“Than usual” being the operative term, I suppose. xD
I agree on all counts aside from the upgrade. I’m not going to argue the point other than to say there’s nothing about the check that makes a Despair more likely, but I think it’s fine.
1 Like
“Than usual” being the operative term, I suppose. xD
I agree on all counts aside from the upgrade. I’m not going to argue the point other than to say there’s nothing about the check that makes a Despair more likely , but I think it’s fine.
It was to make the difficulty somewhere between 3 and 4; since you seemed to think that 3 wasn’t enough but to me 4 would be too much. Would it be better to leave it at 3?
I am changing it so that it takes 2 threats instead of 1 to trigger an individual hazard. I know you touch on it in more detail later but I’m not there yet.
I think there may have been a miscommunication about falling into the crevice. My recommendation was that it be a fall from Short range, with my analysis being that low-tier characters could probably reduce the 10/10 damage to about 6/6 easily.
I see that now.
Check style in published adventures, but I think “with a successful (check)” may be extraneous and you could just say “with a (check).” Success would usually be implicit, but I’m not sure if that’s how they style it.
You are correct; here are two random examples I found:
Accessing the building in this manner requires an Average (PP) Computers check with a Setback die ∫ to bypass the security system.
An Easy (P) Coordination check allows the PCs to maneuver through the tunnels safely
I think I got them all… It will make it less repetitive.
(I think bolding the symbols is probably unnecessary, but that’s a style choice you need to make)
It bolds itself for whatever reason when I switch between fonts and I catch most of them but I do miss a few here and there.
You say “clearly belonging.” In what way? It would be clearer to say something along the lines of “an ID card with the name of one of the crew members” or however you’d phrase it, to say they’re able to directly compare the ID of the card against a list of the people on the crew (we might want to go back early on and specify that they were given such a list, as there are many practical reasons why they would be).
This wasn’t clear. I modified it slightly :)
Why dark blue? You already have blue fruit and blue cats, it seems to me that the dark blue is repetitive.
This color was chosen before everything else turned out to be blue, as it seemed an interesting color for the bones of an alien species. I’ll change it to black.
- “Any afflicted player becomes Disoriented” (the “Disoriented” condition has the same effect, while being mechanically represented and giving a use to the Hard Headed talent, should a player possess it).
Do you think think a reduced strain threshold after a 24h incubation is bad enough or should I add also an immediate disorientation to the effects of the poison?
- You mention a Medicine check, but that’s rather at odds with the whole “balding sickness” thing unless you need to add an “if untreated” clause. Generally, this whole “sickness” section feels off to me. It’s an interesting concept, but it seems needlessly overcomplicated and like there’s way too much focus on it. It could really be distilled to Resilience check or else Disoriented, or even further to simply enough Threat/Despair=Disoriented.
Hehe… I was trying to do something interesting but I agree it got a bit muddled along the way.
- “previous owner was led him here” is unintelligible. Is it the datapad of one of the recent victims, or of a previous journeyer? Who led who? You can make it more specific/evocative by mentioning that they find it by a skeleton (perhaps mention species physiology) rather than just implying that it’s “in the mix.” Mentioning an old/dry skeleton also makes it more clear that it doesn’t belong to one of the crew.
Yikes. Sorry about that; I rewrote it
OK. I implemented all changes from post #49 minus the rewrite for the Area 3 readout. That’ll be the next phase :).
Cheers
1 Like
There’s a pretty strong “real” odds jump (if you’ll pardon the pun) between 3 and 4 because 3 Brawn is very common, making it a roughly 55% chance of success most of the time (factoring a rank or two of Athletics), while Daunting knocks that down to a 42% chance for anyone with 3 Brawn, with four Brawn being much rarer. I think Hard is fine. An upgrade is effectively about the same as adding a Setback in terms of average generation over Difficulty, and two Setback/two Upgrades are about the same as a direct increase in difficulty. If there’s no particularly relevant choice for Despair, or anything that makes Despair particularly more likely, you could achieve the same result with a Setback.
I also just realized that you put the check to cross at Easy, but require 3 Threat to fall. That’s impossible outside of conditional Setback. I’m still in favor of removing the Easy Coordination, but that’s up to you.
Excellent, thank you.
Ooo, mysterious. Sounds good. Come to think of it, I wonder how much variety there usually is in bone color? Science be darned, it’s a good idea regardless.
I am generally opposed to effects that kick in after a time, unless it’s something fairly soon (like “2 rounds”). I’d have to look at it again, but potentially have both kick in immediately. If it came to a choice between the two effects, I would go with Disorientation. It carries more of a kick and actually gives Hard Headed a use (assuming the character can even succeed…).
Excellent. I’ll wait to go back over anything until you’re caught up. I hope you start feeling better soon.
1 Like
There’s a pretty strong “real” odds jump (if you’ll pardon the pun) between 3 and 4 because 3 Brawn is very common, making it a roughly 55% chance of success most of the time (factoring a rank or two of Athletics), while Daunting knocks that down to a 42% chance for anyone with 3 Brawn, with four Brawn being much rarer. I think Hard is fine.
