# Not enough tension in Shelter from the Storm?



## RangerWickett (May 10, 2007)

This review at RPGNow - http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?mid=313&reviews_id=15838& - makes me curious. Do other people share the same opinion regarding the tension in the third adventure?



			
				Review said:
			
		

> It doesn't link to the War of the Burning Sky plot in the sort of obvious ways one might expect. The sense of tension and threat from the forces of the Empire is further muted in this third installment, only truly manifesting later in the story.




I hope that, in the grand scale of the campaign, the third adventure accomplishes the necessary task of broadening the scope of the conflict, and that the immediate danger from Ragesia returns in adventure four. I wanted to make Seaquen into a legitimate safe haven, so I can threaten it later. What do you think? Would you have wanted more immediate tension from Ragesia in the third adventure, and if so how would you have wanted to include it?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (May 11, 2007)

I have only done my inititial read through since my group is just getting to the fun parts in the Fire Forest... but I think the review is more a reflection of expectations un-met, of which he refers to once. 


 I can see how proper presentation can keep the "Nazgul's hoofs" bearing down on the group, but I seem to remember from *reading* the Trilogy that the heroes had a number of restful encounters and political sidebar that introduced them to the wider world.

 I intend on playing up the refugee problem and keeping the War just over the horizen...however MacDonald is right in that political connections and links to the campaign overall can easily be missed by yoru typical gaming group. Since mine is nowhere near 'typical' I expect to be doing some PBEM between sessions to key them into the details they overshoot.

 I like the adventure as written and really hope my group gets engaged in the refugee's plight. I think the adding a Ragesian presense would not add anything...after all you already have a number of factions into play. It would be like bringing Darth Vader into the room... suddenly only one faction really matters and the rest of the story gets lost in the sound of terror.

YMMV


----------



## Jason Anderson (May 11, 2007)

I don't share the same opinion of the third adventure (I liked it, although #1 and #4 are my favourites so far), but I think he identified a part of what I didn't like about the second adventure. After the first adventure being all about "we've got to get away before the empire catches us", that really gets lost in the second adventure. Sure, it does make a bit of an appearance, but it feels very much like an afterthought.

Having said that, I am enjoying the series so far, and I can't wait to see what's in stall for us later on! 

Cheers,
Jason


----------



## RangerWickett (May 11, 2007)

Jason Anderson said:
			
		

> After the first adventure being all about "we've got to get away before the empire catches us", that really gets lost in the second adventure.




If our defense, that's because they got away, and the empire didn't catch them.


----------



## Morrus (May 11, 2007)

I dunno - the adventure's title is "*Shelter * from the Storm", which implies a bit of respite to me.  It's the third adventure of twelve, and they're long modules: it's a long, long campaign saga, and that's still in the buildup stages.  There's a hell of a lot of Ragesians and war to come!


----------



## Jason Anderson (May 11, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> If our defense, that's because they got away, and the empire didn't catch them.



True that  But I think I might have found the second adventure less... out of place?... if the main focus of it had still been the Ragesians, with the content of the existing #2 adventure moved to #3 or #4 in the series. No sure how you'd do that though.


----------



## Marius Delphus (May 11, 2007)

Jason Anderson said:
			
		

> True that  But I think I might have found the second adventure less... out of place?... if the main focus of it had still been the Ragesians, with the content of the existing #2 adventure moved to #3 or #4 in the series. No sure how you'd do that though.



Easy.

Making Shelter the Second Adventure: Move Seaquen fairly close to Gate Pass and increase the refugee problem there to catastrophe level. Place the Fire Forest between Seaquen and Dassen and make it the reason the refugees flock to Seaquen in the first place. Then make the influx of refugees the reason Ragesia bears down on the place. Perhaps Ragesian diplomats move in with offers of peace and assistance... if only Seaquen will submit to the anti-magic-user pogrom, bow down to Leska, let the Ragesians raze Lyceum, and a few other unacceptable demands. The climactic episode of the adventure becomes the "consequence" of Seaquen's refusal to submit. Modify all the encounters to take into account the PCs' reduced level.

Making Fire Forest the Third Adventure: Get the characters motivated to travel to Dassen through the Fire Forest. Maybe Dassen has extra resources that Seaquen is willing to purchase or barter for after what happens in Shelter; perhaps the PCs will need to herd trade goods through the Forest while being pursued by Ragesians who are upset about the PCs' success in Seaquen (brewhaha!). Make the Fire Forest slightly more hazardous so that the PCs are more willing to get sidetracked into solving the problem. Modify every encounter to take into account the PCs' increased levels. 

... Maybe not so easy. But doable. Theoretically. Keeping in mind that I think the narrative flow is fine as is, but that's how I'd make the specific requested change.


----------

