WotC Vecna Eve of Ruin: Everything You Need To Know

WotC has posted a 19-minute video telling you 'everything you need to know' about Vecna: Eve Of Ruin.

• Starts at 10th level, goes to 20th.
• Classic villains and setting, famous characters, D&D's legacy.
• Vecna wants to become the supreme being of the multiverse.
• Vecna is a god of secrets and secrets and the power of secrets are a theme throughout the book.
• A mechanical subsystem for using the power of secrets during combat.
• Going back to Ravenloft, the Nine Hells, places where 5th Edition has been in the last 10 years.
• It would be a fun 'meta experience' for players to visit locations they remember lore about.
• Finding pieces of the Rod of Seven Parts, pieces throughout the multiverse.
• Each piece in one of seven distinct planes or settings.
• Allustriel Silverhand has noticed something is wrong, puts call out to Tasha and Mordenkainen, who come to her sanctum in Sigil.
• The (10th level) PCs are fated to confront Vecna.
• Lord Soth and Strahd show up. Tiamat is mentioned but doesn't appear 'on screen'.
• Twists, turns, spoilers.
• It's a 'love letter to D&D'.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Level 9 clerics and 15 wizards can be easily immortal.

Makes liches silly.

see also: clone

 

[Reynard]

Level 9 clerics and 15 wizards can be easily immortal.

Makes liches silly.

One of the worst results of treating the game rules as if they represent the fiction on a 1:1 basis is that it makes magic in D&D worlds "easy" -- pretty much the opposite of what you probably want if you are telling stories about lich-king would be Gods.

Magic in play is reliable as a convenience and for game balance. It does not mean it has to be simple, reliable or safe in the fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm actually impartial to it. This version of Tasha (or Tasha in general) being in the adventure doesn't bother me or make me happy.

Genuine question: I notice that a lot of times when you're not happy about something, you blame the marketing and you focus on it. Why is that?

It's pretty simple. Two isolated beliefs.

1. I don't like most of WotC's creative or game design decisions in the last few years (since Tasha's roughly, though there's lore stuff from before that I have issues with).

2. Hasbro is a massive corporation, whose decisions on every front are almost entirely motivated by maximizing their profits, so they make all the creative and game design choices for D&D based on how they think that choice will affect how much money they make, and if they think of a way to make more money (and it's legal), they will almost certainly do it. I have been convinced of this ever since the whole "D&D is under-monetized" business meeting, and everything I've seen from them since then has supported this conclusion.

3. It stands to reason, therefore, that they make decisions I don't like based on marketing reasons.

It also provides evidence that my preferences are, in WotC's opinion, not shared by the majority of their potential customers (those likely to give them the most profits), and therefore worthy of being ignored, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Still, that would be a reason not to date it at all, since things like time and causality are mutable in the original, Hickman Ravenloft.

Citation? Do you have evidence that Hickman's Ravenloft made time and causality mutable, or is that an assumption based on your preference that it be that way?

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the worst results of treating the game rules as if they represent the fiction on a 1:1 basis is that it makes magic in D&D worlds "easy" -- pretty much the opposite of what you probably want if you are telling stories about lich-king would be Gods.

Magic in play is reliable as a convenience and for game balance. It does not mean it has to be simple, reliable or safe in the fiction.

See, I think it does. The rules should follow the fiction. If the rules say magic is easy, and the fiction isn't clear about the issue, then by the fiction magic is easy. If the fiction says magic is hard and the rules contradict that, the game is poorly designed (from my point of view). And in any case, if the fiction and the rules are meant to be discontinuous, IMO that fact should be front and center so players know what they're getting.

 

[Parmandur]

Level 9 clerics and 15 wizards can be easily immortal.

Makes liches silly.

There's immortal, and then there's immortal.

 

[Reynard]

See, I think it does. The rules should follow the fiction. If the rules say magic is easy, and the fiction isn't clear about the issue, then by the fiction magic is easy. If the fiction says magic is hard and the rules contradict that, the game is poorly designed (from my point of view). And in any case, if the fiction and the rules are meant to be discontinuous, IMO that fact should be front and center so players know what they're getting.

If that is the case, then a huge portion of the inspiration for the design -- namely, sword and sorcery magic -- goes out the window and the game IS poorly designed. Raistlin Majere makes absolutely no sense in the context of the D&D rules. Nor does Vecna. Those are both characters created for D&D, which means that it MUST be that D&D is, does, and always had made concessions between the rules and the fiction.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Citation? Do you have evidence that Hickman's Ravenloft made time and causality mutable, or is that an assumption based on your preference that it be that way?

It’s based on the Ravenloft modules Hickman wrote, with their emphasis on dreamlike unreality, and his known dislike for the second edition boxed set.

Ravenloft and Gryphon Hill are each prequels to the other, and both can be played at the same time, with players switching between adventures whenever they sleep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If that is the case, then a huge portion of the inspiration for the design -- namely, sword and sorcery magic -- goes out the window and the game IS poorly designed. Raistlin Majere makes absolutely no sense in the context of the D&D rules. Nor does Vecna. Those are both characters created for D&D, which means that it MUST be that D&D is, does, and always had made concessions between the rules and the fiction.

The following is my subjective opinion.

D&D-branded fiction (including setting books) is different from D&D the game. At least, I've always treated them separately. Fiction follows the rules of story, because...it's a story. Game rules should follow the setting they are based on, in that the way something works in the setting (like how easy or hard magic is) ought to be reflected in the rules for that thing. That's simulation, which is my gaming philosophy.

Inspiring works often follow the rules of narrative. Games, even those based on such works, IMO shouldn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s based on the Ravenloft modules Hickman wrote, with their emphasis on dreamlike unreality, and his known dislike for the second edition boxed set.

Ravenloft and Gryphon Hill are each prequels to the other, and both can be played at the same time, with players switching between adventures whenever they sleep.

So no actual examples then, just your feelings and opinions about Hickman (and some of his opinions, unsupported by the work in question) which just so happen to coincide with your own? What in the actual modules supports your theory?