On page 11, there are two instructions to the GM that are not merely poor but outright against the 4E rules imo -they clearly make for "less fun" if the players realise what's happening.
I urge GMs to ignore these instructions.
I urge writers not to include such things in the future.
1) "Do not give the Insight check unless the PCs expressly ask for it"
- PCs are the characters; PLAYERS can ask for checks but characters never will.
- Passive Insight is there precisely because you don't have to use it actively
- MANY PLAYERS WILL NOT ASK FOR ACTIVE INSIGHT CHECKS because of the way the rules are written. We expect insight to work passively for things like this. Some players will ask; putting things like this in modules forces players to ask all the time which is irritating to both players and GMs.
Don't penalise players for knowing the rules
Don't make the machanics intrude on roleplaying.
Especially don't make the players make the mechanics intrude in the roleplaying during other modules!
2) "If the PCs brandish The King's Writ, they automatically opt for an intimidate check with a -4 penalty"
- "brandish" is an unsuitably vague term
- The PCs could very easily present the writ in support of diplomacy (eg "look we've got this problem that the KING has put on us, so help a fellow out eh?"); I wouldn't call this "brandishing" but a lot of GMs (especially non-English ones) are liable to not make that distinction (an it's one that makes the instruction moot anyway).
- there is no suggestion that this fellow is anything but law-abiding which makes the penaly inappropriate: NB this isn't a penalty that applies to all intimidate checks against him (ie an increase to his DC) but one specifically for using the Writ.
This is a decisino for the GM at the table.
Apart from the kiddy-ex-machina, the module is otherwise excellent.
1) "Do not give the Insight check unless the PCs expressly ask for it"
- PCs are the characters; PLAYERS can ask for checks but characters never will.
- Passive Insight is there precisely because you don't have to use it actively
- MANY PLAYERS WILL NOT ASK FOR ACTIVE INSIGHT CHECKS because of the way the rules are written. We expect insight to work passively for things like this. Some players will ask; putting things like this in modules forces players to ask all the time which is irritating to both players and GMs.
Don't penalise players for knowing the rules
Don't make the machanics intrude on roleplaying.
Especially don't make the players make the mechanics intrude in the roleplaying during other modules!
Haven't read the mod, but if I were DMing I'd take this to read "Don't tell the players to make an active perception check" - IE - if someone has a passive high enough for they'd still spot it.
Instead this text is just clarifying that the DM shouldn't stop the action and tell the table to make rolls.
Despite the passive rules there are other mods written that specify when to make the table to active checks.
Lets remember this is D&D and not law school
I would somewhat agree with the first part but I think Wolfie said it just fine.
The second part I fail to see your point as I think is written just fine. I 'm not going to get into nit picky semantics but using the word ‘brandishing’ in regards to the writ is worded just fine and explains in spirit the expected PC’s actions. I have played this mod several times and the DMs have not had a problem understanding what is meant.
(2) The fellow makes it very clear at the start that he isn't on best terms with the King, so it is not unreasonable to prompt an Intimidate when using the writ.
2) I'm going to need a specific page reference for him saying he doesn't like the King because I see nothing of the sort in the module (aside from this bizarre auto-intimidate with baseless penalty).
“So, the King’s hounds are at my doorstep. Well, you’ll not cut me down like some pitiless thief. Lay on!”
Show
Timlagor is referring to the encounter with Brewmaster Bruin in the middle of the investigative skill challenge. Gomeztoo is referring to the encounter with Dark Skull immediately after the end of the skill challenge.
I actually can see it making sense in-character - he's a proud guy that doesn't like having people boss him about and tell him what to do, as evidenced by the "hey, slow down, let's have a tale from the road" comment when the PCs start asking for information. It's a bit of a stretch and involves a good deal of inference on the part of the PCs - I'd probably allow a passive insight check to know that pulling the writ and trying to boss him around isn't a good idea. (Fortunately my players never did that, they saw the beer and he was their bestest friend in the whole wide world.) This seems like something that the writer had clearly laid out in his head and *almost* managed to convey in the written mod, but didn't really succeed at doing. I'm sure it made perfect sense to the author when he wrote it.
I actually can see it making sense in-character - he's a proud guy that doesn't like having people boss him about and tell him what to do, as evidenced by the "hey, slow down, let's have a tale from the road" comment when the PCs start asking for information. It's a bit of a stretch and involves a good deal of inference on the part of the PCs - I'd probably allow a passive insight check to know that pulling the writ and trying to boss him around isn't a good idea. (Fortunately my players never did that, they saw the beer and he was their bestest friend in the whole wide world.) This seems like something that the writer had clearly laid out in his head and *almost* managed to convey in the written mod, but didn't really succeed at doing. I'm sure it made perfect sense to the author when he wrote it.
Where else do you get permissions from the King to actually act and do something in an official manner. Its always the 'oh dont let anyone know' type of stuff.
This should be moved to the Module forum IMO
This should be moved to the Module forum IMO
I was contemplating that this morning, since it's starting to take a review angle.
As requested, I'll see this moved.
