Since you haven’t been able to go over my previous suggestions yet, I’m able to cover more ground now.
Mechanics
- Page 18: It should be Vigilance, not Perception. Perception is for when you are actively looking for someone trying to hide using Stealth, Vigilance is for when you are unaware and someone is trying to sneak up on you using Stealth.
- “If visibility is poor, add a Boost.” Do you mean in terms of darkness, or cover? If you mean darkness, then the Narglatch already get Boost dice for darkness (see “Concealment” in any CRB). If you mean cover (e.g. “have a concealed approach” or something) then a Boost would be appropriate.
- “If a Fear check was triggered previously…” Why? What if they succeeded? What if it was caused by something else? I think you can cut this part, a single upgrade for unfamiliarity should be sufficient.
- I think you can just say to add a Setback due to the unsettling nature of the boneyard.
- Since they’re close to the lair and there are fresh tracks, I’d simply make the difficulty Average rather than Hard with a Boost (the actual difficulty is easier, rather than there being an effect which helps you overcome an equally difficult obstacle). Increased proximity=increased traffic=increased signs. Also, check the Boost and Setback modifiers as I previous mentioned when this was last brought up.
- Seeing how often the “3 Strain for fatigue” comes up, I think it might be better at 2. 1 is definitely too low, but I didn’t originally realize that it’d be 3 each time. If they have somebody with YGG in Survival, a Hard (unmodified) Survival check is basically a coin flip, so on average that would mean 9 Strain between the three navigation checks.
- Another option (which is not an either-or) is to facilitate strain recovery, which could conceivably be done with either the crystals or bone, although the already-mentioned medicinal properties of the bone is probably your best option. Giving a tangible strain recovery effect will be more immediately and noticeably useful than a Boost to future Medicine checks. Something should probably be mentioned about needing a medkit in order to craft the… “drug,” or whatever you want to call it.
- 4,000 credits is incredibly low (given the price Darga is paying the PCs, perhaps even less than the price of the ten crates). I count credits as being ~4x the value of a dollar, which is more favorable to your amount as-written than if I took it as a 1:1 ratio with the American dollar (as most credit amounts for “consumer price index”-type items generally seem to be). Working from that, let’s say the family provides ~$60,000 worth of labor (what they would be paid if they weren’t slaves) a year, and let’s just say they consume about $12,000 worth of food each year. On net, that’s $48,000 in production. In today’s money, a slave in the 1850s in America cost about $40,000 according to one source I found. However, in today’s market, a slave costs on average $90 worldwide. That, however, comes in large part mostly from extremely poor regions and I’m not sure how applicable it is to the issue at hand. (If you want more data and don’t mind a churning stomach, you can check here.)
If we go with my 4:1 ratio, then you’re pricing a family of slaves at $16,000.
You also have to consider the Hutt’s situation. If he sells these slaves, he’ll have to either hire employees or buy more slaves, and he loses the expertise these slaves have built up. And what about the debt? If Darga sells them, either they’re still indebted to him or that debt is wiped clean, in which case he can’t collect on it. - I think that any realistic amount will be astronomically high (compared to the PCs’ capabilities). But if you want an amount, Darga would probably say that if you pay off their debt, plus ten percent, he’ll free them. The catch is that the debt is something like ($48,000*20/4=) a quarter million credits, indicating that I may have buried the lead here. Obviously, this is astronomical for the PCs. Now they have a choice: leave it as a sad ending to the story, or decide to take matters into their own hands and risk crossing Darga if he finds out about it.
- Page 21: I suggest making it 5/5 soakable (we don’t want to overdo it on the strain). 1 Threat for one or two Wounds and Strain is acceptable. I’d also recommend shifting it to Average difficulty, as Hard is pretty steep for, again, something that costs 1 Threat (it’ll also bring it in line with the next two).
- Too many upgrades. I don’t think any of these are necessary (whole page), particularly as there’s never even a listed consequence for Despair.
- -1 Agility for 1 Threat, even conditional, is pretty steep. That’s equivalent to an Average-difficulty crit. Instead, I’d recommend a Setback to Agility checks. Remember, this is only a single Threat and you don’t want to hamstring the PCs by the time they’re facing what is a very dangerous foe for non-combat PCs/PCs without a lot of EXP.
