D&D 4E Castle Ravenloft boardgame as a simpler 4e?

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Perhaps a bit odd and maybe folks have already hashed this out...

Background:
I ran 4E for a while and found it to be fine. Some solid stuff in it, with one major problem: I don't like running minis-based games. I ran 4E without minis and it did just fine, but I'm also quite aware of the fact that almost everyone wants minis in 4E and the game itself relies even more heavily on them than 3.x did.

My question:
So yesterday I was over at a mate's place and they whipped out Castle Ravenloft and started playing through it.

And I was struck at how there's almost an rpg lurking beneath the game.

Now, it's pretty clear that 4E and Castle Ravenloft are related. But what I'm thinking/wondering is how to keep the ease/simplicity of Castle Ravenloft, while opening it up to be a "full" rpg. Characters that level, etc.

I'm sure there's going to be expansions or whatever for the game, but that's not quite what I'm talking about.

See, while I loathe running minis-based rpgs (I'll play in 'em, I just won't run 'em) I have to admit: if I could actually have 4E minis combat (or 3.x for that matter) run as quick and as smooth as Castle Ravenloft? I'd run it. The box gives you some figs, it's got tiles, stuff moves quick... it's like they've finally figured out after 10 years how to do the minis side of things and then sorta neglected to include the other half of the game. Several of the people said it was basically about as complicated as they'd want from a D&D game and I gotta admit it seemed to be just about the right level to me.

It just needs to be bumped a bit so it's not entirely locked into dungeoncrawling.

So... anyone done anything with it?

 

[malraux]

I don't see it. That is, if I were to RPGize CR, I'd end up with something really pretty close to 4e again. As a minis combat system, 4e is pretty tight.

 

[Canor Morum]

I tried running Castle Ravenloft with my players. They liked it but said they would rather just play 4e.

The main complaint was they didn't want to run the monsters. They were used to me doing that. Personally, I was enjoying being a player for once.

It's good if you only have an hour to game.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I've only played Castle Ravenloft once, but I noticed how the combat was much faster and simpler.

Right now D&D focuses a lot on combat. If you wanted to focus more on roleplaying, but still have some combat elements, it might be possible to convert CR. I'm sure it would need some tweeking though.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I don't see it. That is, if I were to RPGize CR, I'd end up with something really pretty close to 4e again. As a minis combat system, 4e is pretty tight.

*shrug*

No offense, but if I want a "minis combat system", I'll break out a real wargame and play it. Miniatures as an _aid_ to combat? *shrug* Ok, whatever. Up through 2nd Ed AD&D I could see it. Sometimes it was useful. 3.x rolls around and WotC strongly pushes for miniatures, although a chunk of people say, "no, you don't have to have miniatures to play D&D; it just helps, that's all."

And truth be told, I ran no-minis games of 3.x just fine.

But 4e... not only does the game tell you, "Suck it up, this game is about miniature combat" but the vast majority of the fans say the same thing. "Go play something else if you don't like miniatures".

Which is kind of a shame. I liked D&D when everyone was allowed to play. I was kinda thinkin' that Castle Ravenloft might be that bridge.

I tried running Castle Ravenloft with my players. They liked it but said they would rather just play 4e.

The main complaint was they didn't want to run the monsters. They were used to me doing that. Personally, I was enjoying being a player for once.

It's good if you only have an hour to game.

I've only watched the game once really, but I don't think it would be _that_ difficult for the GM to do "the usual duties". But obviously, if you don't have a group on board with the idea, it's just not going to work. For me? It's the difference between me running 4E or not.

I've only played Castle Ravenloft once, but I noticed how the combat was much faster and simpler.

Right now D&D focuses a lot on combat. If you wanted to focus more on roleplaying, but still have some combat elements, it might be possible to convert CR. I'm sure it would need some tweeking though.

And that's basically where I am. I don't hate 4E; I think it's a pretty tight system in a number of respects. I've got little interest in playing a character in it though and my interest in running it has dropped off pretty sharply; and the main culprit is the whole minis thing.

Castle Ravenloft actually made it look fun and easy and that's what I was kinda hopin' for. Using the three bears, if Castle Ravenloft is a bed that's "too soft" and straight up 4E is a bed that's "too hard", then where is "just right"? I'm thinking that starting at Castle Ravenloft and then adding in some bits and pieces might be the way to go, but I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Aegeri]

Everyone here does realize that Castle Ravenloft is a cooperative miniatures board game and not a roleplaying game right? It uses 4E rules but it in no way tries to emulate an RPG in any manner beyond that. If you don't like 4E as it uses miniatures for combat - castle Ravenloft being a miniatures based board game is not going to change that. Incidentally, it has a lot of good miniatures for a DM: Including a huge Dracolich.

The game seems simple, but that's because it removes 99% of the decision making in the rules. For example if PC X is Y squares and PC A is B squares, the monster picks whichever one is closer to it to attack. That sort of thing. It's every bit a miniatures war game as 4E, except that it has the purpose of automating the monsters actions into a cooperative experience. If you think of something like Arkham Horror, it's closer to that conceptually than DnD in many ways.