G. asks:

A villain in my campaign has run away to fight again another day. The players want to pursue them, but the villain is in hiding. How many clues should I prep for a revelation that I don’t want the PCs to access?

One thing to consider is what you mean by “access.” There are lots of non-actionable revelations you can have about, say, the Lost City of Arthak-Val without ever learning where it is or how to find it; i.e., without being able to access the Lost City. The same can be true about your villain’s hiding spot.

But if by “access” you mean “learn the revelation,” then the answer to how many clues you should prep is zero. The Three Clue Rule isn’t about how many clues the players need to draw a conclusion; it’s about having redundancy for missed or misunderstood clues. A single clue can (and usually should) be enough for the players to figure something out.

Of course, that seems to be the case here: You have a revelation that the players want (“the bad guy has gone to location X”) that you don’t want to give them.

My personal druthers here are going to default to playing to find out: If the players can figure out some plausible way to learn that information, let’s roll with it and see what happens.

What I don’t need to do, though, is go out of my way to provide them with those leads. The Three Clue Rule, it should be remembered, only applies to essential revelations. If the finding the bad guy is not, in my opinion, an essential revelation, then I’m under no obligation to provide three clues or any clues for it. I’m just saying that I won’t automatically block the players if they come up with some clever idea.

When your first impulse is “you can’t find that information,” however, here are a few things to consider.

First, looking for the thing they want doesn’t find what they want (i.e., the bad guy), but it does find something interesting. In other words, reward the players’ efforts, albeit not in the way they were expecting.

Second, consider rephasing your initial impulse from “there’s no way to find the bad guy” to “finding the bad guy will not be trivial.” In this case, “not trivial” means that there isn’t a direct vector from the PCs to the bad guy. Instead, the PCs will have to work their way through several revelations to get to the revelation they want.

For example: You don’t find the bad guy, but you do learn that the only person who might know where the bad guy is hiding is Sebastian Raoul, his lieutenant. Where’s Sebastian? Well, turns out he’s gone to ground, too. Looking for a lead on Sebastian turns up his accountant. It takes a raid on an armored compound to get your hands on him. He doesn’t know where Sebastian is, either, but he knows that Sebastian’s bank accounts are held in a Swiss bank. So if you break into the bank, you might be able to trace where the account is being accessed from. That, finally, leads you to Sebastian, who can give you a lead on the bad guy. (Although possibly still not directly to the bad guy.)

During this whole sequence, of course, the players are engaged and excited. They don’t feel thwarted. They’re constantly making progress towards their goal!

Meanwhile, the rest of the scenario — whatever it might be — is still going on. Each of these steps along the path to finding the bad guy can also be seeded with additional clues and rewards that can assist or direct the PCs towards the other stuff happening in the scenario.

On a similar note, you can also respond to this impulse by immediately dogpiling the PCs with distractions. Toss lots of scenario hooks at them. Pull out a bunch of proactive nodes. Sure, they want to go looking for the bad guy, but there are vampires attacking the orphanage right now, so that’s going to have to wait. (Note: You’re not making that decision for them; you’re just putting them in a situation where they need to choose between a long-term goal of finding the bad guy and responding to immediate crises.)

DESIGNING VECTOR PATHS

The example of extending the path to a revelation may seem really complicated, but this is why I find thinking in terms of vectors so useful.

To unpack this a bit, it can be natural to think in terms of where the PCs are now and ask yourself, “What do they need to do from where they are to get where they want to go?”

If there’s a clear answer to that, great. But if there isn’t, you can give yourself a real headache trying to figure it out. Which makes sense: You’re basically trying to solve an imaginary mystery for which you haven’t created the clues yet.

This can also lend itself to overly simplistic resolutions: “I’m at Point A, how do I get to Point B?” tends to result in a straight line from A to B, which is exactly what we’re not looking for right now.

Instead, start from where they want to go (or what they want to know) and ask yourself, “How do they get there?” and/or “Why is it difficult to get there?” Then take the answer to that question and ask it again.