- This second check for the cobweb is where I can see good reason for a Despair, but only if you intend them to have an encounter with a giant spider (and say as much). Depending on how big and nasty it is. However, given the relatively unpressured nature of the second check, I think this could be safely replaced with something like a spider bite/scorpion sting, dealing one wound and one strain (with no related checks). This does make it somewhat less steep than the poisonous fungus, but all that says to me is that maybe the poisonous fungus should be further nerfed (perhaps at least make the second check Average at most).
- Philosophically, I disagree with your approach to the “Individual Hazards.” In my book, 1 Threat should be something very minor like 1 Strain. Because this is more involved, I can see good reason for bumping up the consequences slightly, but adding one or two checks to the mix makes it too complicated for a single Threat, I think. I recommend easy one-and-done effects, with the exception of a saving throw for the fall (that helps justify the higher damage). I’d suggest replacing the effect of the fungus with something like “hallucinogenic spores,” upgrading the difficulty of that PCs’ Perception and Vigilance checks once. Easy one-and-done that isn’t too serious, along with the spider bite and a minor fall.
^That’s all up to taste. While I think I’m right (obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t have mentioned it), if you prefer it the other way I’m not going to belabor the point. - Group Hazards, triggered by Despair, are much more interesting to me and I think you have a lot more room to elaborate here.
- If this is a corrosive atmosphere (see the combat chapter in any CRB), then there’s no Resilience check and they simply start taking damage. I recommend having some kind of “solve” check or trade-off choice they have to make. A “solve” check can be something like Athletics to push aside/climb over some obstacle, or something like Knowledge (Education) to find a way to neutralize the effect of the fumes (you’d have to get fairly specific, though), while the trade-off choice could be “failing” an otherwise successful check and having to find another way around, increasing the difficulty of the next Survival check by 1. Each attempt at a “solve” check would count as a round of exposure. However, I have to mention that if the Narglatch came this way… why? Path of least resistance and all that. Just something to think about.
(The “per ten minutes” bit is unworkable. You give no guidelines for how long such a thing should take or why it should take much time at all.) - The Fear check is good. You might want to add something here, like “if they fail, the difficulty of the next Fear check is upgraded once.”
- A cave-in along their route is quite serious, blocking them off from the known route. I’d cut the “health” penalties (plenty of those already) and say that if they failed the Survival check, they increase the difficulty of the next one once. In addition… hmm, I’m not sure. I’d rather not do something with health, so maybe some valuable item or some supplies get damaged? But there has to be some penalty even on a successful check. Maybe just that any checks to backtrack out of the cave system have +1 difficulty per cave-in.
Adventure
- Page 18: You say they’ve been “stalking” the PCs. In the caves? Should the PCs have been given a chance to detect them prior to this point?
- Then later you say that the Narglatch approach from the west, and the players from the northeast. If they’re coming from the opposite direction, were they really stalking?
Males and females only commingled during mating season. Females were more fierce hunters than males, but males could chase a female from her kill. A pregnant narglatch always gave birth to twins, one of each gender. Since young narglatch could hunt immediately upon birth, mothers abandoned them.
- No egg (feline=mammal=live young), no “hatchling,” no singular.
- “A solitary hunter, narglatch silently stalked and quickly killed its prey, usually kaadu or jimvu.”
The above is a good argument to have only one of the Narglatch attack the PCs, which makes the fight less dangerous (and if the female is as pregnant as “soon-to-be” suggests, to me, at least, you have that excuse/reason as well for only one to engage). However, I think the best solution is to completely do away with the concept of “baby on the way” since the egg idea is out the window anyway (besides, given the males’ propensity to kill young, and the mention that Narglatch of the opposite sex only interact during mating season, she would likely not want to be around him when she’s about to give birth). - Nowhere heretofore has it been specified that the Narglatch are both male and female, nor is it important to the story, so we just have to determine what makes sense. I see basically three approaches: ignore it entirely (if you never take a position you can never be wrong); make them both of the same sex (they’re just working together for survival); or posit that it is mating season. Personally, I think the last option fits best, though the first would probably be fine.
