Space Monkey said:

Glad it's not just me who thought that.

Personally the line that really struck me as a bad sign was where the planet setting was described as 'an unremarkable agri-world' ... hm 'unremarkable' huh, how interesting.

Abnett would never include scenes set on an agri-world backdrop that could be described and summed up as 'unremarkable' to the reader. Remember that agri-world where Eisenhorn has a shootout in a cropfield, the one where mega-harvesting machines thresh such a quantity of crops they create sap-rain that coats everything in sticky slime, or where there are mutie slave labourer slum towns, etc etc. Or the planet with the herds of meat animals, and they go to a very colourfully and atmospherically described butchery town?

Unremarkable is fine for how an agri-world might be seen to people in the setting, to we readers however there really should be no unremarkable planets in the 40K setting. Tatooine was unremarkable and boring to people in the Star Wars setting, it was fascinating and exciting and wonderfully 'alien' however to we viewers. I want to hear what's interesting about this world and don't tell me nothing, that's just not imaginative or good writing imo.

The adventure is, as I previously suspected, a railroad, where the party moves from one combat to another, with perhaps some chatting to PDF forces to compell or convince them to help in future combats. Really, exactly what I feared DW adventures would be, and we were assured they would not be.

@Space Monkey

Have to say that I've had a read through the adventure and, with no offence meant to the creators, I'm struggling to see where all the praise is coming from. It basically boils down to "You land on the planet and fight a group of foes. Move to this location and fight some foes, then move here and fight more foes, then move here and fight even more foes, stop this being destroyed by fighting some foes, reach the end and fight lots of foes. Then end". Hell, even I could have written that one and my adventure writing skills leave little to be desired.

Considering this game has been stated as being more than combat I think the introductory adventure for it is a very poor example of just how different and versatile marines can be, and I hope to christ that the main rule book has more to offer in the missions department.

While I generally see where you're coming from, you might not be giving the adventure credit where it's due. There are quite a few social scenes - rallying the almost routed soldiers in the chapel, persuading/intimidating the governor, gaining access to the Astropath through the Hollow Guard. These can be played out as curtly ("Make a fellowship roll") or as lengthily as the GM wants. Investigation comes into play when the characters are trying to find the place where the Broodlord actually resides and where the rebel base is (no, threatening pretty princesses you'll destroy their home planet doesn't work).

Of course, combat remains an important focus of the adventure, but seriously: When you're sending for the Deathwatch, it's usually not because you need someone for pretty talking. Pretty talking may come up during the mission, but the mission will generally either be about combat or about a show of force so that it doesn't come to combat.

@Adam France

Personally the line that really struck me as a bad sign was where the planet setting was described as 'an unremarkable agri-world' ... hm 'unremarkable' huh, how interesting.

Abnett would never include scenes set on an agri-world backthat could be described and summed up as 'unremarkable' to the reader. Remember that agri-world where Eisenhorn has a shootout in a cropfield, the one where mega-harvesting machines thresh such a quantity of crops they create sap-rain that coats everything in sticky slime, or where there are mutie slave labourer slum towns, etc etc. Or the planet with the herds of meat animals, and they go to a very colourfully and atmospherically described butchery town?

Unremarkable is fine for how an agri-world might be seen to people in the setting, to we readers however there really should be no unremarkable planets in the 40K setting. Tatooine was unremarkable and boring to people in the Star Wars setting, it was fascinating and exciting and wonderfully 'alien' however to we viewers. I want to hear what's interesting about this world and don't tell me nothing, that's just not imaginative or good writing imo.

I have to wonder... did Abnett write about this agriworld on the same 38 pages he also introduced all the characters and wrote the actual storyline?
The agriworld is unimportant to the story as the characters will most likely never venture outside the city. And look - the city is given quite a bit of description, the most interesting point probably being the network of channels, making me imagine Venice or Amsterdam.

The adventure is, as I previously suspected, a railroad, where the party moves from one combat to another, with perhaps some chatting to PDF forces to compell or convince them to help in future combats. Really, exactly what I feared DW adventures would be, and we were assured they would not be.

We may have differing opinions about what constitutes a railroad then. I think it's clear that an adventure both has a specified beginning (your drop-pod crashlands on the agriworld near that one chapel) and one or several goals (contact the Astropath, kill the Broodlord) to reach. Keeping that in mind, what would you personally put into the adventure to make it less railroad-y?

