Wanting to make sure I understand the wording of some of these bundles in the scenario. I'll keep spoilers to a minimum as I can... society document seems to indicate there should be 10 bundles in each scenario, which is the max reward for parties that find all treasures. So, during 1-03:
After fight 1, it doesn't say you find 2 treasure bundles... it says if you don't succeed at the fight, *reduce given bundles by 2.
A4: 1 Bundle
A5: 1 Bundle
A6: 1 Bundle
B4: 2 Bundle
B10: 1 Bundle
Final encounter, if you fail to win the fight, *lose 2 bundles.
OK so, i'm 99% sure as intended, after you win the fights, you gain x bundles. If you lose, you don't get them obviously. This would add up to 10, which each scenario should have.
It's just really annoying that, as written, you should reduce the number of bundles the PCs have. Like, my party finds all the rewards in areas A and B, but lose both fights. To me, that's 6 bundle found, minus 2 for each fight, which is final rewards of 2 bundles. Which is dumb.
So I'm right with running it as I believe it was intended, right?
I suspect this is due to early terminology discrepancy, and Shadrick has the right of it. I suspect it might be slightly easier to track unclaimed bundles for a GM, since I suspect most tables will acquire 10 bundles in most adventures, but time will tell.
Small sample size, but in 3 tables of 1-02 on Wednesday, we had 1 each earn 8, 9 & 10 bundles.
|Tim Schneider Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Newcastle aka Tim Schneider 908|
I track claimed bundles, mostly cause I find it makes the players feel rewarded when you tell them that the thing they found "is roughly equivalent to 2 treasure bundles". At least while treasure bundles are new cool ideas players seem excited by this which is a good enough reason for me to do it.
I think it's just a side-effect of authors getting used to earning bundles rather than losing gold being the new default. Given it adds up to the full 10 I think it's pretty clear that the correct interpretation for "lose 2 if this did happen" is "gain 2 if this didn't happen" - at least in this case.
It'd be good if they worked on making that consistent just in case they ever do actually have spots where you can lose treasure later.