1) "Do not give the Insight check unless the PCs expressly ask for it"
...putting things like this in modules forces players to ask all the time which is irritating to both players and GMs.
None of us knew the rules very well when I wrote this, and I did not realize that in 4e there would be an "always-on" passive perception. In 4e terms this would refer to an active perception check, not a passive perception check.
2) "If the PCs brandish The King's Writ, they automatically opt for an intimidate check with a -4 penalty"
- "brandish" is an unsuitably vague term
- The PCs could very easily present the writ in support of diplomacy...
"Brandish" is exactly what I meant:
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously.
I'd expect PCs who explain that they were sent by the king, then produce the writ as evidence to be using diplomacy. On the other hand, PCs who start conversation by reading the writ in a strong voice to be using intimidate. Certainly context could change that which is why there is a DM to judge.
Not having a complete understanding of 4e at the time, I think I may have put a little too much detail into the skill challenges. My intent overall though was to give a good suggestion of how things aught to go, but ultimately the DM should be in control. In any future adventures, I'll make sure I'm more passive in DM suggestions, and then only if they are necessary.
I really liked the adventure though and the brandishing thing didn't come up (even with the table who waved it around at every opportunity (two of them said they were doing repeatedly in bed so I had to tell them it started getting dimmer ;))
My elf Ranger who doesn't approve of Humans being in charge of anything was rather bemused to find himself starting his first adventure with that document though :D
The drinking was also popular
Show
The 2B treasure says +1 Symbol of Hope while the optional encounter 2A treasure and reward bundle D both say +1 Symbol of Battle. I've told the player who picked it that it's a Symbol of Battle but wanted to confirm this.
Thanks,
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
Not having a complete understanding of 4e at the time, I think I may have put a little too much detail into the skill challenges. My intent overall though was to give a good suggestion of how things aught to go, but ultimately the DM should be in control. In any future adventures, I'll make sure I'm more passive in DM suggestions, and then only if they are necessary.
For a "pre the rules" skill challenge this one was great. By far my favourite skill challenge, even if I was the DM.
I wish I could get a skill challenge worked out in my head so I could get the writing done for my submission.
Not having a complete understanding of 4e at the time, I think I may have put a little too much detail into the skill challenges. My intent overall though was to give a good suggestion of how things aught to go, but ultimately the DM should be in control. In any future adventures, I'll make sure I'm more passive in DM suggestions, and then only if they are necessary.
I think that the amount of detail you put in is one of the better features in the adventure.
Detail, especially in a skill challenge is a good thing. One of the greatest challenges in running a skill challenge written by someone else, in a setting detailed by someone else, using NPCs created by someone else is that you don't have the same level of automatic information to draw upon and thus it is hard for most DMs and Players to simply pull the necessary ideas and information out of nowhere. When it is your NPCs or your obstacle to party progress, you already know the background, motivations, characters, etc. of the NPCs involved and what you don't know you can wing when the time comes. But when it is someone else's NPCs, that is harder and the more detail provided the better (and in the absence of that detail, the challenges often feel flat and flavorless at best).
The passive versus active aspect is a valid point, as is a general admonition about describing how things 'ought to go' (as opposed to 'might go') but please don't start churning out the amorphous, poorly described skill challenges that appear to be the norm in many other modules.
The skill challenges in Corm1-1 are some of the best ones I have seen so far and I think should serve as a model for writers for that type of skill challenge (although my players
Show
immediately looked for a 'magistrate' as soon as they hit town causing them to jump to the Burgomaster almost immediately following the town square scene - a logical step for representatives of the crown and one that probably should have been more explicitly handled
You didn't address the kiddy-ex-machina -I'd have preferred the skill challenge to actually lead to something.
Show
The in-town skill challenge wasn't about finding Dark Skull. It was about finding the truth, and relating to the people.
At any point the party can abandon the city and track Dark Skull using the alternate skill challenge. They can burn down the theater (this has been reported a few times, and I say, heck, why not fight in a burned-out theater at the end). They can do whatever they want. The only thing that matters is that the PCs are doing things their way and having fun.
Unlike a true whodunnit, this adventure is about doing things however you want. You always get to the end, but the path you take and circumstances of the finale depend on how you went about your business.
It's only ex-machina if you were supposed to get there by other means. The screaming boy signals the end (success/failure) of the skill challenge. He's just a timer, or alarm if you will. :D
The in-town skill challenge wasn't about finding Dark Skull. It was about finding the truth, and relating to the people.
At any point the party can abandon the city and track Dark Skull using the alternate skill challenge. They can burn down the theater (this has been reported a few times, and I say, heck, why not fight in a burned-out theater at the end). They can do whatever they want. The only thing that matters is that the PCs are doing things their way and having fun.
Unlike a true whodunnit, this adventure is about doing things however you want. You always get to the end, but the path you take and circumstances of the finale depend on how you went about your business.
