happen cause he was passed out. Then rogue picked the Aspis pocket, which I had the letter inviting her to this meeting.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

Just ran this tonight. I didn't emphasize anything, and they easily got impressive on both missions (meeting and Laszlo).

The players loved it.

They started the meeting mission by intimidating "Pal", who promptly gave up the name of the Kurt's Agent. And they convinced "Pal" to put a micky in his drink. Meeting couldn't happen cause he was passed out. Then rogue picked the Aspis pocket, which I had the letter inviting her to this meeting.

That's AWESOME! Thank you for sharing!

5/5 Venture-Captain, Ohio—Northern aka GinoA

We played this Saturday. To frame my comments: I played, didn't GM and haven't read the scenario. Though, we did talk through some of our concerns after (and during) the session. Further, this was a last-minute session to level some PCs before Monday and the GM only had about 90 minutes of prep time.

Our biggest problem was we were convinced that the officials on the boat were in the pocket of the Aspis. The GM had to pretty-much tell us OOC that our PCs thought they might be legit. Now the GM might have missed some nuances that would have allowed him to open this route more subtly, but the fact that someone else mentioned the same thing makes me think there is a weakness here.

We also felt the DC to pick the lock of the Captain's cabin was rough for something crucial to Primary Success on a Tier 1-2. We ended up creating a ruckus on deck and covering the sound of breaking the door open.

If I'm understanding something said upstream, killing Laszo* would put you at risk of missing the Secondary. This was definitely not the tone we took from the handout. If we hadn't had a couple pacifists in the party, he would have died.

We skipped the pub objective because none of us had any confidence that we could disrupt a meeting between two unknown NPCs. Personally, I figured the obvious start-a-brawl would just provide them more cover to slip out together. Beyond that, I can't comment on that encounter.

I really liked the "siege" encounter. It was a great opportunity to think of interesting ways to help yourselves. Reminds me of the three-parter that ends in a village in Tian Xia. Path to Perfection, I think. This one was a lot more open-ended though and felt more like there was more opportunity for creativity by the players.

* I just want to comment that this NPC's name caused the middle-aged players at the table to degrade into an aside about a certain Val Kilmer movie. We enjoyed that.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I am the GM that ran Gino's game. Given the limited information that players are given, and how the handouts are worded the diplomacy option for the ship is very easy to discard. Depending on a parties build getting a DC 18/20 disable device at level 1-2 is very very difficult. Given that the PC's information, a lot of the options suggested in the back story/GM material isn't something that they would try due to actually applying logic and practicality. Given the wording of the handout I am surprised that most parties don't outright kill him and fail the secondary. Most of the scenarios that I have played, the secondary is either referenced or inferred based on the story line. This one just seems to have a few holes in regards to giving the PC's information, or in some cases a secondary method of getting that info in case they cannot make the 20+ knowledge check at level 1.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Killing Laszlo doesn't stop your secondary success, and indeed helps it.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

Minous wrote:
I am the GM that ran Gino's game. Given the limited information that players are given, and how the handouts are worded the diplomacy option for the ship is very easy to discard. Depending on a parties build getting a DC 18/20 disable device at level 1-2 is very very difficult. Given that the PC's information, a lot of the options suggested in the back story/GM material isn't something that they would try due to actually applying logic and practicality. Given the wording of the handout I am surprised that most parties don't outright kill him and fail the secondary. Most of the scenarios that I have played, the secondary is either referenced or inferred based on the story line. This one just seems to have a few holes in regards to giving the PC's information, or in some cases a secondary method of getting that info in case they cannot make the 20+ knowledge check at level 1.

Regarding the end of your post in particular, I'm not seeing any DC 20+ Knowledge check beyond the initial Knowledge (local) regarding Qadiran trade (information whose purpose is almost entirely to provide PCs with a little background and a possible ploy to use for crafting creative solutions). What is the particular Knowledge check you're referencing?

