Postmortem: Those who Tarry no Longer

[Vladim]

Now that the adventure is finished, or almost finished, it may be helpful to ask everyone who participated for their feedback and opinions. Ideally this will help in identifying good bits and bad bits, and getting lessons about people's preferences and what works and what doesn't.

I'll start with my own, but we can keep this as an open discussion if there are things to be said. I was initially skeptical of this adventure because of the issues with agency and many unwinnable fights clustered together, and if we were sticking to first edition I would have probably skipped it. It's PbP, things go slow, and I thought that it doesn't make sense to waste time when there's better material to run.

That being said, after Sentinel I was a bit burned out, and wanted something easy and published that would be a low-effort game to run. 2nd edition had just come out, and I thought this would be a great chance to try the new system with new PCs without messing with the original ones, and maybe even enrich the world a bit. I still think the choice made sense, and I would probably make it again.

The adventure itself eventually won me over despite its many issues. It does some things that other adventures don't: it places a bit more focus on the elves as they are depicted in this particular setting and introduces some deeper lore that helps appreciate the history of it. I also did not mind the darker, grimmer overtones of the scenes in the dungeon, though I am also a bit ambivalent about the minimal player agency. It seems to me that, to some extent, running good horror will often rely on diminished agency, and I am not sure that I can balance these two aspects (horror vs. agency) well. But it was nice to try and see how this module does it.

As for the system itself, I don't hate it. I like some of the narrative aspects of first edition better, like the hope granting success instead of a bonus die, and the greater number (and increased usefulness) of traits. We didn't use either much in this second edition. On the other hand, I suspect that 2nd edition combat is potentially more exciting: the ability to 'spend' 6s on rolls for special effects, and more differences in weapons, seem theoretically better than 1st edition's called shots, which are a bit lucklaster. But this is only a suspicion, because we only scratched the surface. I think that, at some point or another, I should try some Strider Mode to familiarize myself with the 2nd edition rules better.

What next? There's some decisions to be made, and we need to touch base with everyone and decide on the system and adventures. I am inclined to return to our main PCs, and to 1st edition, and try to wrap up the 'Tales from Wilderland' campaign (it has 3 adventures left, all of them good or great in my opinion). We need to also decide if we should give the original PCs some XP and APs while they were in the background (I'm good either way). But let's discuss such things later; for now, let's keep it to thoughts, highlights and lowlights of this adventure and related opinions. There's already been a bit of that at Discord already, but it's good to hear from everyone and summarize it here.

[Suzuki Stumpy]

I'm kind of torn.  I don't think the adventure itself does much to showcase the wider 2e ruleset apart from the combat rules so hard to tell how they differ significantly from 1e - although the fact that the characters spend much of the adventure weary certainly showcases that mechanic as being far too overpowered!

As for the storyline?  Well as far as the story goes, I enjoyed it.  However, I don't really enjoy adventures that railroad characters along a predetermined path - agency is key in an RPG - without player agency, I might as well simply read a book, and this adventure certainly felt like players are merely shuttled from one set-piece to another.  This might have worked better around a real-life table where the adventure would have been over in two or three sessions, but the slower nature of PbP really makes it stand out.

Also, not really a fan of the whole 'every fight is hopeless' trope.  It felt good at the beginning when we were running from the Orcs and trying to find a place to make a stand, but soon became tiresome in that every fight you know you're destined to lose - just a question of how badly/what the after effects were going to be.

As for next steps?  I'd like to go back to the original characters in Mirkwood as there's still stories to be told there and truth be told, I've grown rather attached to Barin, although would be fun to see what happens to the Rangers after they get Irimé to Rivendell and have some time to heal and rest up.

[Vladim]

Weary is actually the same in first edition, but the generally higher TNs of second edition (20-attribute vs. a flat 14 for most 1st edition actions) makes the condition quite more dangerous. In general, second edition seems a bit harder, especially for starting characters.

I'm kind of torn about the hopelessness myself. On the one hand, the lack of agency and repetitiveness can get annoying. On the other, putting characters in extremely difficult (even unwinnable) situations can be a good for deeper characterization. Maybe I should play something truly hopeless and bleak like CoC, Delta Green or Mork Borg to get a better feel of how to create such situations without disempowering the players.

I'm keen to return to the original characters too, though I enjoyed the new cast also. With a few more adventures, I think we could get them to the point of the original cast in terms of characterization. But it would take a lot of time, and I miss the originals.

My last point is a slight concern, as I find most published adventures, by their limited nature, linear and basically railroads. Everything that I have run so far has been more or less linear, though probably not to the same extent as this last adventure. I wonder if a more sandbox experience would be preferable... The Ironsworn group may play content from Darkening, which is much more open-ended and sandbox compared to Tales from Wilderland. Maybe people would prefer that? Or are folks happy with linear?

[thesloth]

I enjoy a good grim tale as long as it leaves room for heroism. I thoroughly enjoyed the town battle because we pulled off something cool before they got us. Something that would leave a lasting mark in the lore, namely giving that dude a scar that will be with him forever.

If we had been able to seriously injure the troll before it won, I would have been OK with it. There would be that lasting impression of two half starved Rangers doing what ten orcs on their own couldn't do. That affects an enemies willingness to fight.

I enjoyed us getting dragged to the orc pit because we successfully resisted for a moment. 

So for me, if I'm going to be in scenario of losing every major fight, I need the small wins where I embarrass, shame, or cower a few individual enemies to keep my motivation up. That's where the Weary mechanic really burned me in the troll fight. I don't mind dying, so long as I know my enemies will taste a few ashes in their victory. 

[thesloth]

There is no way to avoid some linear. That's life. I get paid by my employer only AFTER I work my hours.

