When working through the storyline, the characters can quite easily chance upon a magic item:
Eyes of the Eagle
The adventure provides an apt description and all that, but then implies that the party can just take it, when it is *CLEARLY* not something that would have been given up freely to them. This is further reinforced when a guard later can "better describe the item" (meaning the party must have taken it). I know that sometimes this game devolves into a video-game-like "found magic item, now mine" mentality, but this one seems pretty muddled - anyone else run into this and what did you end up doing?
After reading that section of DDAL 9-02, I don't really see an issue with it.
"If Bolnata doesn’t give the characters the box (see Treasure), it can be easily found here."
"If shown the Infernal writing from the crime scene, she fetches Markus’s family heirloom from the bedroom, an old box made of dark, polished wood (see Treasure)."
"Treasure
This old wooden box is inlaid with silver Infernal runes at the bottom of the closet. The inscription reads: “HELL AND BACK AGAIN.” Inside is a pair of eyes of the eagle, made of leather with lenses of dark red crystal. The frame is emblazoned with the emblem of a horse’s head on a sunburst. A character who succeeds on a DC 11 Intelligence (History) check knows that this symbol is the heraldry of the Hellriders. Elturgardian characters or those with the Soldier background make this check with advantage."
It seems to me that the NPC is likely to give the box containing the magic item to the PCs. They could also take it as part of their search. The infernal runes on the box appear to be part of the mystery the characters are trying to solve. It is possible, from a character perspective, that the contents of the box might also be relevant to the investigation, so I could see the characters keeping both the box and contents though the more honest ones might promise to return it when the investigation is done. The NPC appears to be willing to do anything that might help with the investigation while also wants to be left alone to mourn.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "it is *CLEARLY* not something that would have been given up freely to them." when the text says "If Bolnata doesn’t give the characters the box" ... which implies that the NPC is quite willing to give up the box and its contents to those investigating her husbands murder.
It's another example of lazy or sloppy writing in some of these adventures. However, you are right that I shouldn't have said "clearly" when the whole this is unclear to begin with.
I simply don't agree that the statement "if Bolnata doesn't give the characters the box" implies that she would or should. Her husband just died and she is going to pony up what might be his most prized possession? I could understand if they were loaned it or allowed to examine it, but just not "here, you look like adventures in a game that could use another magic item." If the author intended for this to end up in the character's hands by design, it is a simple, simple thing to stitch that in that would have taken, what, a 10-word sentence, maybe? Looks like we will just have to disagree on that one.
I agree it could be clearer. However, keep in mind that if this is a "most prized possession" ... you have to ask why he keeps it at the bottom of a closet. It sounds more like a weird box that her husband keeps stored lying around with some weird writing on it. However, in that case, it might have been better to not describe it as a "family heirloom" making it sound valuable.
In any case, Bolnata wants to help solve her husband's murder and wants to be left alone as soon as possible. If giving the characters some box with weird writing that her husband kept in the bottom of a closet accomplishes both these goals then I don't really see any issue with her giving it up. At this point in time, I don't think the NPC is very concerned with whatever might be in the box. She appears to be wealthy enough and likely unaware of whatever her husbands box might contain. In fact, if the box somehow contributed to her husbands death she might be happy to get rid of the thing.
However, I agree that the situation could have been clarified with a sentence or two ... but as a DM, it seems the intent in the module is to get the box into the hands of the players and I don't see any issue with role playing the NPC in such a way that this makes sense.
P.S. Compared to the inconsistencies I've encountered in other modules, this is pretty minor. Even with published content, the DM needs to read it over and figure out an approach that makes sense and accomplishes the goals of the module since sometimes the writer has something "cool" happen because they think it would be fun but leave out any explanation for why this "cool" thing happens, or how or what the NPCs had in mind at the time - some writers are great at setting a scene and terrible at making sure the internal logic and consistency makes sense.
Yeah, no question on the level of egregiousness on this one, this is certainly a misdemeanor at best when compared to others. It seems like it was perhaps written with deliberate ambiguity so that the DM can decide whether this would be something helpful to the story for the characters to have or something that undermines what is trying to be accomplished. Having something like this may make it difficult to execute / exercise certain downstream elements planned as encounter challenges if the characters can simply use this thing to see them coming. I am the type of DM who is inclined to exercise the skill system and RNG to help "collapse" some of these uncertainties into a reality. So, in this case, I will probably not have her give it freely but she would be susceptible to Deception or Persuasion attempts from the characters if they role-play it well. Good convo.
The only issue with that approach is that the box contains the magic item drop for the module. There is no requirement that the characters actually find the magic item in a module but most players have come to expect it to some extent or another in AL.