OK. I’ll drop it back to Hard :).
I also just realized that you put the check to cross at Easy, but require 3 Threat to fall. That’s impossible outside of conditional Setback. I’m still in favor of removing the Easy Coordination, but that’s up to you.
Ok. As per a previous suggestion I’ll change it so that outside of combat a check is not required but in combat an average difficulty check is required. With two purple dice it would still be very unlikely that a fall would happen but it could make it so the players are separated for a few rounds if hostiles show up. What do you think?
Ooo, mysterious. Sounds good. Come to think of it, I wonder how much variety there usually is in bone color? Science be darned, it’s a good idea regardless.
Thanks! I thought so :)
I am generally opposed to effects that kick in after a time, unless it’s something fairly soon (like “2 rounds”). I’d have to look at it again, but potentially have both kick in immediately. If it came to a choice between the two effects, I would go with Disorientation. It carries more of a kick and actually gives Hard Headed a use (assuming the character can even succeed…).
OK! I changed it to immediate disorientation lasting for the session and cleaned up the paragraph a bit.
1 Like
That’s perfect. Everything looks great.
1 Like
I rewrote the readout for Area 3; let me know what you think.
As I was writing it, I am wondering if we should call for an Easy Resilience check because of the nasty smell? Most people walking into that room would gag =P.
- 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.
Hmm… that’s interesting. We only have the AoR rulebook (which has no mention that I know of of Vigilance) but if I understand correctly this was updated in the FaD. Either way, I see how that can make sense.
“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.
I am referring to the Boost for darkness; I’ll modify the wording a bit.
- 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.
I was just thinking the same thing.
- 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.
Sure, we could do that.Modified it so that they could heal 2 strain instead of the boost die, with one use per adv. rolled.
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.
Hmm… thanks for the insight. Originally there were only 2 adults but now there are 3, and I had purposefully priced a bit low to actually make it somewhat affordable to PCs to reward altruism. That being said I think 10,000 would be a reasonable compromise.
I think the best way to handle the debt situation is to instead make it so their debt is already paid but Darga just chose not to release them. We’d need to review the section at the farm but I think that would work. Thoughts?
That 4:1 ratio is interesting.
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).
I considered including giant spiders but then thought it would be overkill and would take away from the main goal.
I modified it to a spider bite on failure with no further check.
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.
At this point I downgraded them all, but maybe having a requirement of 2 threats would have been more appropriate to begin with.
- Group Hazards, triggered by Despair, are much more interesting to me and I think you have a lot more room to elaborate here.
OK! I am up to here in post #53.
1 Like
I don’t think so. There are a couple circumstances in which I have, but the penalty is usually either Disorientation or Strain, and you have plenty of both in here already.
Uh… huh. I’ve been so deeply into this game for so long that some habits have become inseparable from the rules. Per RAW, Perception is the skill for opposing Stealth. I think my way of doing it is better, and fits more properly with the names of the skills (and the skill distribution/balance), but it is not RAW. Good catch.
If the debt is already paid, then they are no longer indentured servants, but slaves outright, with no sugarcoating to be found. If you take that tack, it does make the 10,000 more achievable, but you will definitely have to do some rewriting of the section you mention.
You still have to look at what happens to Darga if he sells them. He needs to either buy more slaves, or hire employees. While the former is doable, he’ll lose productivity. The latter is much too expensive to justify a low sale price for the family. The whole point of slaves is that they are cheaper to maintain than hired hands, thus making them more economical.
I can see 10,000 as a reasonable compromise, if the debt is not a factor. If the farmers were simply pressed into labor, however, why are they being left seemingly entirely to their own devices on the farm? To the point where Darga doesn’t know they’re being shaken down? This can be mitigated in certain ways (shock collars are always a popular option, particularly for the dehumanizing element they introduce), but it has to be accounted for.
The other factor to consider is that it’s likely still out of reach for the PCs outside of outside interference. If they are Rebellion players (working for an organization), they usually aren’t making much money. But if they’re getting payouts like 2,500 consistently, say once per session, now you’re talking about five sessions of money (minus expenses) in order to save one NPC family that will be quickly replaced by another family of NPCs. At that point, I would argue that you may as well crank it up higher. But, 10,000 is more achievable than 250,000, and 10,000 takes more work to fill in.
Those’re my two cents, I leave the final decision up to you. Either are valid options.
Sounds good. And I agree with your decision on the giant spiders.
I’ll let you know how I think they sit when I go back through them.
I don’t think so. There are a couple circumstances in which I have, but the penalty is usually either Disorientation or Strain, and you have plenty of both in here already.
Makes sense.