So:

• How do they find the Bad Guy? Sebastian, his lieutenant, knows.
• How do they find Sebastian? By tracking his banking activity.
• How do they find his banking activity? By accessing his Swiss bank account.
• Why is it difficult to access the Swiss bank? It has to be identified.
• How do they identify the Swiss bank? By getting their hands on Sebastian’s accountant.
• Why is it difficult to get their hands on the accountant? Because he’s holed up in an armed compound.

Then you just flip this around to determine the path.

The one trick, though, is that the PCs need to understand that this IS the path. Otherwise, they’re just blindly fumbling around. (If you tell them “there’s an accountant named Bartolo Russo holed up in an armed compound,” they’ll have no idea why they should care about that.)

To close the loop, PCs can figure out the path through non-actionable revelations: “To find the bad guy, you have to find Sebastian.” That’s a non-actionable because they don’t know where Sebastian is. You could have them do another investigation to figure out where Sebastian is, or you could pack that into the “find Sebastian” revelation (i.e., the revelation is “you’ll have to find Sebastian, and Sebastian’s only known associate is an accountant”).

One last subtlety I used here is to obfuscate an intermediary step when the PCs were figuring out the path they needed to pursue: They know they need the accountant, but they don’t realize that the accountant can’t send them directly to Sebastian (and they’ll need to go through the Swiss bank). This is a good technique because it stops the resolution of the path from being rote (you discovered all the steps, now you do all the steps); and it can also tighten up the “finding the path” phase of things to reduce the perception of “endless brick walls” without any sense of forward progress.

The particular example given here is also quite linear. This can be fine, but you can add some extra dynamics by providing multiple vector options at a particular step. For example, instead of the accountant being Sebastian’s only known associate, you might have three different known associates the PCs could potentially learn about and use to track him down. (Keep in mind that you don’t need to fully prep a path until the PCs actually take it. For example, you don’t need to prep the accountant’s compound until the players tell you that’s where they’re heading in the next session.)

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #7

SPOILERS FOR DRAGON HEIST

V. writes:

I’m heading into Chapter 2 of Dragon Heist next session. We left off right after Volo “paid” them with a deed for Trollskull Manor, so they want to start with inspecting the tavern in the morning. I’m going to have them re-encounter the urchins there, but then what? I’m not really sure how to keep the session moving after that.

Chapter 2 of Dragon Heist presents a little sandbox-like interlude between the introductory events of Chapter 1 and (in the Remix) the Grand Game literally blowing up on the PCs’ doorstep in the form of the fireball. It includes:

• Fixing up Trollskull Manor so that it can be re-opened (or sold or whatever else the PCs want to do with it).
• Other businesses and NPCs in Trollskull Alley for the PCs to meet and build relationships with.
• A half dozen factions who will be interested in recruiting the PCs, along with short faction missions that the PCs will be asked to do if they join up.
• A hostile businessmen (Emmek Frewn) who will hire a gang of wererats to harass the PCs.

To this toolkit, you can add any loose threads from Chapter 1 that the PCs are interested in pursuing: Relationships with Volo, Renear, Floon, etc. Investigations into the Zhentarim or Xanatharians. And so forth.

That’s a whole bunch of stuff! But how do you actually bring it to the table?

(As a quick aside: One important thing to keep in mind is that you’re not supposed to wrap up everything in Chapter 2 before Chapter 3 begins. The Remix, in particular, decompresses the Grand Game so that you have space to continue incorporating the faction and Trollskull business into the campaign. Doing so will add depth as the PCs’ actions weave together the Grand Game, the factions, and Trollskull into a dynamic interlock. But I digress.)

What you want do at the top of Chapter 2 is basically a massive dump of options — stuff that needs to get done around the tavern, scenario hooks, etc. You want the players to immediately have to start making choices about what they’re going to spend their time and focus on. This is what will keep things interesting.