When working through the storyline, the characters can quite easily chance upon a magic item:
Eyes of the Eagle
The adventure provides an apt description and all that, but then implies that the party can just take it, when it is *CLEARLY* not something that would have been given up freely to them. This is further reinforced when a guard later can "better describe the item" (meaning the party must have taken it). I know that sometimes this game devolves into a video-game-like "found magic item, now mine" mentality, but this one seems pretty muddled - anyone else run into this and what did you end up doing?
After reading that section of DDAL 9-02, I don't really see an issue with it.
"If Bolnata doesn’t give the characters the box (see Treasure), it can be easily found here."
"If shown the Infernal writing from the crime scene, she fetches Markus’s family heirloom from the bedroom, an old box made of dark, polished wood (see Treasure)."
"Treasure
This old wooden box is inlaid with silver Infernal runes at the bottom of the closet. The inscription reads: “HELL AND BACK AGAIN.” Inside is a pair of eyes of the eagle, made of leather with lenses of dark red crystal. The frame is emblazoned with the emblem of a horse’s head on a sunburst. A character who succeeds on a DC 11 Intelligence (History) check knows that this symbol is the heraldry of the Hellriders. Elturgardian characters or those with the Soldier background make this check with advantage."
It seems to me that the NPC is likely to give the box containing the magic item to the PCs. They could also take it as part of their search. The infernal runes on the box appear to be part of the mystery the characters are trying to solve. It is possible, from a character perspective, that the contents of the box might also be relevant to the investigation, so I could see the characters keeping both the box and contents though the more honest ones might promise to return it when the investigation is done. The NPC appears to be willing to do anything that might help with the investigation while also wants to be left alone to mourn.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that "it is *CLEARLY* not something that would have been given up freely to them." when the text says "If Bolnata doesn’t give the characters the box" ... which implies that the NPC is quite willing to give up the box and its contents to those investigating her husbands murder.
It's another example of lazy or sloppy writing in some of these adventures. However, you are right that I shouldn't have said "clearly" when the whole this is unclear to begin with.
I simply don't agree that the statement "if Bolnata doesn't give the characters the box" implies that she would or should. Her husband just died and she is going to pony up what might be his most prized possession? I could understand if they were loaned it or allowed to examine it, but just not "here, you look like adventures in a game that could use another magic item." If the author intended for this to end up in the character's hands by design, it is a simple, simple thing to stitch that in that would have taken, what, a 10-word sentence, maybe? Looks like we will just have to disagree on that one.
I agree it could be clearer. However, keep in mind that if this is a "most prized possession" ... you have to ask why he keeps it at the bottom of a closet. It sounds more like a weird box that her husband keeps stored lying around with some weird writing on it. However, in that case, it might have been better to not describe it as a "family heirloom" making it sound valuable.
In any case, Bolnata wants to help solve her husband's murder and wants to be left alone as soon as possible. If giving the characters some box with weird writing that her husband kept in the bottom of a closet accomplishes both these goals then I don't really see any issue with her giving it up. At this point in time, I don't think the NPC is very concerned with whatever might be in the box. She appears to be wealthy enough and likely unaware of whatever her husbands box might contain. In fact, if the box somehow contributed to her husbands death she might be happy to get rid of the thing.
However, I agree that the situation could have been clarified with a sentence or two ... but as a DM, it seems the intent in the module is to get the box into the hands of the players and I don't see any issue with role playing the NPC in such a way that this makes sense.
P.S. Compared to the inconsistencies I've encountered in other modules, this is pretty minor. Even with published content, the DM needs to read it over and figure out an approach that makes sense and accomplishes the goals of the module since sometimes the writer has something "cool" happen because they think it would be fun but leave out any explanation for why this "cool" thing happens, or how or what the NPCs had in mind at the time - some writers are great at setting a scene and terrible at making sure the internal logic and consistency makes sense.
Yeah, no question on the level of egregiousness on this one, this is certainly a misdemeanor at best when compared to others. It seems like it was perhaps written with deliberate ambiguity so that the DM can decide whether this would be something helpful to the story for the characters to have or something that undermines what is trying to be accomplished. Having something like this may make it difficult to execute / exercise certain downstream elements planned as encounter challenges if the characters can simply use this thing to see them coming. I am the type of DM who is inclined to exercise the skill system and RNG to help "collapse" some of these uncertainties into a reality. So, in this case, I will probably not have her give it freely but she would be susceptible to Deception or Persuasion attempts from the characters if they role-play it well. Good convo.
The only issue with that approach is that the box contains the magic item drop for the module. There is no requirement that the characters actually find the magic item in a module but most players have come to expect it to some extent or another in AL.
Yeah, not running it as AL, but rather as supplemental material for the hardcover :)