Uh… huh. I’ve been so deeply into this game for so long that some habits have become inseparable from the rules. Per RAW, Perception is the skill for opposing Stealth. I think my way of doing it is better, and fits more properly with the names of the skills (and the skill distribution/balance), but it is not RAW. Good catch.
p.129 AoR
Stealth checks are typically opposed by Perception, based on whether the
opponent is passively or actively searching for the hidden character
(quoting someone else’s quote since I don’t have the book)
FnD pg. 127: Stealth checks are typically opposed by Perception, based on whether the opponent is passively or actively searching for the hidden character. If the opponent is actively searching for the character, the character’s Stealth check would be opposed by the opponent’s Perception. Otherwise, it would be opposed by the opponent’s Vigilance.
I wouldn’t have known if you hadn’t mentioned it but yeah it was modified in Force and Destiny. It makes sense anyhow 
If the debt is already paid, then they are no longer indentured servants, but slaves outright, with no sugarcoating to be found. If you take that tack, it does make the 10,000 more achievable, but you will definitely have to do some rewriting of the section you mention.
The more I think about it the more I like this idea. I’ll start tweaking the farm section, taking your suggestions into consideration.
You still have to look at what happens to Darga if he sells them. He needs to either buy more slaves, or hire employees. While the former is doable, he’ll lose productivity. The latter is much too expensive to justify a low sale price for the family. The whole point of slaves is that they are cheaper to maintain than hired hands, thus making them more economical.
Though it is not mentioned in my adventure, Darga regularly gets ALOT of slaves for “free” in exchange for his sketchy services so there is no shortage of replacements.
Just a random thought: should we make it so that one of the Narglatch starts the fight missing a few wounds since it was in a battle just a few days ago? Or is that not necessary?
Edit: I modified the price to 10,000 and adjusted the negotiation check accordingly in the last page with Darga. I also deleted the mention of the Narglatch egg because though I’m not there yet I saw you mentioned that they don’t lay eggs. I remember looking this up somewhere and now I can’t find the (obviously incorrect) reference anywhere 
1 Like
Ooo, so I wasn’t crazy! Thank you. I’d looked in FaD, but I didn’t see that paragraph. I don’t think it was mentioned in the description for Vigilance, at least not in the bulleted use-cases.
Natural rest heals 1 Wound each day. If it has been 5 days, any Wounds accumulated are likely gone. However, you might want to add a GM note on balancing suggesting that if the two Narglatch are too much of a challenge, you can add some Wounds for the previous combat.
1 Like
Ooo, so I wasn’t crazy! Thank you. I’d looked in FaD, but I didn’t see that paragraph. I don’t think it was mentioned in the description for Vigilance, at least not in the bulleted use-cases.
If it is in the same section as AoR, it should be one of the last paragraphs under the Stealth skill.
Natural rest heals 1 Wound each day. If it has been 5 days, any Wounds accumulated are likely gone. However, you might want to add a GM note on balancing suggesting that if the two Narglatch are too much of a challenge, you can add some Wounds for the previous combat.
Yeah. I’m thinking that 3-4 days have gone by since the battle so they would’ve healed most of the wounds. I added a section to give the GM the option to have them start with wounds.
… but you will definitely have to do some rewriting of the section you mention.
OK! I chose not to add anything in the interaction with the thugs as there are more important things to focus on there. Once they are gone (P.11) I added a quick mention about the collars, modified the story somewhat and added in a blurb about trying to remove the collars.
I based the stats off of this item:
Thalassian Security Collar
Freeing the slaves without Darga’s consent puts the overarching main mission at risk, which is befriending him so that they can get info on a secret project he is involved in. Further down the dawn of defiance adventure path (not included in my sidequest), plenty of opportunities will present themselves to interact with Darga’s court and acquire a key without it being obvious, so I don’t think I need to elaborate any further on it and leave it up to the GM at this point.
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.
Oh, nice. I didn’t realize that one was in the book. I added the reference in the text and modified it keeping your suggestions in mind.
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.
Either the corrosiveness isn’t always present but happens to be active when the PCs walk in, or the group simply took a wrong turn and “zigged” when they should’ve “zagged” ;). I like the idea of having Knowledge Education as an option since I find they are underutilized. Let me know what you think of the rework.
(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.)
Sure. Per round of exposure makes more sense.
I agree. All else looks good.
Where are you in the process? I’m guessing you aren’t yet ready for me to go back over it since you haven’t said you are, but I’m wondering how close you are.
1 Like
Where are you in the process? I’m guessing you aren’t yet ready for me to go back over it since you haven’t said you are, but I’m wondering how close you are.
I am nearing the end of the “Mechanics” list in post #53, but I still have the entire “Adventure” & “Grammar” section to go over before it is ready for another read-through.
That’s why I’ve been asking for feedback section by section as I get certain parts of it done. I’ll let you know when it is ready for another round under the microscope.
It feels like we’re making good progress though!
1 Like
- 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.”
I did that and went ahead and referenced the fear rules in CRB.
- 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.
I modified it to +1 upgrade to survival checks happens no matter what, and that all characters make a athletics / coordination or have one piece of equipment be damaged.
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?
I removed this sentence and just replaced it with something that says they stalk into the room if they haven’t been encountered already.
