D&D 5E Ravenloft= Meh

[Sacrosanct]

Hope you're not too attached to this character....

Why? Just because it's Ravenloft and most PCs die?

I'm not really attached to any PC. It's just a game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A huge red dragon ? A horde of treasure....hmm I can think of at least two TSR Ravenloft modules that have just that.

Makes me wonder if Strahd's Castle will still have that dragon....

My point was not about the dragon or the treasure, but about how it was presented..."a mountain of treasure" as if it's something they see all the time (which it may be for the players). And the dragon....described only in game terms...size and age in order to let the players know the threat level.

To me, that's the wrong way to go about it. If that's all that Tolkien wrote when Bilbo burgled his way into the Lonely Mountain, we'd likely not have this hobby we love so much.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why? Just because it's Ravenloft and most PCs die?

I'm not really attached to any PC. It's just a game.

I was just making a joke because Ravenloft tends to be deadly....

 

[RotGrub]

But horror in D&D is not only achievable, but I think it's fairly easy to the point that I'm surprised to hear so many folks say it's not possible, or that there is some flaw in the rules system that makes it more difficult.

I'm also surprised at this. Of course, I think it might be more related to their particular play style than an issue with the system.

It's true that Ravenloft modules are focused on story, but so are many non-Ravenloft modules. The core difference is that there is usually a mystery of some kind to be solved. Many Ravenloft adventures are discovery / investigative based. X number of encounters per rest is not the paradigm. This means that play styles that allow for meta-gaming don't function very well. Player knowledge must really be separated from character knowledge.

Of course, fighting hordes of Zombies IS Ravenloft too.... I'm not sure why someone would suggest that Ravenloft can't be combat focused. There are Ravenloft modules that contain a fair amount of combat.

 

[RotGrub]

My point was not about the dragon or the treasure, but about how it was presented..."a mountain of treasure" as if it's something they see all the time (which it may be for the players). And the dragon....described only in game terms...size and age in order to let the players know the threat level.

To me, that's the wrong way to go about it. If that's all that Tolkien wrote when Bilbo burgled his way into the Lonely Mountain, we'd likely not have this hobby we love so much.

Well I can think of one Ravenloft module in which the threat level is not known until the PCs are fighting for their life. The wolves just keep coming...

In RL players have no right to expect that every fight is winnable.

Sure 5e's default healing and resting mechanics might not work for this kind of thing, but there are alternative options in the DMG. I would also expect that a Ravenloft setting would provide more options in that regard as well.

 

[Zaran]

My problem with Ravenloft is there is no life to a campaign there. I want settings where I can have more than one campaign without feeling redundant. For WotC to say "We are giving you Ravenloft because you said we won't visit other settings" I think they are missing the point. Ravenloft is more a mega adventure than a place where a GM can expand upon. Even saying "You asked for smaller adventures, here you go!" is a bit forced. It still costs the same as the other adventure paths and we get less for it. Now if it had ways for a GM to use Barovia after Strahd is dealt with (beyond a couple pages of suggestions) I wouldn't gripe too much because I much rather have settings than adventures at this point.

 

[RotGrub]

My problem with Ravenloft is there is no life to a campaign there. I want settings where I can have more than one campaign without feeling redundant. For WotC to say "We are giving you Ravenloft because you said we won't visit other settings" I think they are missing the point. Ravenloft is more a mega adventure than a place where a GM can expand upon. Even saying "You asked for smaller adventures, here you go!" is a bit forced. It still costs the same as the other adventure paths and we get less for it. Now if it had ways for a GM to use Barovia after Strahd is dealt with (beyond a couple pages of suggestions) I wouldn't gripe too much because I much rather have settings than adventures at this point.

I'm not sure why you would say that Ravenloft can't be expanded upon. Ravenloft has many domains and the boarders of those domains often change. All you have to do is add in a new domain and you're done. The domain and its lord can come from any setting you so desire, even your own. Ravenloft is not limited to only Strahd and Barovia. What about a campaign set in Lamordia, Falkovinia, or Sithicus?

For example, I once played in a Ravenloft campaign in which the Dark Powers pulled in the dead three (Bhaal, Myrkul, and Bane) and gave them their own domain. The PCs who originated from the FR were on a quest to stop them from returning to the FR. Ravenloft is not a mega adventure.

Ravenloft is very versatile, the problem is that WotC has only focused on Strahd since they took the reigns. Sure if you only use the WotC material the setting does seem rather limiting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well I can think of one Ravenloft module in which the threat level is not known until the PCs are fighting for their life. The wolves just keep coming...

In RL players have no right to expect that every fight is winnable.

Sure 5e's default healing and resting mechanics might not work for this kind of thing, but there are alternative options in the DMG. I would also expect that a Ravenloft setting would provide more options in that regard as well.

I expect we'll get some optional horror themed rules, and suggestions on which DMG options might best fit a Ravenloft campaign/adventure.

But what you said about players having no right to expect every encounter is winnable...that's so true. I find that's the best approach to take regardless of setting. I make sure to sprinkle in the occasional unwinnable fight just so they don't forget that sometimes they can't win, and sometimes fighting isn't the answer.

When I mentioned Dead Gods above, that was essentially how they went through the entire adventure...unsure if fighting was a safe option.

I think that's a big step on how to instill horror in the game. That uncertainty.

 

[MrHotter]

My problem with Ravenloft is there is no life to a campaign there. I want settings where I can have more than one campaign without feeling redundant. For WotC to say "We are giving you Ravenloft because you said we won't visit other settings" I think they are missing the point. Ravenloft is more a mega adventure than a place where a GM can expand upon. Even saying "You asked for smaller adventures, here you go!" is a bit forced. It still costs the same as the other adventure paths and we get less for it. Now if it had ways for a GM to use Barovia after Strahd is dealt with (beyond a couple pages of suggestions) I wouldn't gripe too much because I much rather have settings than adventures at this point.

Why would we use Barovia after Strahd is dealt with? This is not a campaign setting any more than HotDQ was. This is an adventure that takes you from 1-10. What you do after you've dealt with Strahd is up to the party and DM. You can start a new adventure in another campaign setting or have the DM think of ways to expand Ravenloft past level 10.

Personally I don't want Ravenloft level 11-15 or 11-20 any more than I wanted a Ghost Busters II. When the story is over it's time to stop writing. At level 10 the BBG being a vampire is a good fit for an epic enemy.

 

[Bawylie]

Alright, Imma buy it, Imma tell the players they're level 5, and no leveling up. At all. And Imma run it like that.

It's gonna be a fun time. Get creative.

Haters gon hate hate hate hate hate. And players gon play play play play play. And RL gon slay slay slay slay slay. Stake a Strahd, Stake a Strahd.