- “Fight to the death…” but will they though? “Fight to the death” is always a dangerous instruction, because that death could be the PCs’. Without any young to defend, I think leaving an opportunity for retreat is best. After all, why would the Narglatch die for a cave, when they could just leave and find another lair? If they do retreat, then the PCs have to decide whether to try and find and kill them or not.
- Some tactical description or “win conditions” (e.g. to cause the Narglatch to retreat) would spice up this combat section. Text-wise, you effectively jump directly from “here’s how to handle the Fear check before initiative” to “the battle is over and everything is quiet.”
- Rather than simply saying “the thugs attack,” I’d recommend taking a similar tack to the one you took a little bit earlier and have it be optional. For example, if the PCs are badly hurt, the encounter could go very badly for them. While a GM should use his best judgement and be willing to simply ignore it, some GMs will stick too closely to adventures as-written, especially if they are inexperienced (or tired, and not thinking clearly. Most of my mistakes have been made within that context).
Grammar et al
- Page 18: “They wait until the characters are distracted, then attack them.”
- “Perception skill,” “skill” should not be capitalized
- “Read the following out loud” is underlined, a break from previous styles.
- “Narglatch” is sufficient if the PCs succeeded on their previous check. If they didn’t, then your description is more in order, but lacks in punch since they were expecting something totally different. You basically have three approaches here: write two textboxes, one for each possibility; write a single, neutral textbox that really touches on neither; or leave it entirely up to the GM. I would recommend the first and third options most highly.
- If you want to take the neutral approach, the prose will need some touching up. For example, you place “they have blue skin and move gracefully and powerfully” as an independent sentence following the first rather than intertwining it with the previous sentence.
- “At a medium distance” should be “at medium range,” or “at medium range instead.” This is more specific and directly addresses the mechanics, whereas “medium distance” is far more vague. Yes, it would be understood, but it isn’t technically the best choice. If I tell you that “Corellia is a medium distance from Brentaal IV,” it means something very different than if I tell you that “the barbershop is a medium distance from the cantina.” But wait, do I mean that the barbershop is a moderate drive, or a couple dozen meters?
- Mentioning “make sure to learn their statblock” is unnecessary. I’d recommend removing that entirely.
- I recommend reordering the initiative and Fear checks. You introduce it as Stealth>Initiative>Combat>Fear when the pattern you actually want the game to follow is Stealth>Fear>Initiative>Combat. I would suggest that after the description of the Stealth check’s pool, if you intend to have a textbox, you put it here (I strongly suggest that you either have two, one for success and one for failure, or just leave it up to the GM. So much of the narrative is contingent on dice results). Then introduce “have each PC make a Fear check,” and then finally address the initiative. Then maybe have a text box introducing the actual combat, but by then the pace has been slowed down enough that you might be better off without it.
- Bolded punctuation by the symbols.
- Page 19: “Groove” is probably not your best word choice here. A “groove” is a long, narrow slit. What most people will think when they read “groove” is something like a stress gap in pavement, not a habitable space in a cave, or a ditch, which is what it sounds like you mean? At any rate, I’m not sure what connection the groove is supposed to have with the following narration, or if there even is one, in which case I’m not sure what its purpose is.
- Again, I suggest that you rewrite this whole textbox using the advice I gave you in my last post, but here are some particular things to look out for in what you did write:
- Six items is a bit much for a list. I’d recommend either trimming it to only the most important parts, or using some kind of catch-all like “anything at hand.” You can also take a hybrid approach, making list of broader categories (e.g. “natural materials”). Three is best, four is pushing it, but acceptable. Five or more is too many in most circumstances (especially in prose).
- “Bright, blue stains” and “bright-blue stains” are different. “Bright blue” is a shade of blue, whereas a “bright, blue stain” is a “blue stain” that is also “bright.”
- You say “ruined equipment.” Why would they have brought any equipment with them? Or do you not really mean equipment, and you mean more like personal effects that were still on the victims or parts of the crate? More specificity would help you here.