However, I think the best solution is to completely do away with the concept of “baby on the way”
At this point, I also agree with you. It was meant to give the PCs an interesting option and possibly give them a cool pet / companion, but it just won’t work in this case.
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.
I had read the part about them only mingling during mating season, but reasoned that since they have been displaced together from their natural environment, they stuck together for survival. In my mind they were one of each sex, but like you say it doesn’t have to matter.
“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.
Sure. Makes sense. How is this?
“Once a Narglatch takes 12 wounds, it attempts to flee the battle. If a Narglatch is killed or incapacitated, the remaining Narglatch will attempt to flee.”
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
We can only account for so much but I added an alternative option for the GM to lead with a fear check instead of the battle to give the PCs a warning that the beasts are nearby if they want to escape.
At this point I wrapped up Mechanics & Adventure, only have the Grammar section left :).
Edit: P.19 I modified the triumph result for the search in the lair to reflect the fact that there is no egg. Do you think a piece of equipment value up to 2000 is too much?
1 Like
I’d consider making it “once both” have 12 Wounds, “both attempt to flee.” I just have to question if one would keep fighting once the other had fled.
I’m a bit confused here. What I was referring to there was the thing about an ambush by the thugs. It sounds like you’re talking about Narglatch? My point was just that if they navigate through all the caves and fight the Narglatch, they’re probably pretty badly hurt unless they’re very lucky or very combat-focused. Accordingly, an otherwise unthreatening encounter could kill them. Given the very high danger of such an encounter, I don’t think it’s wise to include it as an “if-then” statement and it should be written in as optional.
Quite honestly you don’t need any additional reward. But, if you want a reward like that, give it Moderate damage. 50% base price to repair, and until it’s repaired +1 difficulty to use.
I’d need more specifics to answer more specifically.
1 Like
I’d consider making it “once both” have 12 Wounds, “both attempt to flee.” I just have to question if one would keep fighting once the other had fled.
Sure! I changed it to this.
I’m a bit confused here. What I was referring to there was the thing about an ambush by the thugs. It sounds like you’re talking about Narglatch? My point was just that if they navigate through all the caves and fight the Narglatch, they’re probably pretty badly hurt unless they’re very lucky or very combat-focused. Accordingly, an otherwise unthreatening encounter could kill them. Given the very high danger of such an encounter, I don’t think it’s wise to include it as an “if-then” statement and it should be written in as optional.
I misunderstood; I thought you were saying that if the PCs show up to the boneyard all beat up it might be wise to make the Narglatch battle optional. Since I already wrote it, I’ll leave it in there in case the party is battered prior to the Narglatch battle.
Definitely the ambush by the thugs is optional; I modified page. 19 to reflect this more clearly as you suggest.
Quite honestly you don’t need any additional reward. But, if you want a reward like that, give it Moderate damage. 50% base price to repair, and until it’s repaired +1 difficulty to use.
That’s fine; I can just remove what I wrote for triumph and leave it up to the GM.
1 Like
I’ll just remove it and leave it up to the GM.
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.
Roger that!
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.
Right. I was looking for a word to describe the entrance to their lair. I’ll swap it out for tunnel.
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?
I meant personal effects.
- “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)
How about … remember to deduct that amount from the reward.?
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…)
Yep; one of them could’ve feigned death long enough to do this before being terminated. I could also just remove since the “corpse” option could come up multiple times.
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?
I’ll add something to address this.
Hmm… I think that is everything and that we are ready for a final read-through. The only thing I didn’t touch is that you mention a few times I need to address the potentially cascading bonuses between sections but I’m not exactly sure what I need to do about that. Are you suggesting they are too much or that I need a reminder somewhere so the GM doesn’t forget?
1 Like
Still a bit awkward, since you don’t want it to sound like the advance is deducted from the total (hence “payment” rather than “reward,” since the advance is technically part of the reward), but honestly it’ll be fine. I certainly can’t think of anything better, and it oughta be understood.
I think the justification is good enough. The clue’s inclusion is really just up to you, I could go either way. If you have enough other options, this might be one to cut.
I can’t remember. I think it’s a matter of clarifying which bonuses carry over and which don’t. Since you only list it three times, it might end up being better off to just say what they are, I’m not sure. I’d have to look at it again.
Which I’m about to do. Soon. Hopefully I’ll have a breakdown (at least a partial one) ready for you by tonight.
Okay, reviewing The Blue Menace etc. one more time…
Mechanics
- Page 17: Maybe 25-50 credits instead of 100. Currently, it’s priced at an amount that would likely equal and perhaps exceed the price of the crystals from earlier (which are harder to acquire and only have one obvious use). Also note that a stimpack, which heals a number of Wounds, is priced at 25cr. The argument for giving it a higher price is to enhance the opportunity cost of using the bonus, and while that’s a good argument, I don’t think it’s enough to justify what I see as an unreasonable price.
