Betrayer of Asgard

[aethelwulf22]

Well, I got my copy this morning. I must admit I've really been looking forward to this as this part of Hyboria has always fascinated me.

However, I must say that on a purely visual level I'm a little disappointed. Firstly, I'm not a huge fan of the cover and think a glorious opportunity was missed to have Conan battling Vanir. And I'm also not too keen on the lettering on the spine being in black and orange. The white worked well so why change it?

Secondly, I'm also not a huge fan of the 'quick sketch' style art inside the book and would have prefered something a little more finished as in the main 2nd ed rulebook. And also why is the art for the Oruxa character at the back of the book the same as that for the Orchana character 4 pages later. Anyway, I guess these first two whinges of mine are a matter of taste.

But my final whinge is about the maps...they are pretty poor quality and look like they come from some basic computer mapping package (the maps on pgs.31, 60 and 102 are truly awful). :roll:

Oh well. Still, I have high hopes for the adventure itself as after a quick skim it looks great. If my toddler gives me a chance I'll get stuck in.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

And also why is the art for the Oruxa character at the back of the book the same as that for the Orchana character 4 pages later

That should become clear when you read the description - they're twins.

 

[aethelwulf22]

And also why is the art for the Oruxa character at the back of the book the same as that for the Orchana character 4 pages later

That should become clear when you read the description - they're twins.

Aah! Humble apologies. I did say I had only flicked through but that would certainly explain that one.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

No worries.

 

[kintire]

I have exactly one quibble with it: the beginning section where (without giving too much away) you have the results of the Character's efforts for a good session of play, then a flashback to how they got there. That kind of device works well in a film or novel: I am unconvinced by its use in an RPG. RPGs do not have an outcome that precise. Apart frpom that: great job!

 

[thulsa]

Well, I got my copy this morning. (...) Still, I have high hopes for the adventure itself as after a quick skim it looks great.

I got my copy too recently, and I had a quick read through the first chapter the other day. I have to say it is very well written, with a non-stop series of cool encounters that keeps the action moving like a good Conan story. It isn't just a bunch of monsters to fight either, for each section has nice descriptions of how to, for example, use the terrain to affect the fight.

If the other chapters are as good as the first one, this thing should be awesome to play.

- thulsa

 

[Hervé]

Kintire wrote:

I have exactly one quibble with it: the beginning section where (without giving too much away) you have the results of the Character's efforts for a good session of play, then a flashback to how they got there. That kind of device works well in a film or novel: I am unconvinced by its use in an RPG. RPGs do not have an outcome that precise. Apart frpom that: great job!

I've used flashbacks before in my games and it worked pretty well so far.
However, I didn't get my copy yet, so I can't tell about the way it's done in Betrayer.

Cimmeria, Cities, Kithai and Betrayer in less than one month. Seems like Mongoose stroke a deal with Santa Claus! And we even have Thulsa's Spider-God's Bride as bonus gift!

Thanks for all guys, and Happy Christmas to everyone!

 

[Hervé]

My copy just arrived, along with Traveler's Tales for PEG Solomon Kane.
Both look nice...

 

[kintire]

I've used flashbacks before in my games and it worked pretty well so far.
However, I didn't get my copy yet, so I can't tell about the way it's done in Betrayer.

It has two: one which is done poorly, and one which is done excellently. And all you have to do about the poor one is shift it back to its rpoper place in the sequence. In fact, one of my objections to the flashback is that that process is so easy, its difficult to see why the flashback was needed at all!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Betrayer of Asgard is just being uploaded to Drivethru right now!

 

[warzen]

Any feedback on this campaign book?

Thx,
W.

 

[Demetrio]

The storyline is good and being given a choice of bad guy is a nice touch. The adventure is fairly good at covering all possible bases as far as the encounters are concerned.

Personally I think both the flashbacks will work just fine though the second creates no potential issues whatsoever whereas the first might be awkward if a pc dies 'earlier' - ie when you run the scenes that chronologically precede it. But honestly, how often do pcs die in your games? It's worth the (tiny) risk to create a strong opening rather than the usual drab 'You are sitting in an in when x appears with a proposition for you' or suchlike bollox. And if the worst happens surely any group will be happy to fudge a little (say by delaying the pc death until it is 'possible'), assuming they have no Fate Points left that is.

The 'Victory Point' concept works quite well too although it would probably have been better if they'd been called something else. Plot Points maybe. Or Story Points.