It's only ex-machina if you were supposed to get there by other means. The screaming boy signals the end (success/failure) of the skill challenge. He's just a timer, or alarm if you will. :D
I've got a minor spoiler question about the difference between the Reward bundle D and the mod's 2B treasure.ShowThe 2B treasure says +1 Symbol of Hope while the optional encounter 2A treasure and reward bundle D both say +1 Symbol of Battle. I've told the player who picked it that it's a Symbol of Battle but wanted to confirm this.
The skill challenges in Corm1-1 are some of the best ones I have seen so far and I think should serve as a model for writers for that type of skill challenge...
Thanks!
Aside: I don't know if you also wrote Corm1-2*, and I have only played in and not DMed it...
I did not write CORM1-2 (and I haven't seen it yet), but Andrew (the Cormyr Writing admin) edited both, and he has a lot to do with how CORM1-1 turned out. It was very collaborative.
I wish I could get a skill challenge worked out in my head so I could get the writing done for my submission.
I think after running or playing most of the LFR adventures, that the best skill challenges are ones that have a list of vignettes/scenes that the DM can toss at players. The scenes are like hooks for the PCs to hang actions onto.
So for example...
The party must sail across the Sea of Fallen Stars at the height of storm season.
Success: 6
Failure: 3
Major skills: Streetwise (for nautical-type PCs), History, Endurance
Special: If any PC is a member of a nautical adventuring company, he may borrow a cutter. The party gains an automatic success due to the speed of the cutter, and a +1 to any skill rolls during the skill challenge as long as that PC is piloting the cutter.
Events
Run these randomly, but only once each. After each encounter have the party make a group endurance check as they sail thought the constant driving storms and angry waters of the Sea of Fallen Stars.
Scene 1: A squall hits the ship and the players must gain two successes fighting off the storm.
Scene 2: Harpies attack the ship in the midst of a drenching rain. The PCs may gain two success by spotting the harpies and avoiding the encounter. Fighting and harpies wins two successes (optional encounter).
Scene 3: Curious Merfolk are swimming by the ship. If the PCs manage to befriend the merfolk with gifts and/or kind words (two successes), the merfolk will stay with the boat and deliver an automatic success in another part of the challenge.
Scene 4: The boat strikes a bit of reef in a stretch of shallows. The PCs need to repair the boat with two successes.
Success: The PCs dock on the other side of the Sea. Dockworkers at port are amazed that the PCs could pull the ship through constant storms without sinking.
Failure: The boat needs repairs worth [appropriate amount] gold. The party may opt to loose two healing surges making the repairs themselves.
***
So the skill challenge isn't so much telling the DM what to do. It's just throwing events at the table. Not so much detail that the actions are dictated, but not so little that nobody knows what to do.
The DM still doesn't have to think too much (except for how the merfolk might help). The onus is on the PCs to decide how to handle the events. What skills/items/powers to use.
Nothing kills a table more than - "Okay, that's a great idea. Make some checks . . . . hmm . . . looks like you need 4 more successess . . .
""The Chase" has been by far my favorite skill challenge to run as a DM. Hope to see more of those! (As a runner-up, "The Repair" in CORE1-3 was also well-written.)
I think after running or playing most of the LFR adventures, that the best skill challenges are ones that have a list of vignettes/scenes that the DM can toss at players.
Personally, I judge empower all skill challenges to use the Obsidian skill challenge system instead of the standard DMG system.
Short version: Instead of needing N successes before 3 failures, you need X successes in 3 rounds of activity. Rounds meaning going around the table and having each player indicate their PC's action; the amount of in-game time is of course variable, and each round might be the vignette/scene you reference.
Why? The DMG system has two aspects that interact badly: You can choose whether or not to participate in a skill challenge, and failures hurt you.
The combination of those two means that, often, the optimal way to do a skill challenge is to have one PC make all of the skill checks, while the rest just aid him or sit back and do nothing. I find that uninteresting, and to the extent that groups would rather have everyone participate in the skill challenge, I'd prefer not to penalize them for not playing it in the optimal fashion.
Changing the system from N successes before M failures to X successes in Y rounds means that a PC can choose not to participate, but failure doesn't hurt the group more than doing nothing.
This does require the DM to play with the numbers a bit to convert the skill challenge (you can either change the DCs to those the Obsidian system assumes, or leave the DCs alone and change the number of successes required), but I think the increased involvement is worth it.
Skill challenges were created so that you could, say, have a social encounter without that meaning the rest of the group takes a break and lets the face do all of the talking. It's a shame that the implementation was so bungled as to get away from that.
The problem with that is you need to break cover right away, in too many ways, pretty much ending any real RP for the skill challenge, or making a player who has no skills that they can easily figure out the relevance for (Fighter, for example) feel like they are letting the party down by forcing participation.
You don't force participation, you invite it.
When one player jumps in with what they're doing in a situation, you resolve their action, and then ask what the other players are doing.
If their action is sitting back and watching, fine; if they want to try to participate, but fail, that's also fine. Those have the same effect--there's no requirement to participate, but since there's no penalty for participating, most will.
Contrast that with the revised core version, in which a PC should only participate in a skill challenge if they're pretty sure they can succeed, which discourages participation because if, say, the Fighter chooses to participate and fails, they are actually letting the party down.