Sure, I accept naturally, this is a sample adventure, so expecting reams of info on the world is unreasonable, a page of interesting and evocative description would be fine imo. Either way, 'unremarkable' should not be in the dictionary for GM descriptions of settings in the 40k universe.

I'm not going to tear that adventure apart and put it back together again, where's the point in that? I'll just say I'd have preferred a more free form adventure, that gives the chance of combat in an interesting and memorable setting (the city is okay as far as it goes, but it needs more work imo, and a map), but also other challenges that the pcs can chose to handle in other ways. I'd want more interesting npcs, perhaps more factions, and less of the looming sense of the railroad conductor forcing you down certain routes.

I also think the Horde rules seem ... shakey. I haven't fully read them yet, but in principle they seem to force enemy units into being of a certain full on type. Which is not a good thing imo.

It's a sample advenure at the end of the day, nevertheless I was dissapointed. I am very pessimistic about this game. FFG just seem to want to take things in a more 4e-esque route generally than I'd prefer.

EDIT - Re your question about how many pages of the novel Abnett took out to describe the agriworld I mentioned, I couldn't say, not many certainly. He just gave it interesting colour and flavour, which is all we really need in a sample. Certainly he did a thousand times better in a couple of paragraphs than 'an unremarkable agri-world'.

With a military adventure, one has to wonder if "railroading" is having specific "waypoints," or whether it is in forcing only a limited number of solutions to the story. The now-defunct GDP (if I remember my acronyms correctly) that produced materials for the Traveller game universe that included at least one adventure (that I remember) that included a "nugget," or nodal, approach to adventures. That is, there were specific scenes that were appropriate for the overall theme of the adventure, but how the PCs got to each scene wasn't really that relevant. Information was provided to sandbox (as much as possible) the setting of the adventure so as to facilitate this.

A military adventure just strikes me as a nodal/"nugget" approach to writing a scenario. It would, for me, be "railroading" if the adventure forced you to achieve each waypoint, each objective, in a specific order. Rather than a sandbox, you've got the yellow plot road.

Is Final Sanction the sandbox, or the Yellow Plot Road?

(On the other hand, at the moment I'm kind of sharing that opinion on the Horde rules. Still need to see the final product, though.)

Kage

Adam, I think you're really off base here. A single adventure *does not * mean that every adventure using the same system will be exactly the same. FFG has already given examples of the DW team being bodyguards for an =I= on a diplomatic mission, or being an exploration team looking for Xenos artifacts, etc. where there can be much less combat. You could easily have missions where the primary objectives are not combat oriented at all.

That said, here's Final Sanction ... The PCs are dropped into the middle of a combat scene, mainly to show the Horde mechanics. Involved in that scene, the GM has the option to make one of the Turning Points a social item requiring the Marines to bolster the flagging PDF morale.

Other than the fight at the chapel, the SM don't technically have to fight anyone else other than the Broodlord. They can sneak past or evade, or otherwise avoid combat with all the Hordes. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that combat does feature somewhat prominently, given the situation. It does not mean that it is the end-all or the only way the game can be played. There are a few social situations, but keep in mind that part of a demo adventure's function is to show off and test "new" features. Socially, other than social-oriented Demeanours, there isn't a lot of new ways to be social in Deathwatch over the other games. The Horde mechanics, and Genestealers, though, are new, so they get more focus so that people can try them out more and get more of an idea how they work. That's part of what a demo is supposed to do.

@ Kage

A military adventure just strikes me as a nodal/"nugget" approach to writing a scenario. It would, for me, be "railroading" if the adventure forced you to achieve each waypoint, each objective, in a specific order. Rather than a sandbox, you've got the yellow plot road.

Is Final Sanction the sandbox, or the Yellow Plot Road?

Based on your description, DW is pretty much a sandbox. The only objectives that *must* be completed at the primary ones (in order to be considered to have successfully completed the mission). Nothing (usually) says how the Primary objectives need to be completed. Secondary Objectives give bonuses, aid, or information, which tend to help the team succeed in their primary objectives, (and give more xp and reknown at the end) but are not required, nor are they required to be done in a certain order or method. Lastly, there are Tertiary objectives, which are targets of opportunity, such as eliminating enemy leaders, killing other important enemies, eliminating a supply line, etc. Again, not required to complete the mission, nor required to be done in any order or method.

dvang said:

Yeah, I know how that goes. I've played First Person Shooter games as well.

Kage