There is quite a lot of combat and one part of the adventure is slightly 'dungeony' to my mind - perhaps too many monsters are encountered in the course of the story. Not that any of the encounters are poorly done. Just there may be too many different beasts encountered in a shortish timespan for some tastes. And one monster in particular seemed to me to be rather unConan. It may appear in a pastiche but to me it jarred.

Experience point awards are suggested for the end of every chapter and are comprehensive. Conan material is usually so vague about awards that this was a very nice feature.

The maps range from adequate to crap.

There's a few typos but nothing major as far as I can see.

Overall I think it's good value and, as rpg adventures go, solidly above average. It's not amazing but it is well thought out, clearly presented and with a good and suitably Conanesque plot. It should provide some memorable moments.

 

[kintire]

Personally I think both the flashbacks will work just fine though the second creates no potential issues whatsoever whereas the first might be awkward if a pc dies 'earlier' - ie when you run the scenes that chronologically precede it. But honestly, how often do pcs die in your games?

Not very often. But far more often they do something I didn't forsee, fail spectacularly, succeed so well with some left field plan that I can't justify any pursuit, decide to leave a scene in some totally different direction/way/method because "they'll never expect it!", kill NPCs I didn't think they would kill, swap sides, have crises of conscience etc etc etc.

The first flashback in Betrayers requires that the PCs end a scenario in a given place, with a given widget, having succeeded in getting it, but not so well there is no pursuit and with a given set of NPCs alive and with them.

Dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

 

[Demetrio]

But given the linearity of the storyline, it will fail at any point if the players diverge to any significant degree.

I think players should curb their desire for 'character free will' in order to help a stortyline along. And if one is content to wing it with a more free form story then one probably doesn't need or want published adventures - or at least ones of such length where there is a necessary sequence of events.

 

[Hervé]

The first flashback seems to me really playable as is. It should not cause any problem to the average GM to lead the players to the starting point.

Overall, I liked the book. Far better than Trial of Blood, actually. I also found there was a bit too much of monsters and supernatural events, but I suppose it's quite unavoidable in a D20 campaign book (this one's for kintire :twisted: )

 

[warzen]

Thank you for your replies.
I'll need to buy it but I have some many unread rpg books...

W.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

The first flashback in Betrayers requires that the PCs end a scenario in a given place, with a given widget, having succeeded in getting it, but not so well there is no pursuit and with a given set of NPCs alive and with them.

Dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

Well, there's no way for the scenario to proceed if they _don't_ have the widget, and you can keep Olaf alive pretty easily ('Ach, I fell off the cliff, but I landed in a convenient snowdrift!). The opening flashback is, as Demetrio pointed out, mainly there to give the game a strong opening, and you can remove if you're worried.

The 'too much supernatural stuff' is fair comment - if I get to do another Conan megacampaign, I really want to try doing one that's much more earthy. I'd love to do a Kozak campaign that culminates in sacking a city...

 

[Hervé]

Mongoose Gar wrote:

I'd love to do a Kozak campaign that culminates in sacking a city...

Now that's Conan! .I'd love to see that! My players spent quite a time with te Kozaki, harassing Turanian outposts and caravans. Sacking a city would be way cool! 8). You did a really good job on Betrayer, so I'd trust you on that one!

And perhaps it would influence the people that be at Mongoose to finally publish the long awaited Turan sourcebook... Ah, but I'm dreaming again!

As a Nordheim sourcebook would have been a great support for Betrayer, but there are things I'll never understand with Mongoose, like releasing a Kithai sourcebook followed by a Nordheim campaign... I guess it would be quite logical for any other company to publish related sourcebooks and adventures, but not for our beloved goose.
I guess that's why we love them! :wink:

 

[kintire]

but I suppose it's quite unavoidable in a D20 campaign book (this one's for kintire )

Feeble. A) its obvious nonsense, and B) Betrayers of Asgard has fewer supernatural monsters per page than Scarlet Citadel, for a start.

 

[kintire]

The opening flashback is, as Demetrio pointed out, mainly there to give the game a strong opening, and you can remove if you're worried.

I did say it was easy to remove. I am concerned that a minor quibble, and it is a minor quibble, and I said it was, is taking up too much space in this thread. However, I do not like too much railroading in scenarios. The PCs are obliged to follow the plot, of course, or fail. But the plot just requires that they get from A to B with the widget. Suppose, for example, that they decide not to flee the settlement but retain their disguise as innocent merchants, and come up with an expert plan to stash the widget for the search, recover it later and leave still in disguise? Suppose they ace their hide and bluff rolls to carry it off?

The problem with the first flashback is that it requires that the PCs do one specific plan in one specific way. What if they come up with something completely different?