[greenstuff_gav]

so, here's a run down of my scenario this year

IGT13: Deep Impact

Deep Impact was designed to be close to the climax of a campaign; 2 players have met in an abandoned power facility to trade information, while a 3rd is fighting the Big Bad Evil Guy on the roof.

Player 1's objective is straightforward; convince player 2 to hand over the data-slate and make sure at least 1 character is holding it at the end of the game.

Player 2 is to ensure player 1 succeeds, but i also slipped mention of a Rogue Mechanicus in there, hoping to have a Mechanicus-themed crew to be player 1 to spark off some conflict

Player 3 has it all going on; unconcerned with subterfuge they are mid-battle with the BBEG  when the roof collapses, dropping into this clandestine meeting!

having received an average score i don't think the scenario worked at all... i'm going to throw some ideas and suggestions here incase anyone decided to give the game a try

i think the first issue is with player 2's objectives; there is no conflict in supporting player 1 (which ironically worked last year!) .. instead i'd be tempted to simply put a bounty on one of Player 1's characters, but this would involve more on-the-day-improvisation...

With the introduction of Player 3 to the scenario, i'd be tempted to put the BBEG in the centre of the board, and scatter the Doomsday Weapon backwards 2D10"; this will allow people to avoid her and give player 3 more of a chance of jumping in on the action.

I was surprised that everyone attacked the BBEG: she's deliberately tough, but doesn't have alot of damage output to try and coax people into coming up with alternate methods of dealing with The Weapon...

of course, with the scenario plot-wise, the idea would be that if the weapon launched there would be the opportunity to have a followup scenaro, the weapon is stuck in caverns leading to a find-and-disarm game and if the players dealt with the BBEG then it would be nice and climactic to end the campaign (bar a reward-game!)

so, hope it's an interesting read; it should be all self-contained

[MarcoSkoll]

As your player 3, my honest feedback is that, yes, the scenario didn't have huge reason to draw us into any real conflict.

At no point were we more in danger of disagreeing than a "Hang on, who are you?" when my characters turned up, which got brushed aside fairly efficiently by my Rogue Trader shouting "In the name of the Emperor, get the Evil Mechanicus lady!"

Perhaps had it been unclear whether it was my party or Tiamat that was the threat (or if I'd had more reason to doubt Player 1 or 2 being a threat), or the attack gave reason for Player 1 and/or 2 to doubt the other.

Maybe if the information being traded was actually regards Tiamat, with red herrings in the fluff to make Players 1 & 2 think that it might be a trap or sting, with the other parties potentially agents of Tiamat baiting them out to be eliminated.
And perhaps player 3 is too warned that allies of Tiamat might be in the area.

At that point, it's more of a powder keg.

[Kaled]

I was Player 2 in this scenario at the IGT, with the objective to get the data slate to Player 1 and ensure they were holding it at the end of the game.  Since I deployed right next to Player 1's character's and after a few actions talking was able to just hand over the data slate I was a bit confused about what I should be doing.  When Tiamat appeared and Player 1's character's moved to attack I decided to take a different approach since my briefing said that the weapon should be assessed and started a conversation with Tiamat.  So we talked for a while and Tiamat agreed to talk with my AdMech character, but then Player 3 turned up and started shooting and Player 1's character's joined in.  Tiamat returned fire and one of the mole mortar shells was fired straight at my characters who then had little choice but to fight as well (after ordering Player 1's character holding the data slate to get clear).

I think the scenario would have been improved if Players 1 and 2 had been given some reason to distrust one another so it was more a case of enemies exchanging information rather than a peaceful meeting.  Then when Tiamat and Player 3 arrived it could have been left ambiguous as to which of them we should have been fighting - as it was I had good reason to think Tiamat was a threat so paid more attention to her and less to Player 3.  Player 3 was clearly after Tiamat and not interested in us so Player 1 fought against Tiamat as well.  Maybe either Player 1 or 2 (or both) should have been given some reason to side with Tiamat.  Or, if the intention was that the three players should have to band together to defeat Tiamat, then the briefings should have pushed us more in that direction and it should have been made clear she was too powerful for us to bring down and to force use to come up with other ways to defeat her.  The latter is what I was trying to do with my scenario - have what seemed like a no win situation and force the characters to work together and think of a way to beat it.  (Unfortunately I made the clues too cryptic and no one figured out the solution.  I had hoped they'd figure it out in the first half of the game and the second part would be deciding how to implement the solution.  I think I'll refine it and try it again next time, because I think it could be a very interesting game with the right characters).

Seems like while I was slowly typing my reply, Marco has said basically the same thing...

[MarcoSkoll]

Or, if the intention was that the three players should have to band together to defeat Tiamat, then the briefings should have pushed us more in that direction and it should have been made clear she was too powerful for us to bring down and to force use to come up with other ways to defeat her.

True. In the tight time scale of the game, we didn't really have time to discover that she was an immovable object and reassess based on that.

A large model like hers was obviously intended to be fairly tough, but it wasn't ever that clear that lateral thinking was needed - or what that might have been. In fact, her low damage output probably was less helpful in steering us in our methods, as we weren't ever discouraged from the direct approach by getting bloodied noses.

Had the game gone on longer, Sgt. Kronen might have tried her luck in a few different ways - she might tried to get in close and have a go at the drill with either her explosives experience or point blank use of her machine pistol*.

*It uses sabot rounds - she normally keeps it around for shooting people on the other side of walls, but it goes through heavily armoured machinery quite well too.
She's quite the walking armoury, but that's what the art and fluff in WD284 said - and I liked them too much to not steal something just the once.