Unless you are a Werewolf completist, or you really like the chronicle ideas, there are many better products in the line you should buy before you spend money for this.
Post originally by Alejandro Luna at 2005-02-24 10:05:33
Converted from Phorums BB System
Ok, first of all, I have to say the review I've just read really looks more like an anecdote from your Werewolf chronicle than a proper review of a book. I know, I know, you did made your point (over and over again) and your comments about what your players felt about the book weren't really out of place, but I would have expected a little more objective point of view. Here's why I didn't liked your review:
1-You accused this module of faults that are actually your own.
If the players (and yourself) find the name "Solium Submergens" funny, then don't say it. Actually, if you didn't cared for the villian at all, you shouldn't have putted it in the chronicle in the first place. Remember that you are selling the story to the players. If you're the first guy who says "This lame monster sucks, I don't know what's it doing in my game" then your chronicle is heading straight to hell. There's a dozen methods you could have used to spice up your game, *everything* would have been fair except reluctantly running a story you didn't even liked. Oh, and boring combats are never included in a module, they are created on the spot during play. You might want to work on that.
2-Running a game module properly is very much like telling a good joke.
When you buy a game module, you don't want (or need) to memorize it or run it verbatim. You just remember the important stuff and the rest you make your own. You tailor it to appeal to your audience. If you feel the plot is to rigid, then just take note of the important plot points and let the players make their own path towards them, and let them get to those points at their own pace. They'll actually enjoy themselves if you let them dance at their own rythm. This goes for all RPG modules and adventures.
3-The KODT syndrome.
The way you tell it, you and your players really seemed distraught with the idea of losing a battle and letting your characters "die" (the "" are because you don't really stay dead in "Past Lives", but you forgot to tell that little detail in your review). It seemed like your players "didn't wanted to be slapped around by some lousy NPC". It seemed like your characters didn't wanted to partake in the most important spiritual quest in modern Werewolf history (because that's what the adventure is all about, in case that sliped past you). It seemed more like they wanted to "kick butt and take names". If your players have this "KODT attitude" then they'll dislike anything that's not about them kicking butt. I recommend them the Sammuel Haight saga. They might find it cool.
So, I hope you don't take this the wrong way. I thinked you gave Past Lives a very unfair rating and I stated why. Sue me.
Post originally by James P at 2005-02-24 16:49:20
Converted from Phorums BB System
I ran this chronicle as part of my ongoing game and I ran into most of the problems the reviewer did.
Also, your statement about 'the KODT syndrome' I think is unfair. Forcing character death despite their actions is one of the most heavy-handed examples of railroading there is.
My players, being the clever types that they are, realised early on that the Solium Submergens (this is in very poor Latin and does not translate the way the authors of this book say it does, as my players were quick to point out), was too tough for them to defeat, so they attempted to retreat to rustle up the aid of more packs from the sept. As the chronicle's continuation REQUIRES them to die in this scene, I had the thing kill them one by one as they were making their retreat.
At this point, it took about two seconds for them to realise they were in a 'scripted death' scene. While they did not cry out in protest, resigned smiles appeared on their faces, and at the close of the scene one of my players said - 'that plot device was f**king lame, man'. This prompted nods of agreement from everyone else.
It's basically a poorly thought-out railroad scene.
In the book's defence, however, we found the chapters that were set in the past to be highly entertaining, especially the one in Dacia, which the Classics buffs in my group found few inaccuracies with.
Post originally by FBM at 2005-02-25 16:22:14
Converted from Phorums BB System
I've looked over the book, but paid more attention to the materials at the end than the adventure itself. I considered it for my current chronicle, but decided it wouldn't fit in for this one. I may well use it at a later date, though.
James:
1) what is a more proper version of the name?
2) I think the book said the characters should be pretty new and low-ranking. Were yours, and if not, do you think they could have survived?
On character death: I'm of two minds about this. 'In Character', death in combat is an expected -- preferred, actually -- way to go. In my setting, many of the characters believe in reincarnation, so death is more like time in the penalty box than a final end. 'Out of Character': When you've put the effort we do into character developement, it's hard to have a beloved character die off. I try to make a character's death an important point in a story rather than simply a lucky blow in an otherwise unnoteworthy skirmish. But the players should realize pretty quick that it's not permanent in this case. And if handled properly, they will see it as more than simple railroading (but that's largely up to the ST to work out).
Post originally by Alejandro Luna at 2005-02-28 14:51:00
Converted from Phorums BB System
James P wrote:
-------------------------------
I ran this chronicle as part of my ongoing game and I ran into most of the problems the reviewer did.
Mhh, see, as I wrote in my last post, the reviewer had problems he should have been capable of sorting out himself, because those glitches (at least, the ones he pointed out) weren't really in the product. His problems started when he ran a module he didn't fully belived in or understood completely.
