I've just finished a rough draft of the first module for my game system and I'm wondering if I should include some strong hints to the GM and ultimately the players. During their travels they will probably run into two groups of people that might make decent allies.

One is a couple of Elves and the problem is that the one who does most of the talking is a jerk who is snide and condescending to non-Elves. If there is an Elf in the player-character party, and there often would be, he will sneer at him also, for hanging out with non-Elves. However, the two Elves would make a good addition to the party and the snotty one could be reasoned with. He's an a*****e, not evil.

The other is three bandits. They are lost and confused because something killed their leader, a ranger. They are unlikely to identify themselves as bandits but they will clearly be unsavory characters. Still, it might be possible to gain one or more of them as allies.

Allying with either of these groups could turn some fairly tough later encounters into walkovers and walkovers mean fewer casualties and less chance of defeat. I wonder if I should put a suggestion in the GM notes that he or she should encourage or at least mention the possibility of getting some allies.

I'd note for the ref that these are possible allies but would never dream of the ref pushing it on the players through hinting or suggesting it to them. That's something the PCs should think of, or not, on their own. Personally, of course. I know that when I get to be a player I cannot bear it when it feels like the ref is trying to get the group to take a certain route.

Quote from: Dumarest;1004384I'd note for the ref that these are possible allies but would never dream of the ref pushing it on the players through hinting or suggesting it to them. That's something the PCs should think of, or not, on their own. Personally, of course. I know that when I get to be a player I cannot bear it when it feels like the ref is trying to get the group to take a certain route.

I agree. However, if I note it for the ref, won't I seem to be encouraging the ref to do that? On the other tentacle, if I don't, the GM may discourage it. It was simpler when I knew the other people who ran the game (and almost all of the players)

You need more options, like sprinkling a few non-faction hirelings in the nearest slice of civilization (outpost, town, etc.).

The best option -- because of the current assumed paradigm "what is not explicit is forbidden!" -- is to seed a quieter yet amenable secondary NPC in each group. This creates doubt in presumed hostility or villainy. Once there is doubt, detente can bloom into more options.

Also, don't be afraid to restate that Sapient creatures (those with greater than animal thinking) are not all bloodthirsty frenzies to the death. So weapon-using monsters suddenly become complex encounters; more tenuous allies and thinking opponents than XP & treasure bags. Then mob stats like morale, or social tendencies (alignment, or demihuman v. humanoid), become potential PC double-edged weapons. Go for it, but don't cut yourself!

The asshole elf sounds like too much work for a party to want to ally with him. They'll probably want to to kill him, because ... asshole.

The lost and confused bandits could be more amenable. That's potentially more wide open. However,  many parties would like to take advantage of them.

Other options/choices would be a good idea, after all, every party is different. Nothing wrong with some straightforward, rather uncomplicated NPCs to also be available. And by all means, tell the DM that potential allies are on the table: personally I almost always enjoy designer's notes in a game or module and you know, a lot of DM just are not very good, especially the ones who rely heavily on modules.

Quote from: saskganesh;1004412Other options/choices would be a good idea, after all, every party is different. Nothing wrong with some straightforward, rather uncomplicated NPCs to also be available. And by all means, tell the DM that potential allies are on the table: personally I almost always enjoy designer's notes in a game or module and you know, a lot of DM just are not very good, especially the ones who rely heavily on modules.

Designer notes at the end (or in a sidebar if layout permits) sound like a good compromise between getting the point across versus steering the GM in specific encounters.  Might be more compact, too.  Some general text that even annoying encounters needs not be fights if the party is willing to negotiate, and that the adventure can be much easier or harder depending upon which the players pick.

Have you playtested the adventures with multiple groups? If not then you need to do so and that will reveal what notes you need to add to the adventure. My notes in Scourge of the Demon Wolf are a summary of the dozen or so times i ran the adventure with different groups. It also informed me what to spend the bulk of my word count on when detailing the adventure.

Also send the adventure to at least one GM you trust to provide honest feedback for blind play testing. Have him run it for his group from what is written. That will help you know if there are sections that are not clear to a GM reading it/running it.

I agree that the Elfhole NPC may need to be dialed back a bit if he is supposed to be a potential ally for the PCs.

Quote from: estar;1004427Have you playtested the adventures with multiple groups? If not then you need to do so and that will reveal what notes you need to add to the adventure. My notes in Scourge of the Demon Wolf are a summary of the dozen or so times i ran the adventure with different groups. It also informed me what to spend the bulk of my word count on when detailing the adventure.

I've run the whole thing with two groups. One group cherry-picked the mage from among the bandits, one of the players was quite convincing, and told the others how to get back to civilization. The other group felt that the bandits seemed disreputable and didn't like the Elf who did most of the talking. So they went on with no allies. The group with the mage ally did better but both groups survived the module. Another GM has playtested the module for me with his usual players, minus me. They managed to recruit all of the bandits and had a much easier time with the module until toward the end when there was a dispute over the spoils. It wasn't bandits versus party members. It was the bandit mage and a player-character against everyone else. I wasn't there but everyone, even the casualties, said that they enjoyed it.

I'm going to start another play test soon.

My concern is wondering what your concern is that leads you to think you need to be very emphatic about advice?

Are you worried that your adventure is too unclear and that your group could get stuck?  Or is it that certain parts of your adventure are depending on what you plan to advise the PCs about, and if they don't do it then there'll be trouble?

In either of those cases, it may be that the real problem is with your adventure as you've written it.

I would add advice describing various alternatives and then let the DM know they can do something else if they please.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1004426Designer notes at the end (or in a sidebar if layout permits) sound like a good compromise between getting the point across versus steering the GM in specific encounters.  Might be more compact, too.  Some general text that even annoying encounters needs not be fights if the party is willing to negotiate, and that the adventure can be much easier or harder depending upon which the players pick.

This. If you want to be as neutral as possible, just have a sidebar (or the like) titled "potential allies." Add some text along the lines of, "this adventure is designed to be fairly challenging for the proscribed expected number of Player Characters. The PCs may choose to seek out fellow adventurers (NPCs) to supplement their abilities. This will lesson the direct challenges, but each potential ally should have some challenge or compromise required. Example potential allies include the 3 'totally not bandits' on page XX--who are happy to join, but a moral compromise; and the elf duo on page YY--who are standoffish (especially ____), and require greater negotiation skills (and thick skin) from the party."

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1004734This. If you want to be as neutral as possible, just have a sidebar (or the like) titled "potential allies." Add some text along the lines of, "this adventure is designed to be fairly challenging for the proscribed expected number of Player Characters. The PCs may choose to seek out fellow adventurers (NPCs) to supplement their abilities. This will lesson the direct challenges, but each potential ally should have some challenge or compromise required. Example potential allies include the 3 'totally not bandits' on page XX--who are happy to join, but a moral compromise; and the elf duo on page YY--who are standoffish (especially ____), and require greater negotiation skills (and thick skin) from the party."

Excellent suggestion; thank you. Thanks to everyone who replied in this thread.

The best modules are concisely descriptive and never prescriptive.

Is your map finished and complete to the appropriate level of detail? Do you have a sense of who and what is where, and the qualities of significant figures? Is it clear where the players start and what they know? That's it. You are ready.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1004755The best modules are concisely descriptive and never prescriptive.

Is your map finished and complete to the appropriate level of detail? Do you have a sense of who and what is where, and the qualities of significant figures? Is it clear where the players start and what they know? That's it. You are ready.

The map is finished and complete except that someone who is better at maps than I am is going to redo it but she's not changing anything, just making it look better. I think I have the rest covered.