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My players *loved* this scenario yesterday - look for me to leave a review on it soon. Very well done, Mike!

One tiny thing I noticed - in Area C the ladder is in the northwest corner of the map, not the northeast corner as the scenario states. Very minor error, but since I noticed I figured I should post it.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I wish that the map had presented a bare warehouse floor, with the expectation that the GM could use cubes for the movable boxes.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

Chris Mortika wrote:
I wish that the map had presented a bare warehouse floor, with the expectation that the GM could use cubes for the movable boxes.

+1 on that, Chris. Seemed wonky to mark where we moved things from and to.

Otherwise, maybe use a flip mat some can draw on it?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

After having played this now, I have a serious concern about the group mechanics for the various missions.

While it is nice that it gives everyone a chance to get involved in both missions, it seriously negates the "shine" moments for those who built their characters to excel at one or more of the missions.

If you have a face character, your skills might be completely nerfed if you are on a team of a bunch of louts.

If you are a sneaky character, your skills might be completely nerfed by a bunch of tanks.

It certainly promotes cooperation. But it doesn't let people actually let people succeed at the missions by being excellent in their field. And I think that will potentially detract from the game if someone starts pouting when they fail at the missions despite rolling a 30+ on a skill check.

It doesn't allow for a player to choose to sit out a mission.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I get that, Andy, the newer group dynamics does promote building more generalist characters, and ones that skills matter on, something both of us do as a matter of course, but not everyone does.

It is also nice to hear that my +3 in diplomacy has a value on a team which has a diplomancer bard on it, or that other skills of mine will come into use. So often people build characters that kill OR characters that have skills. I am assuming GM Lamplighter is loving this!

So, my two thumbs up on the mechanic, as it requires the involvement of everyone!

But, as, to me it adds some verisimilitude, as a group in a bar made up of one face and five louts should get penalized in a social interaction. The actions of the thuggish loits could overwhelm the bard's ability to talk down their public drunkenness, etc.

Also, if being an über diplomat is no longer needed, then perhaps skills will be more evenly distributed?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Except this scenario is largely set up in the front end like a caper movie (e.g. The Italian Job or Ocean's Eleven.) Which typically those who have the specialized skill only do that part of the caper.

In large parts, Roleplaying games are predicated on this. That's why adventuring groups typically require arcane, healing, rogue, and damage output. And it isn't very often more than two of those show up on the same character. Even highly versatile characters have trouble covering all areas greatly. Which us why a certain level of expertise is usual.

The more versatile your character, often the less likely you are to succeed. Let alone excel at each expertise. That's why this isn't a one man show. We need team members to cover the areas we lack.

This type of mechanic, while it rewards being versatile, and basically demands that everyone participate, penalizes those who choose to excel at something, by reducing thier chance to succeed because others who might choose to stay silent must now participate.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

My understanding from the scenario is that you can indeed do just that, and that non-stealthy PCs do have the option to not join you in sneaking aboard.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Jack Brown wrote:
It is also nice to hear that my +3 in diplomacy has a value on a team which has a diplomancer bard on it, or that other skills of mine will come into use. So often people build characters that kill OR characters that have skills. I am assuming GM Lamplighter is loving this!

Getting to play with my uber-generalist was actually pretty cool in this one. Minimum of +5 in every skill for the win! I'm still a little on the fence of the mechanic if it gets overused (which often happens with mechanics like these), but as a "this scenario is different, here's how" mechanism - I did kind of like it.

But considering the bad attitude some players have when their tricked out +24 at level 1 characters have when they can't just curbstomp everything, I can see Andy's concern a little. But that's a player problem more than a mechanical problem.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

This though was a very real possibility I mentioned during the game day. I know it's GM dependent, but what happens when in a group of 6, two people have awesome enough stealth scores and four say they want to sit out?

One possible suggestion is to encourage them to perform other roles in the caper. The best example I can give is distractions via intimidate or bluff.