With published investigative adventures, look at every point where it says "the players learn X after they do Y". In your own head say "The players will learn X if their actions make sense".

If we need to convince Ethelred the White to tell us about a shameful past event, and the book says he will only do so if we kill the monster, ask yourself is that really true? What else could build that level of trust in a person? Then after we present our ideas, you will have an idea if our plan is reasonable.

Gotta sneak into the fortress? Only one drain cover is weakened according to the book? So what. If we devise a plan you like, then go with it. You can un-railroad most adventures if you treat them as a suggestion.

I liked our previous characters and would be happy to go back to them. I've warmed up to Arton considerably, but I am still far less invested in him than my Beorning.

[Vladim]

Yes, I did make some changes to the scenario, to accommodate for party choices. As far as I recall by Adventure as Written you cannot do anything in the sacking of Haycombe (so that attacking the Alderman was off the rails). Same with the troll-only one PC is supposed to fight; you both wanted to go together so I thought sure, why not, and went for it.

But for the larger plot, of course things were pretty railroaded/limited in the sense that there was no way to get out of the dungeon; things were pretty much reduced to purely reactive scenes.

I wonder if it would have been better if I had made more of an effort to give the illusion of choice. For example, in the fight in the town, the scenario does not say you should tell the players that the fight is unwinnable. But I kinda feel like this is dishonest on a very basic level; my preference was to tell you and then we could speed-run it (which we did). But I dunno; maybe some folks prefer illusion of choice? It's the whole quantum ogre idea, which I am generally against in my games.

Edit: For reference https://tatabletop.com/2020/06/22/quantum-ogre-theory/#:~:text=WHAT IS THE QUANTUM OGRE,path%2C whichever way they go.

[thesloth]

So hitting the Alderman was one of my favorite moments, clearly you have good instincts for that.

You let us beat up a guard and let us face the troll together which led to a cool scene later as Thammegil died. Again, it seems to me like you have good instincts for when to do this. 

Letting us know up front helped in my opinion. Had I thought we were supposed to be able to win those fights, it would have been more frustrating.

[Vladim]

14 hours ago, thesloth said:

Letting us know up front helped in my opinion. Had I thought we were supposed to be able to win those fights, it would have been more frustrating.

That's helpful to hear; thank you. It's the same for me: in such a situation, I'd also prefer the meta-knowledge about an unwinnable encounter, if I were a player. So it's good to know that we're on the same page; I hope the same is true about everyone else (but it doesn't need to be-I can always adjust).

Thinking a bit more of it, there is perhaps no reason to have that big orc fight and the eagles swoop in and save everyone as a Deus ex machina. Perhaps it would have been better to scrap that scene altogether, and have the company try to sneak their way through, maybe fighting a smaller skirmish in the process. The eagles could still come if everything else failed. That way, this adventure would have one unwinnable fight less, which would probably improve it.

The second fight at the inn, I don't know. Perhaps it could be made more dynamic, but I didn't want to waste time on something so heavily predetermined. Going for the Alderman was a good idea to add a twist, so maybe that change was sufficient.

I guess the other issue is that this adventure is less heavy on heroics (or at least heroics in a more classical, action movie-style sense). I didn't necessarily mind that as I am more a fan of the reluctant hero trope than the big hero. Plus, I find things more heroic when they are smaller scale, personal and bleak. But I can see how it can be frustrating if it gets too bleak and (perhaps more importantly) lacking any player agency.

It's good to think about it. Might help down the line with future adventures and other games.

[thesloth]

The Alderman fight was all player agency. That was the beauty. And it didn't upset the story arc.

I really like the idea of letting us evade them for a while (small successes to keep the players engaged) and then have the eagles swoop in when surrounded. It would have dragged the scene out a lot especially in PbP though. Really for me, the brutality of that weary mechanic just wiping out every thing I put down, especially at the point I was rolling 5d6 was what ground me down. 

In that sense, the adventure really did evoke the hopelessness of being in that dungeon.  So I suppose you could say it really worked well....

[Vladim]

52 minutes ago, thesloth said:

In that sense, the adventure really did evoke the hopelessness of being in that dungeon.  So I suppose you could say it really worked well....

Yes, I liked that aspect of it too. But on hindsight, I think you're both right: it would have worked much better face to face, where the hopelessness would have been limited to a single session of a few hours, rather than several weeks of play. I'm not really much (or at all) of a face to face GM, so it's hard to anticipate such differences.

One of these days, I'm going to wrap my brain around running a proper horror scenario that actually works. Any day now... 🙂

[thesloth]

Have you looked DCC from Goodman Games for non-Cthulu horror?

[Vladim]

No, I'm not plugged into DCC. Mainly just Vampire/WoD/Changeling. Are they any good?

[thesloth]

They run old school so PC's are meant to die. Every player runs a crew to absorb the losses. Sometimes your valued, experienced PC is the one who dies, and you just "sub" in one of your extras (who are typically with you already, it's more of a focus switch).

Low magic setting, so fighters can really shine. In fact, magic is inherently risky even for the caster, although it's not usually mortal danger.

[Vladim]

To be honest, I like the idea of a funnel. But I think what happens in high lethality games like that where a bad roll can kill a PC is less horror and more players starting to distance themselves from their characters, looking at them more as a set of numbers as a defense mechanism in the case of a sudden random death. I could be wrong though, I haven't played it...

[Suzuki Stumpy]

The trick with horror themed games though is to try to avoid combat wherever possible, on the understanding that as soon as the bullets/spears/arrows/slimy tentacle things start flying, then all is pretty much lost, unless the PCs get very lucky.  That's why you see very little combat in CoC games (unless it's PC on Cultist, and even then, it's very rare) - there's also the unwritten rule in CoC that if your PCs survive an adventure as a gibbering wreck or better, then you've got away lucky.