Check Out CURSE OF STRAHD'S Table of Contents!

THAT'S where the Mongrelfolk appear! That was a long time coming!

 

[Jabborwacky]

All of the material released looks rock solid save for the out of place victorian/early industrial revolution features described in the Death House adventure. Going into why they are out of place would involve talking about details of the adventure that would spoil it, but if any of the staff at WoTC looks at these comments, it is my experience that dark fantasy settings include elements of investigation more than typical fantasy settings. Keeping the internals of the adventures consistent will minimize red herrings and improve your products. Otherwise, great work! I look forward to picking up Curse of Strahd this friday.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm not sure how much character creation extras they could add to a Ravenloft adventure.

I would not want to see playable revenants or vampires. . .

I most certainly would like to see those things, though I have no absolute need for them to show up in the CoS adventure product instead of somewhere else.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I admit that I'm out of touch. I started playing 5e after not having played DnD since 1e nor any TRPG since the early 90s. But when did it become an expectation that an adventure would have class options. I prefer to keep the crunch separate and really hope that WoTC doesn't go nuts with crunch. Maybe I should put it differently, I like the player supplements to be separate, stand-alone works that make it easy for me, as the DM, to say--no--we are not using that in my game. If you start putting a lot of this stuff into the adventure paths, it become really hard to not have to accept it all into my game.

Also, I don't want my players to be tempted to buy the book for the player options. It would be too easy for WoTC to add a bunch of player options in an attempt to have a larger audience to sell the books to. I'm grateful that they didn't stoop to this.

Even adding new monsters, spells, and magic items is optional. They should only be added if they really add the theme and story and I wouldn't at all feel cheated if an adventure path had none this, so long as the story, maps, and organization were all great.

In the previous edition of the game, virtually everything was sold as a player book, and the mechanics of the game did their best to trivialize the role of the DM. While very popular for a short time, the edition failed to win over a significant number of long-term players, and resulted in a schism that gave rise to WotC's biggest competitor: Pathfinder.

The current edition has the unenviable task of trying to please everybody, and so far they seem to be doing a pretty bang-up job of it.

That being said, there are still far more players than Dungeon Masters (as there should be, really), so having books dedicated to DM-Only or optional material isn't a great sales move.

 

[MechaPilot]

In the previous edition of the game. . . the mechanics of the game did their best to trivialize the role of the DM.

I cannot disagree with that enough. DMs still ran everything, still made adventures and encounters as they pleased, still had the power to restrict whatever they wanted to restrict, still had the power to alter whatever rules they chose to, etc. I think there's a substantial difference between trivializing the role of the DM (what you said) and attempting to make the DM's role easier (my impression of the edition in question).

 

[Ath-kethin]

I suppose it depends on what you feel the DM's role is. To my mind, printing magic items/weapons in the Player's Handbook and encouraging the players to tell the DM what to put in the game/distribute is a pretty serious erosion of the DM's role/authority.

Never mind the board game nature of the combat setup (which admittedly was only a small step away from the 3rd Edition precedent).

It worked for some people, and good on them. I clearly wasn't one of them.

 

[MechaPilot]

I suppose it depends on what you feel the DM's role is. To my mind, printing magic items/weapons in the Player's Handbook and encouraging the players to tell the DM what to put in the game/distribute is a pretty serious erosion of the DM's role/authority.

Never mind the board game nature of the combat setup (which admittedly was only a small step away from the 3rd Edition precedent).

It worked for some people, and good on them. I clearly wasn't one of them.

It's definitely a matter of individual taste. I won't and can't disagree with you on that.

I will say that encouraging wishlists, which DMs were never beholden to follow, just felt to me like something that I was already doing: talking to players about their characters and what their vision of their character was. In 2e and 3e, I would often do this. And I would often tailor randomly generated magic items to be more in line with a player's vision for her character. However, regardless of edition I never felt really put upon to give out more than a single wishlist item per player over the course of an entire campaign.

 

[MNblockhead]

It's an expectation because 1) they have before and 2) if you don't count adventure path books, they have released one supplement with more race/class options in this entire edition.

Then again, you're pretty clearly of the "players shouldn't be allowed to enjoy playing things I don't and knowing the setting is cheating" camp, which does indeed make you out of touch.

I have no issue with players having the campaign-setting material. If I was playing FR, I would expect that many of the players would own SCAG. But Curse of Straud is clearly not meant to be a campaign setting book. It is an adventure path. Different people have different attitudes regarding "spoilers" I guess. As a player, I wouldn't read an adventure module or adventure path before playing it, it would take away from my enjoyment playing through it. As a DM, I would prefer my players have not read the adventure before playing it. Not because they are "cheating" (they are not in competition with me), but because it sucks some of the joy of presenting the story and their explorations.

I can understand your point about the lack of supplements with more race/class options. There have been many discussion threads debating the business decisions behind this crunch-light approach in 5e and whether it is a good approach or not. But that's a separate discussion from whether a book whose primary purpose is to provide an adventure for a DM to run should also provide a campaign setting and player-character options. I would rather keep player-oriented and DM-oriented material separate.

 

[darkdmon]

I am sad to not see the Half-Vistani or the Caliban (Still hoping for a player's companion), but i must say as a fan of ravenloft i cant wait to get this book in my hands and introduce my players to ravenloft has they have only been playing D&D for about a year

 

[speculart]

I have no issue with players having the campaign-setting material. If I was playing FR, I would expect that many of the players would own SCAG. But Curse of Straud is clearly not meant to be a campaign setting book. It is an adventure path. Different people have different attitudes regarding "spoilers" I guess. As a player, I wouldn't read an adventure module or adventure path before playing it, it would take away from my enjoyment playing through it. As a DM, I would prefer my players have not read the adventure before playing it. Not because they are "cheating" (they are not in competition with me), but because it sucks some of the joy of presenting the story and their explorations.

One reason I have mixed feelings about Chris Perkins DMing COS on Twitch! 1. How are we mere mortals to compete? 2. SPOILERS.
That being said. I am hanging out to watch it. Chris is a kick ass DM.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm also looking forward to watching Chris Perkins DM it. But is I were a player, I wouldn't. At least not until after I've played through it.