Want To See The Castle Ravenloft Poster Map In CURSE OF STRAHD?

Those who are excited about the fold-out map in Curse of Strahd can take a peek at it courtesy of Jeremy Crawford. The map features Barovia on one side, and Castle Ravenloft on the other, depicted in a gorgeous isometric view just like the original Ravenloft module was back in 1983.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah. They're in the business of publishing giant hardback books, which is definitely not the ideal format for an adventure module. It has become crystal clear that "DMs who actually want stuff for their game" is not WotC's target audience anymore. So I'm not going to give them my money anymore. I feel like a fool for having bought all the 5e books so far.

Oh I don't know about that. I've bought all the 5e books because I am a DM that wants stuff for my game; however, I don't plan on running any of the official adventures. Yet, I still feel I got what I wanted - lots of stuff for my game. That being said, I am not planning on purchasing CoS. Of course it has nothing to do with the usefulness, formatting, layout, etc. of the product.

 

[dave2008]

In the post you quoted just now, I went on to say that that information doesn't even need to be there at all (poor writing/editing standards, explaining things the DM doesn't need to know). It's a double-dip of corporate mediocrity, and it shows they just didn't care about good information design.

How do you know that is not useful information? I can see it being useful in at least few scenarios. Also, as an architect by profession I would find it odd to have ceiling height information on a floor plan. Typically you have floor plan elevation information on a floor plan, not ceiling information. But that may my training and not a universal issue. To me, it would be poor design to put ceiling information on a floor plan. If your not providing an RCP, then text is probably the best place for it IMO.

I seriously doubt they don't care about good information design, they probably just have a different idea of what good information design is or have a different target audience for that information delivery (which would change your design naturally).

 

[dave2008]

I understand Perkins wanting to write down every single tiny detail. It helps the author get a more complete picture of the content. But when you print it in a book for other people to read, every word has a cost: the reader's time and patience (which are severely limited resources for a DM in the middle of running an adventure). Surely Perkins is a good enough writer to understand this, and surely he doesn't get paid per word, so how does this keep happening? Did they just not have enough content to fit a 250-page book, and they had to stretch it out? Is that what happened to all the other 5e adventures?

Some people just have different needs. As a DM, what I want from an adventure is good map and a good story. The rest I can handle. It seems my needs are more closely aligned to what WotC is producing. So for me, and apparently a lot of others, there current design is not "terrible," but pretty good - maybe even spot on. So I think what you really intend is to say that it is terrible for you. Which is completely understandable, as it appears you are not the target audience. They can't make everyone happy, so they better get the majority.

 

[Eis]

Out of curiosity, Did Strahd cheerfully take the minimum of 10 hit points of damage from just touching the Holy Avenger. He had 55 hit points, IIRC, so just a scratch to him. Did the Paladin's player witness the item's saving throw? It would have had a +11 to its save (or maybe just a +6) v. crushing blow, and with the sword only needing to roll a '6' to save, it could only fail on a '1'.

I'm guessing that you all were playing AD&D 1e. If not, ignore my comment please.

pretty sure he's saying that Strahd snapped the fake Holy Avenger over his knee as it was before the switch was discovered....pretty cool moment in gaming if you ask me

 

[dave2008]

pretty sure he's saying that Strahd snapped the fake Holy Avenger over his knee as it was before the switch was discovered....pretty cool moment in gaming if you ask me

Yes, that is what I understood as well.

 

[GX.Sigma]

How do you know that is not useful information? I can see it being useful in at least few scenarios.

Sure. Let's say you're playing the adventure, and it somehow matters how high the ceiling is. Imagine if that information was not in the book:

Player: How high is the ceiling?
DM: [thinks about it for a half second] About 10 feet.
[play continues as normal]

But, since that information is a canonical fact that the DM is expected to reference, that scenario goes like this:

Player: How high is the ceiling?
DM: [remembers that the information is in the book, spends several seconds looking it up] Exactly 12 feet.
[play continues as normal]

In both those situations, the outcome is the same. After all, the difference between 10 and 12 doesn't really matter. The only tangible difference is a couple more seconds of hassle for the DM who's already juggling the adventure book, all three core rulebooks (I have the book now, and yes, you actually need all three at the table), not to mention dice and notes and minis and whatnot. So, having that information in the book is actually a detriment. See what I'm saying?