- Oxford comma after “equipment”
- “Three” and “two,” not “3” and “2”
- The way you phrase this, with the comma, is like a list. However, it lacks the third entry which would make it whole. Accordingly, there should be some kind of conjunction like “but” or “and” (see how I wrote “‘but’ or ‘and’” instead of “‘but,’ ‘and’”?).
That isn’t so much for clarity as for correctness. Sometimes people do talk like that, but it isn’t technically correct. - Extraneous “successful” before “Average Perception check.”
- You might want to be more specific on what the valuables are, like cred sticks from the corpses, jewelry, etc. Could also be a moral question, because it’s technically corpse robbing.
- “Irreparably broken and worthless.”
- As mentioned previously, Narglatch egg is a no-go.
- Extraneous space between “and” and “receive”
- “The three-hour ride back to the city of Zarra is uneventful.”
- “It is probably quite late by now”
- Unnecessary bolding. As it is the entire sentence, as opposed to giving context to a previous sentence, it is its own emphasis.
- Extraneous space after “returned crate”
- Extraneous space after “agreed-”
- “If they received an advance at the beginning of the adventure, remember to deduct that amount from this payment.” (I’m not totally sold on the latter half. “Amount” and “this payment” in particular are not ideal)
- Instead of decimated, you can just say something like “killed.” A bit less dramatic, but that could be a good thing. Also, “decimated” technically means to reduce by one-tenth, and there will often be someone ready and willing to point that out (“So only one of them was injured?” is a comment I can readily imagine someone making, or perhaps it is simply me projecting my penchant for literal humor).
- “Their employer” can be “Darga,” and then “the crime lord” can simply be “he”
- Alternatively, the first could be “the Hutt” and the second could be “Darga”
- “Lenient” isn’t the best word, as it implies withheld standards or punishments. I recommend “partial to” instead. Some longer phrases (such as “favorably disposed”) are also applicable, but I think “partial” is your best bet.
- “Hutts loves money” should be “Hutts love money”
- Extraneous space and “is” after “Negotiation check”
- Page 21: “Affects one character”
- Change “requires” to “The character must pass” (note capitalization). Applies to all three.
- “fall comma, taking”
- Overuse of ampersands. Don’t do it! Generally, only use an ampersand if it is part of a proper noun (e.g. “Smith & Wesson”) or of a pseudo-proper noun (e.g. favorite breakfasts: donuts, pancakes, “biscuits & gravy,” and “bacon & eggs”).
- “Or until one week has passed.”
- “Gets stuck comma,”
- Dice come immediately after difficulty
- You’re inconsistent on the styling of the introduction. You basically have two options: either the intro/name leads directly into the text, or it’s a title, with a colon that leads into the text. Personally, I suggest the latter as it the usual style for effect tables. However, I understand why you might like the other option and it also appears in a few locations. Take your preference. Just know that you should capitalize the first letter after the colon if you take the “title” method. I’ll address wording once that’s all been worked out.
- “Piece of Clothing” shouldn’t be capitalized (also, extraneous space after “clothing”).
- Darga’s symbol drawn on a wall indicates that the person was still alive and cognizant enough to do such a thing (not grammar, I know, but just so we keep it all in one place…)
- Three of these require knowledge of the identities of the victims, and imply that the PCs have some kind of bio on each of them. This should be mentioned early on in the adventure, probably a simple clause you can add to the paragraph for “Who were the guards?”
- Since you removed the maps, you can remove the credit.
- Change “over at” to “from the” or “over on the”
- “Forum” rather than “forums”
- “for helping make this more presentable”
- “For all his very helpful suggestions” (aww… thanks!)
And that’s a run-through of the whole thing. Once we’ve worked through these last two posts, we’ll have to do another run-through, but it should be much faster going than the first time through since we’ve fixed the biggest issues, especially the structural ones.
Once we’ve at least worked out all the mechanical details, would you like to try a Play-by-Post to playtest the game? I can quickly draw up a party according to your specs and then we can run it through organically.
Or, if you’d rather cut to the chase, I can just run some basic roll-tests behind the scenes and present my findings rather than actually play-testing it in the course of a game.