Fire In the Temple!

Brazen Hussey · 10-08-2019, 06:14 AM

I've just read through the third of the new TFT Adventures; Fire in the Temple and the further I read, the odder the assumptions behind the adventure seemed. Those assumptions basically being that the Redcaps are the "bad" guys and the merchants and nobles are essentially the "good" guys who the players will naturally work for.

Of course, the Redcaps are a caricature of union activists. They are naive, and willing to use tactics as foul as any which have been used against them. But the text also illustrates the several offenses which have pushed them to the edge - corruption, abuses of power, etc. To be fair, the writer, David Pulver, is not saying the powerful are really good guys, but in that case why does the adventure assume the players will do their bidding and wipe out these troublemakers? When you read the NPC's backstories, their decisions to become violent adversaries of the establishment seem perfectly reasonable.

In his notes in the back of the book, Steve Jackson describe the Redcaps as a "good intentions, bad results" kind of group. On the other hand, the nobility and guilds described in the adventure are more of a "bad intentions, bad results" kind of group.

I have no desire for this to be a political discussion. But I can't imagine running this adventure for my players - one of whom is a union steward - without them quickly joining the Redcaps side! After all, I imagine none of the PCs would be nobility or merchants unless they are a black sheep of the family.

None of this is meant to criticize Pulver in more than a minor way. I expect everyone will enjoy reading his adventure and several of you may choose to play it. I don't mean to dissuade you!

I'm not planning on using gunpowder in my campaign, so I don't expect to run this adventure. But as I was mulling over what elements I could possibly steal, the above issues seemed like as big a problem as the gunpowder. A scenario based on class struggle could easily turn into a campaign based on class struggle and, no matter where my own sympathies might lie, that sounds incredibly not fun to play in.

Thoughts from anyone else?

10-08-2019, 06:14 AM	#1
Brazen Hussey Join Date: Sep 2019	Fire In the Temple! I've just read through the third of the new TFT Adventures; Fire in the Temple and the further I read, the odder the assumptions behind the adventure seemed. Those assumptions basically being that the Redcaps are the "bad" guys and the merchants and nobles are essentially the "good" guys who the players will naturally work for. Of course, the Redcaps are a caricature of union activists. They are naive, and willing to use tactics as foul as any which have been used against them. But the text also illustrates the several offenses which have pushed them to the edge - corruption, abuses of power, etc. To be fair, the writer, David Pulver, is not saying the powerful are really good guys, but in that case why does the adventure assume the players will do their bidding and wipe out these troublemakers? When you read the NPC's backstories, their decisions to become violent adversaries of the establishment seem perfectly reasonable. In his notes in the back of the book, Steve Jackson describe the Redcaps as a "good intentions, bad results" kind of group. On the other hand, the nobility and guilds described in the adventure are more of a "bad intentions, bad results" kind of group. I have no desire for this to be a political discussion. But I can't imagine running this adventure for my players - one of whom is a union steward - without them quickly joining the Redcaps side! After all, I imagine none of the PCs would be nobility or merchants unless they are a black sheep of the family. None of this is meant to criticize Pulver in more than a minor way. I expect everyone will enjoy reading his adventure and several of you may choose to play it. I don't mean to dissuade you! I'm not planning on using gunpowder in my campaign, so I don't expect to run this adventure. But as I was mulling over what elements I could possibly steal, the above issues seemed like as big a problem as the gunpowder. A scenario based on class struggle could easily turn into a campaign based on class struggle and, no matter where my own sympathies might lie, that sounds incredibly not fun to play in. Thoughts from anyone else? Last edited by Brazen Hussey; 10-08-2019 at 06:17 AM. Reason: To fuel my plans for world domination.