5/5

I am busy prepping this and it is unclear what the Subtier 2 encounter is in the sewers. It looks like increasing the subtier adds some extra beetles given the map markers but I cannot find anything in the scenario which explicitly says so.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

My understanding from the scenario is that you can indeed do just that, and that non-stealthy PCs do have the option to not join you in sneaking aboard.

Yep here's the relevant text:

TCC wrote:

Each PC who chooses to board the

ship must attempt one check of her choice, though PCs
who do not trust their ability to sneak may wait on the
docks nearby.

When I ran it the ninja was the only one that wanted to go in. He easily snuck in got the documents. Took about 5 minutes real time to complete that mission.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
I am busy prepping this and it is unclear what the Subtier 2 encounter is in the sewers. It looks like increasing the subtier adds some extra beetles given the map markers but I cannot find anything in the scenario which explicitly says so.

Read the scaling encounter box for that encounter. That's where it says how to change the encounter if you play subtier 2.

5/5

Mike Bramnik wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

My understanding from the scenario is that you can indeed do just that, and that non-stealthy PCs do have the option to not join you in sneaking aboard.

While this is true for the ship encounter it isn't true of the Oyster Bar option. Here the PC's need to have at least 3 people succeed at each stage of the process in order to successfully disrupt the meeting.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

andreww wrote:
Mike Bramnik wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

My understanding from the scenario is that you can indeed do just that, and that non-stealthy PCs do have the option to not join you in sneaking aboard.
While this is true for the ship encounter it isn't true of the Oyster Bar option. Here the PC's need to have at least 3 people succeed at each stage of the process in order to successfully disrupt the meeting.

The scenario allows each PC to use a different (relevant) skill at each stage of Encounter A (the Oyster). "During each phase, each PC attempts a relevant check of her choice." If some PCs are trying to scout the tavern with Stealth, others can use Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, and so on. Not everyone needs to use the same skill at each step.

5/5

Mike Kimmel wrote:
The scenario allows each PC to use a different (relevant) skill at each stage of Encounter A (the Oyster). "During each phase, each PC attempts a relevant check of her choice." If some PCs are trying to scout the tavern with Stealth, others can use Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, and so on. Not everyone needs to use the same skill at each step.

Sure, I wasn't suggesting otherwise, I probably shouldn't have quoted the stealth post.

Having said that it could still be rough on a lot of groups. Three successes in each of three separate tasks is asking a lot especially when many classes get so few skill points.

One other note as part of my prep, Location 5 random table is missing an entry for 4.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Manchester aka Merisal The Risen

I did like the mechanic for the oyster bar and the ship. I tried to encourage my players to come up with a plan of action at the bar and ask each one for a skill check that would contribute but I balked when 4/5 out of six wanted to use perception and kinda house ruled it I wanted three active skills in the selection of skills

Is it intentional that confirmation has a report theme, Wounded wisp more explore and this intro is all about cooperation?

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern aka CanisDirus

andreww wrote:
Mike Bramnik wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:

I agree with Andy. If my Stealth-out-the-wazoo wayang ninja sneaks on board the boat to capture the captain's MacGuffin, I shouldn't fail because my three comrades sitting back in the hotel room can't roll Stealth to save their lives.

My understanding from the scenario is that you can indeed do just that, and that non-stealthy PCs do have the option to not join you in sneaking aboard.
While this is true for the ship encounter it isn't true of the Oyster Bar option. Here the PC's need to have at least 3 people succeed at each stage of the process in order to successfully disrupt the meeting.

Correct - but since I was answering a specific erroneous comment about the ship section...

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Merisal The Risen wrote:
Is it intentional that confirmation has a report theme, Wounded wisp more explore and this intro is all about cooperation?

That was not intentional on my part, but I've always considered "cooperate" to be the most important of the three, especially for newer players, who are particularly likely to play this scenario.

3/5

andreww wrote:
One other note as part of my prep, Location 5 random table is missing an entry for 4.