You might argue that a DM can just ignore that information, but he still has to read it and think about it before deciding to ignore it (which, again, costs time and patience).

Also, as an architect by profession I would find it odd to have ceiling height information on a floor plan. Typically you have floor plan elevation information on a floor plan, not ceiling information. But that may my training and not a universal issue. To me, it would be poor design to put ceiling information on a floor plan. If your not providing an RCP, then text is probably the best place for it IMO.

The map has a front view. It looks like this:
[sblock]View attachment 75190[/sblock]

They could've made it look like this:
[sblock]View attachment 75191[/sblock]

Which is exactly what they did with some of the other locations:
[sblock]View attachment 75192[/sblock]

[please excuse the crudeness of the images; I only have so much time/energy to spend on internet arguments]

I am a DM that wants stuff for my game; however, I don't plan on running any of the official adventures. Yet, I still feel I got what I wanted - lots of stuff for my game.
...
As a DM, what I want from an adventure is good map and a good story. The rest I can handle.

OK, I think I'm starting to understand your perspective. You want a lush, detailed book that you can browse through in your copious free moments, taking inspiration from passages here and there, maybe copying a map. Correct?

What I want is an adventure product that will help me run the adventure contained in the product. I kinda thought that was the whole point of an adventure product. Rather than "DMs who actually want stuff for their game," I should've phrased that as "DMs who actually want to run the adventure they're buying." To me, this format represents a fundamental failure of the primary purpose of the product. (Hey, a double triple alliteration!)

We know that the adventures are selling well. We know that a majority of DMs are not running the adventures. Maybe it's because the adventures suck at helping DMs run them. I truly believe that WotC could please both of us if they just tightened up the presentation a bit. I sincerely ask you, does stuff like this really feel "spot on" for your needs?:
[sblock]View attachment 75193[/sblock]

 

[dave2008]

Sure. Let's say you're playing the adventure, and it somehow matters how high the ceiling is. Imagine if that information was not in the book:

Player: How high is the ceiling?
DM: [thinks about it for a half second] About 10 feet.
[play continues as normal]

But, since that information is a canonical fact that the DM is expected to reference, that scenario goes like this:

Player: How high is the ceiling?
DM: [remembers that the information is in the book, spends several seconds looking it up] Exactly 12 feet.
[play continues as normal]

In both those situations, the outcome is the same. After all, the difference between 10 and 12 doesn't really matter. The only tangible difference is a couple more seconds of hassle for the DM who's already juggling the adventure book, all three core rulebooks (I have the book now, and yes, you actually need all three at the table), not to mention dice and notes and minis and whatnot. So, having that information in the book is actually a detriment. See what I'm saying?

You might argue that a DM can just ignore that information, but he still has to read it and think about it before deciding to ignore it (which, again, costs time and patience).

However, there is a big difference between 8' and 12' There are all kinds of things one can do in a 12' space that you can't do in an 8' space. Personally, i don't think I would need to flip through the book to find the height so its no skin off my back, but everyone is different.

[please excuse the crudeness of the images; I only have so much time/energy to spend on internet arguments]

No worries, they get the point accross. Yes, they could have had the floor height info (more correctly the floor to floor height info is what you indicated - which doesn't technically give you the room height, aka the floor to ceiling height) on the elevation of the house. That would have been useful and a logical location for it. I still don't think it is "terrible" that the information is included in the text describing the room. Seems like your nitpicking to nitpick.

OK, I think I'm starting to understand your perspective. You want a lush, detailed book that you can browse through in your copious free moments, taking inspiration from passages here and there, maybe copying a map. Correct?