To achieve this:

1. Factions will start paying house calls to say, “Hi. Heard you’re awesome. We have a job we’d like you to do.” Renaer is a VIP and saving him in Chapter 1 created a lot of buzz for the PCs.
2. Immediately start having guilds show up to discuss repairs that need to be made and services they can provide. (This is why the Remix breaks down the costs associated with repairs and assigns them to specific guilds. The guild reps humanize the expenses and the individual breakdown also gives the players a chance to think creatively about how they might work around each guild’s remit to save cash… while probably earning the guild’s enmity for scab labor.)
3. Get Frewn, the urchins, and one or two other people from Trollskull Alley involved. Frewn, in particular, will start a whole chain of events, but the ongoing relationships with the other NPCs will develop similarly in an organic fashion. (I recommend giving space to the other alley residents to give the PCs a chance to seek them out and explore the alley for themselves.)

Make sure that the guild costs are significantly (but not impossibly) higher than the group’s cash-on-hand. This will motivate them to figure out a paycheck (i.e., they can’t just focus on remodeling the tavern, they’re going to have to go do interesting things to pay for it).

Put them under a time crunch. They should NOT be able to do everything, at least not without splitting up. Have stuff from two different faction missions happen at the same time; or at the same time as the guild reps show up for some “hard negotiations.” They’re going to have to make choices.

Similarly, don’t wait for one thing to wrap up before triggering the next. Interrupt scenes with other scenes and hooks. For example, they’re negotiating with a guild rep when Frewn shows up or one of the urchins runs in to report that Nat has fallen into a sinkhole. Or both.

MAKE YOUR MENU

If this feels like a lot to juggle… it is!

Across all of these different elements of the campaign, you might have forty or fifty different things you’re trying to keep track of. It’s too much.

The solution?

Make lists.

Specifically, make a sequential list for each category:

• Guilds
• Factions
• Trollskull Drama
• Follow-Ups

Under “Guilds” list all the guild visits in the order you think they should happen (or just randomly if order doesn’t seem significant). Do the same for your faction recruitment/mission assignments, Trollskull-related NPCs, etc.

As you’re running, you can now just glance at your lists and trigger something happening by just grabbing the top item off any list. (This isn’t a binding contract, of course. You can still bounce around if it makes sense in the moment.)

This significantly simplifies what you’re trying to keep track of in your head at any moment: Instead of forty or fifty different items, you only have to think in terms of “guild stuff, faction stuff, and alley stuff.”

I think of it like ordering off a menu: If you dump everything into one big category, ordering is a nightmare. So you organize stuff into appetizers, main course, dessert, and so forth.

Then, during play, you’re like, “Hmm… Getting peckish. Let me take a peek at the menu.”

And because you’ve pre-organized stuff, you largely just need to jump back and forth from one menu to the next.

FOLLOW-UPS

“Follow-Ups,” it should be noted, is a list you can use to follow-up on previous scenes: They piss off a glazier guild rep, so you think, “That guy’s gonna bring some muscle to break their new windows.” Jot that down in your Follow-Ups list.

You could, of course, just add this to the end of the Guilds list, but then you’d have to cycle through establishing everything else on the Guilds list before the PCs would start experiencing the consequences of their choices. Alternatively, you could put it on the top of the Guilds list, but then you’d have to cycle through all your follow-ups before you could introduce new stuff. It’s better to keep a mix of new stuff and old stuff cycling through.

Note that stuff from Chapter 1 – like Renaer or Floon or Volo dropping by for a visit – could also go on the Follow-Ups list. This is a good way to transition stuff from one phase of a campaign to the next and is easy to keep track of on your campaign status document.

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #6

V. writes:

In the current 5E adventure I’m running, I’ve attempted to apply many of the concepts I’ve learned from the Alexandrian… Generally, multiple clues have been available to transition PCs between nodes. Now the players are about to experience a party scenario. One planned event will be a senior member of the faction that players belong to showing up unexpectedly at the feast. That NPC is going to give a specific mission to the players that would push them towards a particular node. Would this be considered overt railroading? Something to absolutely avoid?

I guess my mind is really spinning after having just re-read the node series. I don’t remember you mentioning a node structure without multiple entry points to a specific node.

The key thing to understand is that, generally speaking, a node with only one potential point of entry is fragile. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist, it just means that you – as the adventure designer – should be aware that it’s quite possible the PCs won’t go to that node. (Because, following the principle of the Three Clue Rule, they either won’t find the lead, won’t understand the lead, or won’t follow the lead.)