- Page 18: You give two save checks to avoid the effects of a Despair. I recommend eliminating the Perception check. Best-case scenario, a Despair causes the PC to suffer 1 Strain. Worst-case scenario, it causes him to suffer 1+ max 6 Strain per day (good job on that, by the way).
- Dice from concealment range from 1-3. Have you checked the chart and compared your pictured environment to the examples? I don’t know how dark you picture it being, so a single Boost might be wholly appropriate, I’m just checking that you’ve actually considered it.
- Page 19: You might want to consider reducing the difficulty rather than adding Boost. It’s simpler and takes up fewer dice. Something you might want to add is an option to waive it “if the PCs made a map” or something to that effect.
- Page 20: Instead of Advantage having an identical, but lesser benefit, maybe say something like “he offers to free some of the slaves for a lower price” or something. So they can’t free all three (four?) for 10,000, but maybe they can free two for 6,000 (/3 for 7,000[?]).
- Page 21: Poisonous fungus seems a little weak. Frankly, I really like my idea for hallucinogenic spores, but the Agility upgrade is okay. Mechanically it may not be that strong, but the effect is fairly appropriate for a minor ailment. Another option is an enduring upgrade or Setback. Your discretion.
Adventure
- Two Neimoidians, one Trandoshan, one undescribed corpse, I only count four. You mention six guards, with Transoshans and Quarren being plural.
Grammar et al
- Page 12: “Travelers” should have two ls in British English. I think errors such as this may be inescapable, as it is hard to catch all of them.
- Page 13: The “if unsuccessful” clause could be entirely removed, but keeping it doesn’t harm anything.
- Wording for the effects could be changed to “If XX are generated on a(n) (un)successful check.” I think it reads more smoothly, but there isn’t anything wrong with how it is now. Generally, placing the symbols closer to the start of the block is better, but it isn’t super important.
- Page 14: Capitalize “Perception”
- Change “though” to “although.” You should also fiddle around with wording for that line, try to eliminate the big gap towards the end. You might be able to do this by changing the word “obviously” to “clearly,” but you’ll probably need to use other rewordings (including some that may be longer). Something to investigate from a style standpoint is the “justify” alignment. It is commonly used in these sorts of publications and gives everything a very even look (but in lines as gappy as that one, it can’t really fix it).
- Getting inside the cavern: This bit looks very lonely. While it likely isn’t possible to get it onto the next page (though that would be ideal), drawing out the paragraph a little or adding some more fluff could help it look more complete.
- One way to potentially make it more comfortable is if you manipulate the size and orientation of the picture (perhaps moving it so it borders the edges of the page) enough to draw the paragraph at the top of the second column to the bottom of the first column, and then squeeze the entire text box into the bottom of the second column.
(Getting everything to line up ideally is extremely difficult, and is sometimes unachievable. Use of sidebars and carefully-arranged pictures helps tremendously with this, but I think that’s above both of our paygrades. Don’t be concerned if you can’t make it all fit perfectly.) - Page 15: Textbox clipping
- “cavern, which branches” But…
- This could be perhaps be reworded more fluidly. The style shifts fairly dramatically between the two paragraphs. Here’s a shot at rewording the first one:
Rewrite
A few meters past the entrance, the path slides sharply downward towards a glowing opening into a tall, spacious cavern, which branches into many smaller passageways.
The light comes/is streaming from…
- I think that’s a bolded period after the first Setback.
- While Boost and Setback are not direct corollaries (one v. one generates net 0.33 Advantage), they are quite similar. A way to simplify this section, reduce the number of dice, and make it easier to remember for reiterated rolls in the future is to drop the mention of a Setback for mixed tracks and reduce the number of Boost from the blood trail to two. Now, if the Setback for mixed tracks only applies to the first area, then later “Add same Boost/Setback” modifiers need to be adjusted because I currently understand them to add this Setback. (This could go in “Mechanics,” but my main point is about style)
- “For each net [ADVANTAGE] generated on a successful check”
- Page 16: Extraneous space in “some of”
- Capitalize “Survival”
- Textbox clipping again.
- You give more than basic falling information, but incomplete falling information (namely lacking the check). I recommend rewording it to “character falls short-range into the crevice (see “falling damage”…)” and leaving it at that. I’m not sold on the exact wording of the fall, though. “Takes a short-range fall,” “falls from short range” “a fall into the crevice is from short range,” just some other options to take into consideration, needing more or less manipulation of the surrounding wording.
- Just for the record, “falls a short range” is non-mechanical wording, by which I mean an ambiguous “short” that doesn’t directly stipulate the defined in-game distance.
- “Within 5 rounds” is unnecessary specification, I think. “A few minutes” would probably be sufficient. If you wish to keep the specification, then it should be “five” rather than “5”
- Capitalize “Coordination”
- Page 17: “If either check fails and generates ttt, the character”
- Sync the wording of the fall description to the previous fall, and you can remove the details since it should simply refer back to the other type of fall.