No, what I want is another Monster Manual! Not exactly, I don't have copious amounts of time, but when I get a chance I like to read through the adventures and see what my useful in my own games. I have not read through any of them all the way through yet, because of the lack of time. To be honest, the reason I purchased them is I wanted: Tiamat, the Elemental Princes, the Demon Lords. Like I said - another Monster Manual

What I want is an adventure product that will help me run the adventure contained in the product. I kinda thought that was the whole point of an adventure product. Rather than "DMs who actually want stuff for their game," I should've phrased that as "DMs who actually want to run the adventure they're buying." To me, this format represents a fundamental failure of the primary purpose of the product. (Hey, a double triple alliteration!)

We know that the adventures are selling well. We know that a majority of DMs are not running the adventures. Maybe it's because the adventures suck at helping DMs run them. I truly believe that WotC could please both of us if they just tightened up the presentation a bit. I sincerely ask you, does stuff like this really feel "spot on" for your needs?:
[sblock]View attachment 75193[/sblock]

No, what I want are more monsters. I do not need adventures. In the 30 years I played D&D prior to 5e I bought 2 adventures, In 5e I have every one. So they must be doing something right to get me to purchase, but it really isn't the design of the adventure. Perhaps ignorance is bliss though, not knowing any better I don't have any issue with the adventures and thus no stressful ranting!

That being said, I am having a hard time seeing what you want and what they are producing being in one product. A story, which they appear to be selling, typically has a wall of text - which you don't want. Adding additional information on how to run would only add to that text and confiscate it. Perhaps sidebars could be added with the instructional parts - that way those who want to could just skip all the descriptive / flavor text?

Of course if they did that some would complain "I don't need instructions to run the adventure, any half-wit DM can do that, this is just a waste of space money grab..." You can't make everyone happy.

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain your position - much appreciated.

 

[GX.Sigma]

However, there is a big difference between 8' and 12' There are all kinds of things one can do in a 12' space that you can't do in an 8' space.

OK, there's a difference, but does it really matter? The game will go on regardless, and the players will still come up with ways to do what they want to do. Is one of those possibilities inherently more fun than the other? I don't think so. Certainly not enough to justify adding more text to the already bloated book. To quote Shakespeare, "Brevity is the soul of wit." To quote Strunk, "Make every word tell." To quote Strunk again, "Omit needless words." To quote Perkins, "[D&D 5e] will succeed if we come up with a way to present adventures that don't require a lot of DM preparation to run. A structural way of presenting information." (Yes, the dude who wrote this adventure actually said that.)

I still don't think it is "terrible" that the information is included in the text describing the room. Seems like your nitpicking to nitpick.

That's just one example of inefficient design, which I chose purely because it's demonstrably inferior to the original module. They got it right 33 years ago, why can't they get it right now? I could flip to any random page and find another example of inefficient design. It all adds up.

Actually, sure, just for fun: page 56. Chosen at pure random. The first room description has boxed text describing a well-oiled suit of armor standing in an alcove. The body text then laboriously explains that "the suit of armor standing in the alcove is merely a normal suit of plate armor that is well cared for." (Hmm, I wonder if it's joking loudly or singing?) This sentence is completely extraneous, since there's no reason for me to assume the armor isn't normal. If this sentence was not here, I would have exactly the same amount of information; I'd just have to read one less sentence of pointless text.

The entire next paragraph is as follows: "The staircase leads down to area K61 and up to area K30. The double doors provide access to area K10." Which is also completely extraneous, since the adventure comes with a map that shows this very clearly. And that's the whole room description! The next page describes the exact dimensions of an arrow slit. Twice. I'm not joking. (It's 2-1/2 feet tall and 4 inches wide, in case you were wondering.) This is embarrassing. I paid 50 dollars for this.

I don't see how that makes it a better "story," just a worse game aid.

I have not read through any of them all the way through yet, because of the lack of time. To be honest, the reason I purchased them is I wanted: Tiamat, the Elemental Princes, the Demon Lords...what I want are more monsters. I do not need adventures. In the 30 years I played D&D prior to 5e I bought 2 adventures, In 5e I have every one. So they must be doing something right to get me to purchase, but it really isn't the design of the adventure.

