# Adventure layout question - redundant ship rules



## RangerWickett (Apr 8, 2012)

I'm editing the text of adventure 4 now, and I have a question. I hope I can get responses from both subscribers to the adventure path and folks who might pick up one or two adventures but aren't likely to play the whole series.

The thing is, most every adventure has some element of naval combat. Adventure 2 and 3 included an appendix at the back to help handle action aboard ships, but I don't want to eat up 4 to 6 pages in every book reprinting the same "quick play rules" and maps of ships when those have been released previously.

My proposed solution is for us to have a free "quick play PDF" available to download for anyone (which will also act as a bit of a teaser for Admiral o' the High Seas). We'll include a link to it in each future book. People who want the material in print will have to either print it out, or buy a print version of adventure 2, adventure 3, or Admiral o' the High Seas.

How does that sound?

Also, as a side note for those who've run naval encounters using the quick play rules, do you have any feedback? I'm using them as a baseline for the more detailed ship adventure rules in AotHS, and I can only playtest so much myself.


----------



## Colmarr (Apr 8, 2012)

The quick play pdf sounds like a good idea.

Can't offer any feedback on the naval rules because my players aren't up to that stage yet (and in fact look like missing the smuggling subplot in Adventure 2 altogether).


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 8, 2012)

The same thing's happening with a group I'm running for now. They said they wanted to follow one lead at a time to the end before trying to follow anything else. They got the Nevard lead and finished Cauldron Hill by night 3. Then they handled Wolfgang, and they're about ready for Nevard's speech. I'm trying to see if they bite if I dangle the smugglers as a sidequest (presented by another RHC operative), because we've got two wizards who might be interested in filching illicit wands.

The first group I playtested -- admittedly in a much less fleshed-out version -- handled the smugglers first, and it somehow seemed so natural how it worked with them. Ah well, I'll try to be more careful with future branching plots.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Apr 8, 2012)

A seperate Quick-play book sounds like a great idea, certainly for ease of access. Unfortunately, I also can't give any feedback on them, as the party has pretty much ignored the smuggling sub-plot in favour of the other plot threads dangling in front of them. 

 In between _Dying Skyseer _and _Digging for lies_ I'm going to have the party encounter their nemesis from the introductory adventure I ran before the first adventure. I'll be using the quick-play rules during the climax of that little side-quest, so I'll get back to you then.


----------



## Falkus (Apr 8, 2012)

My player's followed up on the smuggling plot; but infiltrated the group rather than intercept them at sea; so the naval rules really didn't come into play.

A quick play PDF would be a great idea though; it'd give me something that I can email my players so they can read the rules before the session.


----------



## Ajar (Apr 8, 2012)

+1 to the Quick Play PDF and not including the rules in the adventures.


----------



## Colmarr (Apr 9, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> Ah well, I'll try to be more careful with future branching plots.




I wouldn't be disappointed by this if I were you. I think it's one of the best things about the adventure: that the PCs can take different paths and still arrive at a successful conclusion without it feeling anything like a railroad.

It might be frustrating from a writing sense (write 4 plots in the knowledge that only 3 get used), but from a DM perspective it's amazing.


----------



## gideonpepys (Apr 9, 2012)

Colmarr said:


> I wouldn't be disappointed by this if I were you.




I concur. I view it as a sign of great writing: It was something I only noticed when playing through the adventure, that the PCs could effectively solve the mytery without engaging in the smuggling thread at all.  That is not a weakness, as all threads shouldn't be directly relevant.

As to the OP, it seems to be a perfectly elegant solution to printing the rules out multiple times.


----------



## Multiplesofme (Apr 10, 2012)

You already have a number of posts with positive feedback, but to throw in my 2 cents, I love the idea of having a separate pdf for the quick play rules with ship layouts and such.

While expensive, I find that I print in full color each adventure, and like the idea of reducing duplication. I paid some .49 cents for each page of Dying Skyseer, which was probably excessive, but I like the high quality printout.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 10, 2012)

Ooh, that's pricey. Next time get one of the print-on-demand copies.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 10, 2012)

Multiplesofme said:


> While expensive, I find that I print in full color each adventure, and like the idea of reducing duplication. I paid some .49 cents for each page of Dying Skyseer, which was probably excessive, but I like the high quality printout.




Yeah, like Ryan said - we sell the softcover versions for half that price.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/96043/ZEITGEIST-%232%3A-The-Dying-Skyseer-%284E%29

Each adventure has a softcover version a couple of weeks later.


----------



## Cheezmo Miner (Apr 13, 2012)

I intend to use different rules anyway. My players have easy access to them and it seemed to me unnecessary to implement a new set of rules when Pathfinder already had two versions. Maybe it is necessary in 4e?

I may be wrong, but Pathfinder people might not require the rules--or maybe I'm missing something and the current rules don't quite measure up to what the adventures need.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 13, 2012)

My understanding is that the Skull & Shackles ship rules don't easily handle scenes with more than 2 ships.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 15, 2012)

I re-subbed specifically for Zeitgeist. 

Anyway, that sounds like a fine plan.  When/if I run it, I'll be running mostly from Masterplan, so having a separate PDF sounds - if anything - _more_ convenient.

-O


----------