- Misuse of “they” that directly refers to the PCs since the previous “they” was the PCs, and the PCs are the only plural entity. Also a very impersonal way to refer to the corpse. “He” or “she” is your best choice, since between the ID and the body it should be obvious.
- “Boost and Setback modifiers” really needs to be reevaluated. See my previous mention.
- “Sucess” should be “Success”
- Bolded punctuation following symbols. (It would save work if you just didn’t bold the symbols. Bolding tends to obscure distinctions and “blobify” the shapes)
- Could go with “disturbingly foul,” but “disturbing and” works fine.
- “With each step taken” is just a little melodramatic. And yes, I know I have a tendency to toe at that line myself. Maybe “as you grow closer to its source,” or just shortened to “with every step.” Try it, maybe fiddle some with other wordings, see what works.
- “As you enter (this chamber?)” … “ceiling of the wide room lets in” is smoother wording. It sneaks the description into the midst of the paragraph rather than putting it at the beginning where it feels a little awkward. It also can serve to help the idea of “eyes adjusting” as the expanse of the dark room becomes more clear once the eyes are not overwhelmed by light.
- Remove “from earlier” (effectively past tense, while the smell is present tense)
- “Sizes comma, and colors”
- Two colons in the same paragraph is not ideal. You can get away with a comma in the second place, but a better solution might be to reword in the following way: “Bones of all shapes, sizes, and colors—some likely humanoid, some much larger—have been discarded into a large pile.” “Colors” could be removed, changing the wording to “shapes and sizes” and making the description relate more closely to the “some likely” clause. This also makes the special bones more notable, and makes the pile sound less like a gruesome rainbow.
- The “putrid smell” bit, as written, is redundant, but it could be used.
- If I were to gussy up that bit, here’s how I’d write it:
“In the center of this area lies the source of the stench from earlier: a boneyard. Bones of all shapes and sizes—some likely humanoid, some much larger—have been discarded into a large pile(, and above it all the putrid smell lingers[?]).” (The wording of that last bit needs some tweaking, but it can be removed entirely) - The last piece could be replaced by a mention of the crate, like “lying atop the pile” or “in the pile” or some other locationally associating phrase.
- “Several passageways” looks pretty lonely down there. Unless it can be given some friends or worked in elsewhere, perhaps it could be put into the non-prosaic descriptions?
- Aside from some tweaks or technical details, that narration was excellent! Good job.
- You say “some of the crewmembers,” but you refer to the remains in the singular later on. One or the other needs to be brought into line with your intention. The exact nature of the crew member found could do with some elaboration, e.g. “Quarren.”
- Maybe “generates any [a]” since the effect isn’t based on a single Advantage, but rather on plural Advantage.
- “medicine period. If sold, it is worth 100 credits for each Advantage rolled”
- You could also make it that they find one bone for each Advantage, and then each bone, valued at 100cr, can be made into a single dose. But generally, try to avoid equations.
- I’d recommend changing “injection” to “powder,” maybe add something about a bitter taste or that it can be mixed with water if it wouldn’t take too much space. But injecting a powder seems ill-advised, and rather odd (heroin is a powder, but from what little I know of drugs, I think you melt it before injecting).
- “Dried-up”
- “charged, an Average … is required to access it”
- “crystals [pronoun] could use to” makes it more personal. But if the bone-structure would not be easily identifiable (I know nothing about how hard it is to identify sex by bone structure), then some other, more specific wording could be substituted. Or you can leave it as-is, that’s fine as well. It reads a bit awkwardly to me, but I can’t identify anything technically or obviously “wrong” with it.
- Page 18: You can drop the success condition. This is the approach taken by official materials.
- If you take my mechanical suggestion, the first two paragraphs can be merged.
- “If the check is failed, the afflicted”
- Swap ampersand for “and”
- “veins, suffering one strain per hour”
- Extraneous space after “check”
- It is inadvisable to have both a chapter and a section called “the blue menace,” especially since you refer to “the blue menace” in other places.
- Change “waiting” to “lurking out of view” or something along those lines. Currently, it reads as if they walk into the same room as the PCs and then wait for them to become distracted, as if you walked into the kitchen and waited for your wife to become distracted before sneaking a freshly-baked cookie.
- “mentioned below by having” … “nearby and giving”
- “Otherwise, they will” (this might make formatting awkward)
- Dice immediately after skill.
- “cover, short range from” or “cover at short range from” (“in within” is too close in proximity)
- Change “also” to “then” or drop it entirely. “Also attempt to flee” sounds more like “if one runs, the other will also attempt to flee” which isn’t what you mean. You mean it is a circumstance under which fleeing will also be done.
- “Seems”? Or “becomes”? I recommend the latter, unless there is another shoe to drop.
- Capitalize “Boost” and “Setback”
- Page 19: Bolded punctuation.
- The “tunnel” wording is so much clearer.
- You can drop “you have been tracking”
- You mention a burrow and a chamber, introducing them nearly as independent concepts. I recommend that you reword the second to follow on from the first. Or else, make the “burrow” instead the aforementioned “tunnel.”