The exception to this is a proactive node. These are the nodes that come looking for the PCs. They don’t need multiple leads pointing to them (although they can) because the PCs don’t need to go to them in order for them to enter play.

Scenario hooks, in particular, are often rendered as a proactive node. And a very common form of this, particularly in published adventures, is the job offer: Somebody wants the PCs to do something and they tell them what that is.

This is, of course, that situation you’re looking at here.

One thing to note here from a structural viewpoint is that, while the job offer may be proactive, the next step (of taking the job and going to do whatever the patron asks) is theoretically fragile (because you only have one lead; i.e., accepting the job offer).

In actual practice, however, this tends not to be case: First, you have an NPC literally saying, “Do this,” which eliminates most of the ways in which a lead can fail (by the PCs missing it or misinterpreting it), leaving the only fragility the possibility that the PCs will just outright refuse to follow the lead (i.e., turn down the job). And this is comparatively less likely because, in most campaigns, scenario hooks are considered something that the players are expected to follow, so as long as the players recognize that this job offer is a scenario hook, it becomes much more likely that they’ll accept it. Also, as in your current scenario, such job offers often come from organizations or patrons that the PCs have an established relationship with, making it more likely they’ll do it for in-character reasons.

Yes, the expectation that the PCs will take a scenario hook when it’s offered by the GM is very light railroading. But the “scenario of the week” format in play is quite common and not particularly objectionable, and even in campaigns where that’s not the case, in practice explicit/obvious scenario hooks are just treated as having more “weight” than other leads.

With that being said, the advanced technique to understand here is that the patron’s job offer — i.e., the thing the patron wants the PCs to do — IS NOT THE SCENARIO.

The scenario is whatever situation (e.g., a collection of nodes) the patron’s job offer is pointing the PCs towards.

For example, the patron says, “I’d like you to steal four hundred cure disease potions from this Imperial caravan.” The PCs might do that. They might also steal the potions and fence them. Or warn the caravan guards and then help them protect the shipment so that it reaches the plague victims in Vilheim safely. Or steal them and redirect them to the poor people in the Cataris district instead of the self-serving 1% in Vilheim. Or take the patron’s intel and use it to steal something else from the caravan. Or sell the intel itself. Or… well, lots of things. When you’re designing scenarios instead of plots, the possibilities become almost limitless.

It also become easier at this point to recognize that the job offer from the patron doesn’t have to be the only scenario hook pointing at that caravan, the cure disease potions, and/or the plague victims in Vilheim and Cataris.

This moves us towards material I cover more fully in Juggling Scenario Hooks in the Sandbox and the Running the Sandbox video, but it obviously removes the theoretical fragility of having the job offer as the only lead pointing the PCs towards the scenario.

(Of course, in the sandbox the players will know that they aren’t expected to follow every scenario hook. So, paradoxically, it may become more likely that they never go on that caravan raid. On the other hand, that’s just fine because, in sandbox, the fallout from them NOT raiding the caravan may be even more interesting than if they had. But I digress.)

Once you have multiple scenario hooks in play, the next design revelation you may have is that these hooks don’t all need to point at the same node! For example, the patron’s job offer is “raid the caravan” (which points them at the caravan, from which they can learn about where the cure disease potions are being sent and why). But the PCs might also have an ally whose mother lives in Cataris and has become sick (leading the PCs to start in Cataris, learn about the plague, and then potentially discover the cure disease caravan as a possible solution). Or they pass on the job, the patron hires someone else to hit the caravan, and now a wealthy uncle who lives in Vilheim wants them to track down the culprits and recover the cure.

If you stop thinking in terms of plot, you’ll discover that a scenario can often engage the PCs from lots of different angles, which will, in turn, give them lots of meaningful choices about how they want to engage with it.

The short version is this: No, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the PCs getting job offers. In fact, it would be weird if they didn’t. Most PCs are hyper-competent and rapidly accumulate a resume of high-profile accomplishments. They’re exactly the sort of people you want solving your problems for you.