I noticed the same thing. Unless I see otherwise before I run this in the near future, I'm going to assume that entry 4 is:

"The platform is fully functional. There is nothing wrong with the platform at this time, and there is no other items of note in this area. Have the PCs make a DC 15 Knowledge (engineering) or DC 18 Perception check to notice it is fully functional."

Silver Crusade 5/5

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:


When I ran it the ninja was the only one that wanted to go in. He easily snuck in got the documents. Took about 5 minutes real time to complete that mission.

That almost happened when I ran it. But the ninja was the pregen. So, he snuck in just fine and then was stymied by the locked door. After all, it is MUCH more important that the ninja has a rank in Knowledge Religion than in disable device.

Man, that character sucks hard at least at level 1.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Manchester aka Merisal The Risen

I remember getting told in one year 3 adventure the Tien way was not to lock up valuables so the pregen Ninjas lack of disable device is a feature not a an oversight

Of course said adventure then went on to produce a locked box with a trap iirc

Silver Crusade 5/5

Merisal The Risen wrote:

I remember getting told in one year 3 adventure the Tien way was not to lock up valuables so the pregen Ninjas lack of disable device is a feature not a an oversight

Of course said adventure then went on to produce a locked box with a trap iirc

I somehow find it hard to imagine that nobody in Tien has invented the locked door. ESPECIALLY if ninjas do not have disable device :-) :-).

Edit: I love the irony of Merisal (SO close to Merisiel) posting that :-). And I know that you're not defending that position.

And of course it doesn't matter what happens in Tien. The pregens have stats because they're supposed to be played, and that play will often occur outside of Tien

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Merisal The Risen wrote:
I remember getting told in one year 3 adventure the Tien way was not to lock up valuables so the pregen Ninjas lack of disable device is a feature not a an oversight

I had a similar theory: it doesn't make much sense to lock your doors when your walls are made of paper.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

Ran this last night. The team had zero issues on the ship. In fact, since one individual was a Kitsune who specialized in disguise, it was trivial. The locked door was more of a challenge, but a skeleton key soon fixed that.

My team never did fight the alchemist. Seemed like a bit of a let down. They went there first thing in the morning, with the intent of stamping out the Alchemist, but found nothing but some barely conscious addicts and the goods. They felt saddened that he wasn't there. Perhaps next time, I'll have him show up, since again, it's rather trivial to find the whip and journal.

To be fair, 4 of the 5 players only play these particular characters together, as their backstory is that they're part of a defunct circus group.

Needless to say, they had no problems getting to the warehouse. Some interesting occurrences here. A) There is a ton of time to move crates around. They blockaded every door except 1, even the secret doors. Quite frankly, I don't see why they didn't blockade every door with as many crates as possible, leaving only the skylight as an entrance. B) Rolling randomly for the Kortos seemed odd. They're simply coming to check out the warehouse (unlike the Aspis, who know something is amiss), so why would they rappel down from the skylight (which is from where they came)? That one felt really weird. And again, the team had zero issues talking down the Kortos. Only thing that kept the Aspis encounter from being a total cakewalk was the Pathfinders choice of where to put the bear trap. It created a nice barrier for the negative-energy channeling cleric to just go at it. However, luck was on their side as they found the potions and wand of curing.

All and all, a nice intro scenario that highlights cooperation above all. As far as replayability, I might get less mileage out of this one than The Confirmation (personally). I really like The Confirmation (and we have awesome terrain available for the final encounter).

5/5

Dave Baker wrote:
My team never did fight the alchemist. Seemed like a bit of a let down. They went there first thing in the morning, with the intent of stamping out the Alchemist, but found nothing but some barely conscious addicts and the goods. They felt saddened that he wasn't there. Perhaps next time, I'll have him show up, since again, it's rather trivial to find the whip and journal.