They could include new monsters and competently present a well-designed adventure.

That being said, I am having a hard time seeing what you want and what they are producing being in one product. A story, which they appear to be selling, typically has a wall of text - which you don't want.

If they just want to sell a "story," they should drop the pretext. Stop calling them "adventures," start calling them "storybooks." Maybe even write something with a tight plot and a vivid narrative, rather than pages upon pages of bland boxed text describing empty rooms for no reason. That's something I might actually want to sit down and read.

The original Ravenloft had a great story and new monsters, and it was only 32 pages long, and it didn't make you carry around the Monster Manual! It was great for its time. The sad thing is, it's still better than WotC's recent products. Not only does CoS fail to exceed that level of quality (as I'd hoped it would, considering they've had 33 years of game design evolution), it fails to even match that level of quality. This is a very serious problem for D&D, and I should probably make a thread about it already, since no one else is going to read this conversation.

Adding additional information on how to run would only add to that text and confiscate it. Perhaps sidebars could be added with the instructional parts - that way those who want to could just skip all the descriptive / flavor text?

Of course if they did that some would complain "I don't need instructions to run the adventure, any half-wit DM can do that, this is just a waste of space money grab..." You can't make everyone happy.

Adding additional information is the opposite of what I want. (Although, it's nice when they include a little blurb on how they intended the adventure to play out, since that's often hard to tease out from the overwritten descriptions.) What I want is the same information, minus all the useless fluff, presented in a more efficient and less obnoxious way that's easier to quickly grok. I don't think that would detract from the story-reader's experience at all, and it would vastly improve the game-runner's experience (not to mention the players, who obviously benefit from a better-prepared, less-stressed DM).

Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain your position - much appreciated.

No problem - thank you for humoring me! This is the most pleasant conversation I've had on the internet since... ever.

 

[dave2008]

Adding additional information is the opposite of what I want. (Although, it's nice when they include a little blurb on how they intended the adventure to play out, since that's often hard to tease out from the overwritten descriptions.) What I want is the same information, minus all the useless fluff, presented in a more efficient and less obnoxious way that's easier to quickly grok. I don't think that would detract from the story-reader's experience at all, and it would vastly improve the game-runner's experience (not to mention the players, who obviously benefit from a better-prepared, less-stressed DM).

No problem - thank you for humoring me! This is the most pleasant conversation I've had on the internet since... ever.

I could be wrong it still seems to me that you want information they are not providing. Ideally, for you, that would come with the removal of information that you don't need. Resulting in an overall more efficient presentation of the information to run the adventure. Well, I think it is unlikely you will get that from WotC, but i am beginning to see your point. If I really think about it I might use an adventure that was very clearly presented with clear maps (ideally pull out and to scale), clear information on how to run the adventure, a separate monster booklet (I don't like it with the adventure personally), and finally a storebible about the adventure. That might work for me

Now, have you ever tried to write an adventure yourself? I generally find it easier to critique or tweak than to create. Just thought with the DMs Guild you might find a market for your ideas, and if successful, that might influence WotC more the a forum thread.

Thanks again for the conversation. Hopefully you will find what your looking for.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Now, have you ever tried to write an adventure yourself?

Working on it. The first one involves an uneasy alliance between hobgoblins and modrons, and it will be 2 pages or less (i.e., one page front and back). Maybe with a page of monster stats, a page of background and story hooks, and maybe even a "long version" appendix for the people who want that.

I generally find it easier to critique or tweak than to create. Just thought with the DMs Guild you might find a market for your ideas, and if successful, that might influence WotC more the a forum thread.

Ain't that the truth. I am providing direct feedback to WotC in an official capacity, but I also want to raise the community's awareness of these issues, maybe build some momentum to make a difference. I have a pretty long to-do list, actually. But I think that's enough internet for me today. It's the weekend; time to enjoy the sunshine.