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #5

Desert Orange asks:

I’m trying to use node-based scenario design for the first time. I’m designing a Hangover-style scenario on a superyacht: the PCs wake up on the ship surrounded by corpses and with no memory of how they got there.

If I’m using a funnel design, is it possible to only have two nodes before the first funnel? There’d only be two clues per node. That can’t be right. But what bugs me is that I only have two locations for the PCs to explore: the ship they’re on and the island that’s nearby.

I’m not sure if I should use the locations as nodes or the conclusions that the characters have to reach. The funnel would be figuring out how the previous night ended. After this, they’d begin figuring out how it started.

Easy answer first: If you’re designing a node-based mystery, think of each node as a place where you can investigate for clues.

Each node (other than the starting node) is also a revelation/conclusion because the players have to conclude that they can go to the node and investigate. (The three clues pointing to Node X are basically pointing to a conclusion which says, “You can find more clues at Node X.”)

But in a mystery scenario you can also have conclusions that aren’t nodes – i.e., things that the PCs need to learn that aren’t places they can go to investigate for more clues.

In my more recent writing, I’ve started referring to clues that point to places where you can continue your investigation as leads – they lead you somewhere. In node-based design it’s the leads that need to adhere to the Inverse Three Clue Rule:

If the PCs have access to ANY three clues, they will reach at least ONE conclusion.

Because as long as the PCs have somewhere to continue investigating the mystery, the adventure keeps working. It’s only if they run out of places to investigate that the adventure breaks.

So in your Hangover cruise adventure, for example, you’ll have a list of revelations which consist of Things That Happened To Us That We’ve Forgotten. And you’ll want clues for each of those (and three clues for any that the PCs need to know about). Those probably aren’t leads.

NOT ALL MYSTERIES HAVE NODES

But here’s the thing: I don’t think your mystery is actually a node-based scenario. At least not at first.

The PCs are not trying to figure out where to look for clues: The clues are on the ship.

So what you actually have is a location-crawl in which they explore the ship room by room, finding clues in each room. You’re still using the Three Clue Rule:

For every conclusion you want the PCs to make, include at least three clues.

And you’ll have a revelation list so that the PCs can piece together what happened to them, but the players aren’t really finding clues in the helm station that tell them they should check out the stern deck for clues. They’re just methodically searching the ship for clues (while also potentially dealing with other crises or conundrums).

(This isn’t to say that a location-crawl can’t have clues in Room A that point the PCs to Room B, for example. That’s a great way to make a location-crawl feel cohesive and, if those clues are revealing hidden secrets that the PCs might have missed in Room B the first time they went, can add a lot of depth to the experience. But that’s not really node-based design and doesn’t structurally function as a node-based adventure.)

Now if there are clues on the ship that point the PCs to another location where they need to continue their investigation, that would suggest a node-based design. (Maybe they need to realize that the superyacht was at a different location at some point last night and they need to go there. Or they discover the ritual that opened a gateway to a dark dimension that they need to go back to in order to continue piecing things together.) But I still wouldn’t try to break the ship up into multiple nodes: The superyacht as a whole would just be one node, with that node basically being a mini-location-crawl inside the larger scenario.

You’d mentioned that you wanted the scenario to start with them figuring out how the previous night ended and then, after that, they’d begin figuring out how it started. You can see how this structure would essentially accomplish that: The superyacht has all the clues that let them figure out how the previous night ended, which allows them to figure out where the night started (i.e., the other node where they can look for the clues to figure out what happened there).

In fact, this node-based scenario might consist of just these two nodes: The superyacht and where the night started.

There’s nothing about node-based design that says you have to get super-complicated about it.

REGARDING FUNNELS

Although I don’t think it necessarily applies to this scenario, let’s talk about your specific question regarding funnel design for a moment: The key thing about the Inverse Three Clue Rule is that the PCs should have access to at least three clues at all time.