- “After passing through”
- “and the patchwork” assuming you intended the stains to be all over that as well. If you intended them to be separate, the two concepts need to be more clearly separated.
- “grass, fur comma, and earth”
- “effects comma, and guava”
- Here’s a rewording of the final paragraph to try and make it flow more smoothly with the previous one:
The source of the blue stains is obvious: an empty guava crate lies tipped on its side beside two battered, unopened crates, and guava peels litter the chamber. Personal effects are scattered among the mess—more evidence of Darga’s unfortunate crew—and shreds of clothing are tucked into the nest.
Yikes, that took far longer than it should have (partly because I was avoiding the double-colon problem). It’s about time for my nightly reboot.
- “per net” (I should point out, that’s technically corpse-robbing. But no one would really care, and you can’t very easily assign them to their original owners since they’ve been well-parted)
- Broken “broken” record :P
- “receives”
- “are easily replaced”
- Capitalize “Negotiation”
- “If,” not because. The negotiation is not contingent on a successful mission.
- Do the webs have to be “giant”? You could just have it be as simple as the PC putting his hand in the wrong place and leave it at that. There isn’t a wrong decision here, I’m just prompting thought.
- “rise up in this section, counting as a corrosive atmosphere with a rating of 1” (or whatever is mechanically appropriate, I’m in too much of a hurry now to check)
- Maybe say “of 1, affecting any character not…” but other than that you can cut off the rest of the blurb aside from the book reference.
- “or” should not be bolded.
- “far away and is not” (optional, but I think it’s better)
- The mention of “damaged or destroyed” is very clever and I approve. It solves for why something secured within a backpack or on the PC’s person might be affected without being lost. I just hope that GMs don’t take advantage of the “destroyed” stipulation, but there isn’t really any good way you can account for that unless you say “a piece of equipment is damaged or a minor item is destroyed.” (come to think of it… that’s a good way to account for that)
- “drawn in blood”
And… that’s it! It took me a while to get through, but this was mostly pretty light stuff. Well done! Once we’ve worked through this, it should only take a (hopefully) light review of the entire work.
1 Like
Page 18: You give two save checks to avoid the effects of a Despair. I recommend eliminating the Perception check. Best-case scenario, a Despair causes the PC to suffer 1 Strain. Worst-case scenario, it causes him to suffer 1+ max 6 Strain per day (good job on that, by the way).
I removed the perception check.
Page 17: Maybe 25-50 credits instead of 100. Currently, it’s priced at an amount that would likely equal and perhaps exceed the price of the crystals from earlier (which are harder to acquire and only have one obvious use). Also note that a stimpack, which heals a number of Wounds, is priced at 25cr. The argument for giving it a higher price is to enhance the opportunity cost of using the bonus, and while that’s a good argument, I don’t think it’s enough to justify what I see as an unreasonable price.
25 is fine; the most important is the medical application of it.
Dice from concealment range from 1-3. Have you checked the chart and compared your pictured environment to the examples? I don’t know how dark you picture it being, so a single Boost might be wholly appropriate, I’m just checking that you’ve actually considered it.
This has been considered and the 1 dice is intentional. The room has some lighting in the middle and some darkness on the edges, so it is only somewhat hard to see.
- Page 19: You might want to consider reducing the difficulty rather than adding Boost. It’s simpler and takes up fewer dice. Something you might want to add is an option to waive it “if the PCs made a map” or something to that effect.
OK to both.
Page 20: Instead of Advantage having an identical, but lesser benefit, maybe say something like “he offers to free some of the slaves for a lower price” or something. So they can’t free all three (four?) for 10,000, but maybe they can free two for 6,000 (/3 for 7,000[?]).
I was thinking that with 2-3 advantage someone in the court could take notice of their attempt at altruism and want to befriend them later on… but since this is the end of the written adventure with no follow-up, I’ll just leave the benefit to the GM.
- Page 21: Poisonous fungus seems a little weak. Frankly, I really like my idea for hallucinogenic spores, but the Agility upgrade is okay. Mechanically it may not be that strong, but the effect is fairly appropriate for a minor ailment. Another option is an enduring upgrade or Setback. Your discretion.
I modified it to upgrade the next TWO checks instead of one.
Two Neimoidians, one Trandoshan, one undescribed corpse, I only count four. You mention six guards, with Transoshans and Quarren being plural.
I modified the perception check in the Boneyard for it to turn up whatever crew was still unaccounted for.
Rolling advantages on certain checks can also turn up bodies as one of the clues; I removed one of the options to streamline it a bit.
- Page 13: The “if unsuccessful” clause could be entirely removed, but keeping it doesn’t harm anything.
I think it’s good to keep it.
- Change “though” to “although.” You should also fiddle around with wording for that line, try to eliminate the big gap towards the end. You might be able to do this by changing the word “obviously” to “clearly,” but you’ll probably need to use other rewordings (including some that may be longer). Something to investigate from a style standpoint is the “justify” alignment. It is commonly used in these sorts of publications and gives everything a very even look (but in lines as gappy as that one, it can’t really fix it).