Also, your statement about 'the KODT syndrome' I think is unfair. Forcing character death despite their actions is one of the most heavy-handed examples of railroading there is.
I had runned this chronicle twice, with two different groups (a veteran group and a group of rookies). In both cases I wanted to state very clearly that fighting the Drowned King was suicide, so I let the PCs to see a friendly rival pack of NPCs die horribly in the hands(?) of the monster. Both groups attacked the monster anyway (although the veterans did tried to retreat). When some of the veterans seemed as unconfortable as you guys with this "mi character has to die" gimmick, I proposed them an alternative: The PCs' pack could skip the fight with the King if they performed some Silent Strider ritual I come up with, wich was just a ritual suicide wich allowed them to participate in the spirit quest without the requisite fight. They ate it with a spoon. They (and, I suspect, you guys too) don't really have a problem with their characters being dead; they just have problems with their characters being killed.
My players, being the clever types that they are, realised early on that the Solium Submergens (this is in very poor Latin and does not translate the way the authors of this book say it does, as my players were quick to point out),
Ok, you do have a point there. Bruce Baugh & Ethan Skemp skipped school the day they had Latin class. Cut them some slack.
was too tough for them to defeat, so they attempted to retreat to rustle up the aid of more packs from the sept. As the chronicle's continuation REQUIRES them to die in this scene, I had the thing kill them one by one as they were making their retreat.
Mmhh... in my two chronicles all the characters frenzied when they saw their packmates died in front of their eyes. Too may Rage on them, I guess...
At this point, it took about two seconds for them to realise they were in a 'scripted death' scene. While they did not cry out in protest, resigned smiles appeared on their faces, and at the close of the scene one of my players said - 'that plot device was f**king lame, man'. This prompted nods of agreement from everyone else.
See above. This vocal member of you gaming group is almost sure to have accepted the ritual suicide thing...
It's basically a poorly thought-out railroad scene.
See my previous post. It's all in how you tell it...
In the book's defence, however, we found the chapters that were set in the past to be highly entertaining, especially the one in Dacia, which the Classics buffs in my group found few inaccuracies with.
Yep. It's also fun to play the possibility to make peace with the ancestor-sprits of the Lost Breeds (and earn a crapload of Renown), and the opportunity to unearth lost Rites and Gifts (more Renown).
Post originally by Yalaz Ozkanli at 2005-03-01 04:06:00
Converted from Phorums BB System
Just because you came up with something that's not in the book to make it more acceptable doesn't make the book's proposed conclusion to the first chapter as it is written a less terrible railroaded death event..
Post originally by Alejandro Luna at 2005-03-01 12:18:36
Converted from Phorums BB System
I was not trying to make you change your mind.
I was, however, pointing out the fact that a RPG module (any module) has a point, and only the point of the adventure/module is what really matters. The point of Past Lives is the spirit quest that allowed the PCs to experience events that happened in their past lives, and that allows them (optionaly) to apologize to the spirits of people the Garou wronged in the past (a most remarkable feat, worthy of any non-tainted Garou).
You can get to the point of the story however you like. The module already provides you the means to do that, but if stuff like a funny name or a crucial combat prevents you from getting to the point, then by all means change that annoying stuff into something you can work with. This adventure *can* be (and has been) succesfully runned as written, mind you, but then again, what works in a gaming table might not work on others.
White Wolf had this gag called "The Golden Rule", wich stated -more or less- that you're free to do whatever you wanted to do with your books, as long as it was fun for you and for your players. Enforcing that rule would have been perfectly valid. As I stated in a former post, everything would have been better than reluctantly running a module and then complain about it here.
Anyway, you'are not forced to like what I liked. I can tell you why I liked this adventure, and just how much we (my players and I) enjoyed it, but ultimately you're the one who chooses if Past Lives' worth your time.
Post originally by Yalaz Ozkanli at 2005-03-02 05:26:05
Converted from Phorums BB System
Your interpretation of the Golden Rule paves the way for any RPG book author to have a convenient excuse for any poorly written work. Telling me that I should write my own start to the adventure because the way it was written is poor and/or boring is an unacceptable excuse. I paid for it, and I expect to be able to enjoy it without having to overhaul it. I'm sorry, but that's like saying "We sold you a dishwasher, it doesn't work, build your own."
There are extents to which the Golden Rule can work, but when it becomes an excuse for sloppy writing, I'm not buying it.
And you are right - other people may have enjoyed this module, and if so, more power to them. This was not a capsule review, it was a playtest review where I felt I had to relate to my and my players' feelings towards it. As always, everyone's milage may greatly vary.
Finally, thanks to everyone for their comments on this review.
Linear Mode