(This doesn’t necessarily mean they will FIND all those clues. The whole reason you have redundancy is in case they don’t, after all. But they should have ACCESS to them, by which I mean that in locations which the PCs know about, there should be at least three clues pointing to locations that they don’t already know about. Or, in the final scene(s) of a scenario where they’ve almost finished their investigation, three clues that point to all the conclusion(s) they need to bring the scenario to its conclusion.)

In addition, the Three Clue Rule still applies! You still need three clues for each conclusion the PCs need to reach!

So your current structure is:

• Node 0 ➞ A, B
• Node A ➞ B, C
• Node B ➞ A, C
• Node C

We can immediately see that in Node 0 (the opening scene) they only have access to two clues. That’s a structural problem which violates the Inverse Three Clue Rule.

In addition, you basically have three conclusions:

• You need to investigate Node A.
• You need to investigate Node B.
• You need to investigate Node C.

But for each of those conclusions, there are only two clues, which means you’ve violated the Three Clue Rule.

Adding enough clues to satisfy the Three Clue Rule will, conveniently, also satisfy the Inverse Three Clue Rule. Here’s a symmetrical example:

• Node 0 ➞ A, A, B
• Node A ➞ B, B, C
• Node B ➞ A, C, C
• Node C

You could also saturate the opening scene:

• Node 0 ➞ A, A, B, B
• Node A ➞ B, C
• Node B ➞ A, C, C
• Node C

And other patterns are also possible:

• Node 0 ➞ A, A, A, B
• Node A ➞ B, B, C
• Node B ➞ C, C
• Node C

If you walk through these simple node structures, you can clearly see how the PCs always have access to three clues pointing towards nodes they haven’t investigated yet.

You may also be able to see how different patterns of clues will make certain paths through the adventure more or less likely. For example, in the third arrangement it’s much more likely that the PCs will end up going 0 ➞ A ➞ B ➞ C, but if they DO go from 0 ➞ B, then it becomes likely they’ll never go to Node A.

If you’re dabbling with node-based scenario design for the first time, I recommend doing a couple of symmetric designs first. It will give you more reliable results and a better sense, after running the scenarios, of what node-based scenarios “feel” like.

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #4

Mark writes:

In your Dragon Heist Remix, you have changed events so that there’s some more breathing room between Chapter 1 [when the PCs investigate the disappearance of Floon and discover the real kidnap victim was Renaer Neverember] and Chapter 3 [when someone is assassinated on the PCs’ front doorstep].

As far as I can see, it’s assumed that the players will be doing faction missions, other character-related content, and fixing up Trollskull Manor.

I’m worried that the group will feel disconnected from the overarching plot and the moving parts of the factions in the Grand Game [i.e., the factions in Waterdeep that are all pursuing the half million gold pieces that were embezzled by Dagult Neverember].

What would you suggest to keep the players invested in the Grand Game in that interim period?

To start with, the expected experience is that the players/PCs won’t really know that there’s a Grand Game going on at the end of Chapter 1. What they’ll have is an introductory scenario that has been successfully wrapped up and a large, neon sign saying, “GO TO TROLLSKULL MANOR.” At best, they’ll have a cluster of loose threads:

• There’s a Zhentarim/Xanatharian gang war.
• The Zhentarim and Xanatharians are both interested in the gold embezzled by Dagult Neverember.
• There was something inside Renaer Neverember’s locket.

There’s not really a defined way for the PCs to immediately pull at these threads. They’re deliberately enigmatical elements that are meant to sort of hang around until they get paid off later in the campaign.

So if the PCs choose to pull at these threads, it’ll be through some clever angle that the players creatively think up on their own initiative. That’s great! You just need to figure out how to roll with it. The Remix almost certainly gives you all the tools you need to do this. You’ll also probably want to try to breathe a little air into it, weaving the events of their investigation into the wider tapestry of Chapter 2.

(To a certain extent, the players are likely to breathe that air into it themselves: Once you can get a bunch of balls up in the air in your campaign – e.g., the investigation, renovating Trollskull, faction missions, the orphans, the business rival trying to sabotage them – the players will be forced to start juggling their priorities. If you aren’t hearing stuff like, “We can’t do that tonight, we have to meet with the distillery!” or “Meliandre can guard the tavern in case the dire rats come back, Bassario and Francesca will run that mission for the Harpers, and I’ll head back up to the Yawning Portal to see if I can find Yagra,” then just add more balls.)

