Murder in Baldur's Gate (spoilers!)

[CapnZapp]

HotDQ is bad in pretty much every way. MiBG is good in a lot of ways, but bad in the only way that really matters (the players wanting to play again after the first session).

At first, I thought you merely agreed to the "unplayable" sentiment going around.

Then I noticed: first session? Unless you run marathon sessions, your players can't yet have been dissatisfied about the bhaalspawn angle leading nowhere, yes?

Do you mean to say your players walked away already after the initial murder? Could it be that you mean your players didn't like the way you can't save the Duke no matter what?

Regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

I honestly had a lot of fun with Murder in Baldur's Gate, and I got to both play it and later run it as a DM. The smokepowder plot, the kidnapping and rescue, the sense that if you got on the wrong side of someone, they sent people after you, the horror of watching a scene of carnage unfold that you cannot do anything (or very little) about and the clinging on as things started turning hopeless were all nice elements for me and my table. It was interesting to have a premade campaign where things moved forward whether you succeeded or not. Whereas so many adventures require you to succeed at each and every step, this one allowed failure and had it shape events.

The only scenario I wish had come forth would have been the party aligning with Coran and working to sabotage the plans of the big 3.

My 2cp.

Yes, if the players act the way the writers expect them to, I imagine it will be a very satisfying adventure.

Problem is... well, what the problem is have already been said

Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas about how Coran and the heroes would go about stopping the big 3? In what direction would you have taken your party had that scenario you speak of come to pass?

 

[CapnZapp]

Didn't expect you guys to react so harshly to this adventure. I really enjoyed reading it, and was planning to tie it into my Sword Coast campaign.

I really enjoyed reading it too.

Then I realized there is no guarantee the players will want to play along as expected.

Perhaps something as simple as Coran approaching them and voicing his concern over Bhaalian influences, and asking them to ingratiate themselves to the power players in order to find out more (and then, in order to do something about it, play along even further).

Could this idea work out? Basically, the adventure as written with the twist that they will believe one of the big 3 is rotten, but which one?

This will strengthen the theme that is already there; namely that you're given missions you don't want to succeed, but ideally without exposing your own direct interference.

The sad fact NONE of the Big 3 are reliable you don't tell the players, of course. Play Coran as increasingly exasperated; acknowledging the players probable frustration that no matter what they do, somebody else is winning.

Of course, knowing my players, I will have to beef up the personal security of the Big 3 a fair bit. Not to make it impossible to assassinate them, but to not make that look like the obvious way out. (Otherwise I KNOW my players will end up Chosen to Bhaal themselves... you can't really expect players to hold onto real-life morals of not killing... this is after all D&D: life is cheap. Except in this one case)


Insert evil smiley here

 

[Tormyr]

Yes, if the players act the way the writers expect them to, I imagine it will be a very satisfying adventure.

Problem is... well, what the problem is have already been said

Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas about how Coran and the heroes would go about stopping the big 3? In what direction would you have taken your party had that scenario you speak of come to pass?

Coran is a connected guy in Baldur's Gate. I would have him lay out the scenario options for each day that he would know about. The party would get the missions from the adventure that would put them in opposition to the big 3. The kidnapping, the smoke powder plot, the garbage strike, the election the rats, the falling tiles, etc. all can be given by Coran instead of whichever of the big 3 assigns the mission.

You could also throw in finding a cult of Bhaal with each of 3 cult cells working on corrupting one of the big 3.

The party cannot foil all three of the big 3 missions from each day, so someone still moves forward on the Bhaal's favor track. This leads you to stopping someone in the finale. If they murder all of the big 3, then one of the party probably is now Bhaal's chosen. Otherwise, choose someone else that would be applicable.

Sorry I do not have a better answer. It has been half a year since I looked at this adventure.

 

[tom.zunder]

Thanks for the chat. Ironically it has made me want to buy and run the scenario but with all your advice!

 

[GX.Sigma]

At first, I thought you merely agreed to the "unplayable" sentiment going around.

Then I noticed: first session? Unless you run marathon sessions, your players can't yet have been dissatisfied about the bhaalspawn angle leading nowhere, yes?

Do you mean to say your players walked away already after the initial murder? Could it be that you mean your players didn't like the way you can't save the Duke no matter what?

Regards,
Zapp

With one group, it was a regular 3-4 hour session. That included the murder, meeting the faction leaders, and doing a mission. They actually lasted a few sessions before outright quitting, but it was clear they weren't having fun from day 1.

With the other group, I suppose it was something of a marathon session. It couldn't have been more than a few hours, though, before they decided to go to the only magic shop in town, steal the coolest thing there, and run away (just because they were so bored and frustrated with the actual content).