I modified the middle sentence to “However, at this point they have only partially fulfilled their mission…” and it fills out nicely.
- Getting inside the cavern: This bit looks very lonely. While it likely isn’t possible to get it onto the next page (though that would be ideal), drawing out the paragraph a little or adding some more fluff could help it look more complete.
A bit of solitude can be healthy =), but I did as you suggested by moving the image a bit
I moved the title for Area 1 to be earlier in the section for clarity.
I also moved the image to be more centered and made it bigger to compensate for the empty space from a few missing paragraphs. It works.
- While Boost and Setback are not direct corollaries (one v. one generates net 0.33 Advantage), they are quite similar. A way to simplify this section, reduce the number of dice, and make it easier to remember for reiterated rolls in the future is to drop the mention of a Setback for mixed tracks and reduce the number of Boost from the blood trail to two. Now, if the Setback for mixed tracks only applies to the first area, then later “Add same Boost/Setback” modifiers need to be adjusted because I currently understand them to add this Setback. (This could go in “Mechanics,” but my main point is about style)
The mixed prints apply throughout the caverns, not just at the start.
OK, we can do that.
- Page 16: Extraneous space in “some of”
I’m up to here in post #76
1 Like
P. 17 “Boost and Setback modifiers” really needs to be reevaluated. See my previous mention.
Do we actually need to change the wording here? Should I just copy paste the actual modifiers instead of referring to them?
The “putrid smell” bit, as written, is redundant, but it could be used.
Since it was already mentioned twice it is redundant so I’ll take it out.
- The last piece could be replaced by a mention of the crate, like “lying atop the pile” or “in the pile” or some other locationally associating phrase.
Into the pile it goes!
“Several passageways” looks pretty lonely down there. Unless it can be given some friends or worked in elsewhere, perhaps it could be put into the non-prosaic descriptions?
It made friends in the “Please Note” section for the GM ;).
Aside from some tweaks or technical details, that narration was excellent! Good job.
Thanks chief, I appreciate that! :)
- You say “some of the crewmembers,” but you refer to the remains in the singular later on. One or the other needs to be brought into line with your intention. The exact nature of the crew member found could do with some elaboration, e.g. “Quarren.”
I think this was inadvertently resolved with another modification I made
I’d recommend changing “injection” to “powder,” maybe add something about a bitter taste or that it can be mixed with water if it wouldn’t take too much space. But injecting a powder seems ill-advised, and rather odd (heroin is a powder, but from what little I know of drugs, I think you melt it before injecting).
Heh… I can just imagine my players gagging at the thought of “drinking” some ground up, black-colored bone marrow, so I reasoned that an injection, though a slight stretch to fabricate, would be less… unpleasant. I figure a medkit would have basic salves, maybe trace amounts of bacta, water, or some other gel-type base that it could be mixed with, and likely a few applicators / syringes. It’s not like we’re talking about a mushroom or a plant here ;).
We could change it to some kind of… salve… like vapor-rub for strain ;)
“crystals [pronoun] could use to” makes it more personal. But if the bone-structure would not be easily identifiable (I know nothing about how hard it is to identify sex by bone structure), then some other, more specific wording could be substituted. Or you can leave it as-is, that’s fine as well. It reads a bit awkwardly to me, but I can’t identify anything technically or obviously “wrong” with it.
Like most things, it probably isn’t that hard for someone who knows his stuff (ex: medicine or xenology…) but I don’t think we need to go that far… I imagined a man, but by leaving it open, the GM can spin it however they want.
If the roll generates y, a small, poisonous scorpion attempts to sting the player’s hand.
If unsuccessful, the character gets stung and suffers one strain damage. Then, a Hard (ddd) Resilience check is required to resist the effects of the poison.
If unsuccessful, the afflicted character grows increasingly tired & dehydrated as the poison runs through their veins, continuing to suffer one strain damage per hour, up to six times per day. A Hard (ddd) Medicine check is required to cure the poison.
Though contingent on a Despair and a failed Resilience check, this effect feels pretty punishing to me. Should we make it last a max of 7 days? Make the medicine check easier? Or just leave it?
P.19 “and the patchwork” assuming you intended the stains to be all over that as well. If you intended them to be separate, the two concepts need to be more clearly separated.
I actually meant for those to be separated, though it would be stained as well so that works.
Yikes, that took far longer than it should have (partly because I was avoiding the double-colon problem). It’s about time for my nightly reboot.
I am now up to here in the revision.
Sooo we are going through a muggy heatwave at the moment, still recovering from what I had last week, and I will be gone for most of next week. I will try to wrap up the revision before I go.
Edit: As a sidenote, I spoke with my sister (an english teacher) about what we’ve been working on and how you’ve helped me make more judicious use of punctuation. She sent me this:
Commas Save Lives
I thought you’d appreciate that ;)
1 Like