For example, my group made the intuitive leap that Renaer’s mourning locket must be connected to his mother’s tomb. So after checking out their new digs at Trollskull Manor, they headed straight to the Brandath Crypts… well, mostly straight. They had to request a meeting with Renaer. Then they arranged a time when he could take them to the Crypts (“it can’t be tomorrow, because we’ve got that… thing we’re doing”). Once at the Crypts I was actually fascinated to see if they would discover the Vault where the embezzled gold was hidden early and sort of “short-circuit” the entire structure of the campaign, but they ended up missing their Wisdom (Perception) check. Regardless, the investigation had forged a closer relationship with Renaer (who ended up marrying one of the PCs), kept the players puzzling about the Grand Game, and offered a huge pay-off when the whole campaign circled back to the Crypts at the end. (“We were right here! Oh my god!”)

A more likely alternative is for the PCs to start poking around the Zhentarim and/or Xanatharians. That more or less leads straight into the core structure of the campaign: They’re investigating a faction, so you should point them at a faction outpost. (Once again, weaving these investigations into the broader scope of everything else happening in Chapter 2.) This activity might preempt some of the “later” revelations about the Grand game, but that’s just fine. (The idea of them being “later” revelations is really just a conceptual holdover from the heavily railroaded design of the published adventure. And we’re not doing that, right?)

The most likely outcome is that the group will have a little bit of a head start in the Eye Heists that follow the events of Chapter 3. We might imagine the players patting themselves on the back for getting ahead of things, but they probably won’t think of it like that. (The structure of the campaign is obfuscated from them. They don’t see how your notes are arranged and don’t know that this was “supposed” to happen later.)

BUT WHAT IF THEY DON’T?

Other groups, though, won’t pull at those threads from Chapter 1 — either because they can’t figure out how to do it or because they just don’t care enough to do it. That’s OK. It just means that the players’ focus is somewhere else. The events of Chapter 1 are still important. They’ll either foreshadow what comes later (“If only we’d paid attention to the clues in front of our face!”) or they’ll be a mystery that eats at the back of their brains. Anticipation heightens the eventual pay-off. (“Oh my god! It’s all connected!”)

Keep in mind, too, that the Chapter 2 material isn’t completely disconnected from the Grand Game: Virtually all of the initial faction missions, for example, either involve one of the factions from the Grand Game, are directly aimed at the events of the Grand Game, or result in revelations about the same. (The exception is the Emerald Enclave, which is probably one of the reasons why I never prioritized getting that faction involved in my Dragon Heist run.)

Note: Also look at Part 1C: Player Character Factions. The Grand Games of Waterdeep usually involve ALL of the byzantine factions of the city becoming collectively fixated on something. That includes the player character factions. Even if the faction play in Chapter 2 wasn’t connected to the Grand Game, it would BECOME connected by virtue of the PCs being connected to it.

One thing I would have liked to have designed for Dragon Heist would have been a series of detailed background events detailing the evolving gang war between Zhents and Xanatharians. I didn’t get that done for my campaign, but background events like these can also be a good way to keep elements of the campaign “in the mix” even when the PCs’ immediate attention is turned somewhere else.

BUSINESS AS USUAL

One last thing to keep in mind is that this whole approach doesn’t really stop when you hit the end of Chapter 2: The faction missions continue. Now that the tavern is open, you can use A Night in Trollskull Manor to provide a constant level of activity. The PCs are going to continue pulling at threads and having to deal with blowback from their actions.

In fact, once Chapter 3 starts off with a bang (pun intended), the only thing that’s likely to happen is that you’ll be tossing MORE balls into the air for the PCs to juggle.

If you have any questions for future columns, let me know in the comments! In Ask the Alexandrian, instead of looking at general methodology, theorycraft, or prep, I try to solve specific situations from actual play by asking myself, “If I were the GM in this situation, what would I do?”

Go to Ask the Alexandrian #1 – Ask the Alexandrian #3