I believe that he keeps the notes on him so this only counts as a partial success.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

andreww wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:
My team never did fight the alchemist. Seemed like a bit of a let down. They went there first thing in the morning, with the intent of stamping out the Alchemist, but found nothing but some barely conscious addicts and the goods. They felt saddened that he wasn't there. Perhaps next time, I'll have him show up, since again, it's rather trivial to find the whip and journal.
I believe that he keeps the notes on him so this only counts as a partial success.

Dang. Missed that one line.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

My only complaint about it after running it is...

Why, in an EVERGREEN, do we not use the perfectly good Warehouse map when every other map is a flip mat or map set?

Contributor

I'm doing my first read through now to prep for a game on Saturday and have a question. Much is made in the Blue Dragon's Bite encounter of all the NPCs who are around. Galdeph Bellarion and Indara Allencroft obviously, but also the stevedores performing the unloading.

Now, according to the timeline at pp. 6-7, the unloading takes from dawn to dusk on Oathday, the day the PCs arrive in Diobel (at dawn). From what I've read so far, the scenario assumes that the PCs, should they choose this encounter, will go to the ship sometime during daylight.

But what if they wait until after dark? The delay that causes the drugs to not be loaded onto the ship is triggered so long as two of the three tasks are successfully seen through before dawn on Fireday. If I were playing this scenario, and the timeline (as I understand it, anyway) had been communicated to me, once my fellow Pathfinders and I walked up to the docks and saw all that activity, I would suggest we wait until after dark and go with a more traditional stealthy robbery approach.

Since the scenario doesn't account for that option (that I've seen), I'm left with two possibilities. (1) I'm missing something and the scenario does account for this option, either in recasting the encounter to be run by night or some aspect of the timeline I'm misunderstanding, most likely. (2) I need to be prepared for the players to come up with this idea and have some other version of that encounter prepared.

To be sure, it's far more likely that I've missed something, but I thought I'd ask just to be sure—hopefully there's an easy fix and somebody will simply be able to say, "Christopher, read the timeline paragraphs again" or some such and all will come clear.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Christopher Rowe wrote:
But what if they wait until after dark? The delay that causes the drugs to not be loaded onto the ship is triggered so long as two of the three tasks are successfully seen through before dawn on Fireday. If I were playing this scenario, and the timeline (as I understand it, anyway) had been communicated to me, once my fellow Pathfinders and I walked up to the docks and saw all that activity, I would suggest we wait until after dark and go with a more traditional stealthy robbery approach.

This could certainly be more clear in the scenario. The idea is that, once the ship has finished unloading and night comes, the opportunity is gone. You might suggest to the your players that the ship (or papers) may not be there any more at night, or that the captain might return at night with the ship's crew to begin preparations, making it even more difficult to sneak aboard.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Matthew Morris wrote:

My only complaint about it after running it is...

Why, in an EVERGREEN, do we not use the perfectly good Warehouse map when every other map is a flip mat or map set?

I wanted to add a few unique features to the warehouse. Multiple levels, skylights, a separate room, the platform and lever, and so on. Also, since the warehouse plays such a prominent role in the scenario, I figured it deserved its own unique map. Sorry for the inconvenience to those of you who own the warehouse flip-mat. :)

Contributor

Mike Kimmel wrote:
Christopher Rowe wrote:
But what if they wait until after dark? The delay that causes the drugs to not be loaded onto the ship is triggered so long as two of the three tasks are successfully seen through before dawn on Fireday. If I were playing this scenario, and the timeline (as I understand it, anyway) had been communicated to me, once my fellow Pathfinders and I walked up to the docks and saw all that activity, I would suggest we wait until after dark and go with a more traditional stealthy robbery approach.
This could certainly be more clear in the scenario. The idea is that, once the ship has finished unloading and night comes, the opportunity is gone. You might suggest to the your players that the ship (or papers) may not be there any more at night, or that the captain might return at night with the ship's crew to begin preparations, making it even more difficult to sneak aboard.

Makes sense. Thanks for the suggestion! It's an excellent scenario!

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / 7 - 10 The Consortium Compact All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.