 

[occam]

Of course, knowing my players, I will have to beef up the personal security of the Big 3 a fair bit. Not to make it impossible to assassinate them, but to not make that look like the obvious way out. (Otherwise I KNOW my players will end up Chosen to Bhaal themselves... you can't really expect players to hold onto real-life morals of not killing... this is after all D&D: life is cheap. Except in this one case)

So? Let them (or one of them) become Bhaal's Chosen. The adventure explicitly addresses the possibility of the PCs going after all of the Big 3. Doesn't matter to Bhaal; he still gets what he wants.

 

[keterys]

With one group, it was a regular 3-4 hour session. That included the murder, meeting the faction leaders, and doing a mission. They actually lasted a few sessions before outright quitting, but it was clear they weren't having fun from day 1.

With the other group, I suppose it was something of a marathon session. It couldn't have been more than a few hours, though, before they decided to go to the only magic shop in town, steal the coolest thing there, and run away (just because they were so bored and frustrated with the actual content).

Similar problem here. They were jazzed and excited to look into the Bhaalspawn problem, decided within a couple missions that they didn't care about the local politics, then actively disliked the city after a couple more missions.

They beat up a wererat who surrendered, agreeing to leave the city and never return. He promised he would, muttering something about hearing there were dungeons in the Dalelands. The PCs asked if he'd take them with him, and they promptly transferred into the Ghostspear adventures instead.

Basically I'd keep the Murder, keep the last 1/3 of the adventure, and redesign the entire missing section, to make it workable.

 

[KarinsDad]

I've always been a big fan of adventure designers creating flowcharts for their adventures with multiple entry points and multiple exit points for each "encounter" (be it social, or combat, or investigative, or whatever). Especially in a murder mystery (which many DMs tend to run so infrequently). But it's obvious that most designers do not do flowcharts.

It's a shame because when the players have choices and they go with one and follow a trail of breadcrumbs, they eventually get to the same place, it feels organic instead of forced.

Simple example:

Party starts at tavern. They hear 3 rumors. One goes to the temple, one goes to the brewer, and one goes to the mayor.

From each of these locations, their are 2 to 4 clues to follow (and the clues can come from multiple NPCs on the way to those locations, not necessarily by a single NPC at that location). Rarely do any of these clues immediately head back to either of the other two locations (temple, brewer, or mayor) because that feels forced. Instead, the PCs are going off and doing other things not directly relevant to the other two original locations. If the players decide to not follow the 2 to 4 clues, they can go head to one of the other two locations.

And most of these clues should be directly or indirectly related to the original problem. In the case of Murder in Baldur's Gate, that should probably be the actual murder.

Finally, I think that all adventures should be playtested with players who are instructed to be a little contrary now and again. It's all well and nice to playtest the railroad exactly as the tracks are laid down, but getting off the tracks needs to be playtested a bit as well. That way, at least some of the obvious potholes can be filled.

 

[occam]

Let me illustrate this way:

The hook isn't Warhammerian: "let's work for some powerful people for a change; authority and gold is a new feeling, but it feels good!"

It is D&Dian: "a most noble hero has been slain, lets uncover the foul beasts that have planned this so we can best them in manly combat!"

Meaning that I sense a complete mismatch between the hook, the intro on one hand (heroic D&D), and actual events of the adventure on the other (Warhammerian themes of being predestined pawns).

I don't know, I've known a lot of D&D players/characters who were more interested in gold and authority than in noble deeds. Including most of the players I DMed in this adventure.

I still feel the adventure is great, and that it can work.

But I imagine players will treat the crisis as a sideshow, at least initially, wanting to focus on finding out more about the bhaalspawn. And so I believe one of two things need to happen, taking this basic fact into consideration one way or another:

Either A) we come up with better support for the "bhaalspawn mystery", starting with the elephant in the room:

I guess this is where I'm missing the problem. Where is the mystery? The identity of the murderer isn't in question; the murder is committed in as public a manner as possible. If you want to find out more about him, go ahead; and in his years of exile or whatever, he apparently gathered together a little gang to help with the mayhem. Case closed, time to move on to other things... like the interesting offers being made to you after the events of the first session....

When I DMed this, nobody considered the initial murder to leave any open questions that needed answering. Questions came much later, when they started getting a sense of how everything was heading....

- What do the Big Three say when the adventurers confront them about the point of all this day-to-day business? And ask where their support for uncovering clues about the murder went? (I genuinely want answers where these power players lie about it, plant evidence and otherwise try to get the adventurers drive to work for them) Things like: "Go kill this person, he was implicated" stuff that simultaneously is plausible and allows the party to expose their employer's real motives.

Or B) we come up with better support for an actual investigation. Ideally one that ties into existing material, of course. (I guess even a complete separate line of clues will eventually mesh with the PCs "other duties" if only because of their "straight to hell" qualities...)