|
I'd like to share with you my dismay as a GM about Echoes of Desperation that I played 2 days ago, and where my group was unable to complete the mission.
I'll skip over the fact that there are a lot of things left completely unclear in the scenario, but it's manageable.
When I read the Debriefing Note, I thought to myself that the results suggest that this scenario was likely to result in a sequel, and that the authors reserved the right to see how players around the world reacted to the Song'o's plight.
But as the scenario is written, let's be honest, at the end of the friendly meal with the Song'o, there is no reason or chance that the PJs think Mr. Riverside's plan has any chance of working. And so, logically, the players will want to go back to the Anthusis Lodge for help (and my players did, I grant them).
For me, the uncertainty of Mr. Riverside's proposed plan is a major risk of mission failure for the players when, on the contrary, the players performed their role well... because honestly, while the Vidrie is freeing itself from its slavers and remains very wary of the Pathfinder Society, while the River Sentinels are a reclusive and nomadic people, why would they trust people who tell them "don't move, we'll be back with the (PFS) cavalry"? And so, logically, the Song'o get the bell back (even if it means stealing it from the bottomless bag), and disappear into the jungle, enslaved by the Pact...
I did try to give the PJs a chance to make a diplomacy roll to convince Mr. Riverside of their good faith, but since it failed, by the time the PJs made the round trip, the Song'o had broken camp and disappeared into the Laughing Jungle.
How can this be avoided? I see two solutions.
- 1) First, explain why they established a permanent camp when they are supposed to be nomads. The scenario doesn't mention this at all... Except possibly to allow the players to find the sentinels. OK. But a disease could be the cause, and especially... the weakening caused by Bilokos' ritual! In my opinion, it should be made clear in the description of the camp that they seem to be asthenic (and therefore no longer move as nomads), which also contributes to the fact that they no longer fight (whether they are bound by the pact or not, as they could choose to break it and fight, after all, as my own players pointed out to me).
- 2 ) Explain more explicitly why killing 3 or 4 Bilokos would prevent Wrigglemaw from taking revenge.... Mr. Riverain "hopes that the message sent will be sufficient". In fact, one should not let "hope" but rather explain that this is the beginning of something else... like a "revival" of the River Sentinels, or that the other families will help, in short that there is something that will happen after and certainly not that a Fairy will let go of her pact so easily ....
I'm open to any other good idea, but basing the end of the scenario solely on the tacit agreement between players and GM that the Bilokos must be fought because "that's the scenario" is a bit sad, isn't it?