Finally got the new Ravenloft.

[Treebore]

I guess that's more of what I was wondering - I'm sure I can use the Heroes of Horror/Arthaus stuff with the module/mini-campaign, but I was wondering how much contradictory or overlapping game mechanics there are.

Its been about two years since I ran my Ravenloft, but I believe if you just decide which Vistani version to use, and just modify things in that direction, there won't be much, if any, problem.

Of course if your campaign is already on going, just stick with the Vistani you are using now.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I believe Voncenoctum is talking about his own campaign, I am pretty sure that Karrnath is indeed the recommended location for Castle Ravenloft in Eberron according to the book.

Yeah, my own campaign. The book suggests Karrn/Mror border, though if I was setting it in modern I'd probably not go Karrnath, but somewhere more fringe. Undead in Karrnath aren't exactly something "horrible".

 

[Dykstrav]

Overall, I did not like Expedition to Castle Ravenloft.

I really dig the layout of the book, it's exactly the kind of thing a harried DM needs: an open-the-book-and-run-it adventure. The organization and presentation is superb and logical.

What I didn't like about it was how "reimagining" some encounters essentially meant reworking them so that you could solve virtually any problem by making enough attack rolls. Madam Eva as a hag? Fighting Donavich? C'mon, it's not like Ravenloft needs more battles. In theory, I like the idea of the wilderness fanes. Although it seems a bit forced (something to make the PCs move around the map), it really ties in with the idea of Strahd drawing power from the land. But even the wilderness fanes amount to little more than specific battles you have to seek out and deal with.

This may be a pretty minor gripe too, but I haven't been able to find a description for the Aspect of Chernovog. I can find the stat block, but nothing that says what it looks like or behaves like. Am I just missing this description somewhere?

I still have my old copies of I6 and the 2E House of Strahd. It hasn't changed enough to where I feel that it's a 'different' adventure, and that's a good thing. But it's taken alot of wrong turns, I can see alot of places where I'm just going to ignore what the adventure says and do my own thing.

Maybe I'm just being an old fogey about the new version, but I don't like it as much as the original. It seems to have tacked on alot of odds and ends (like warlocks, aspects, and some of the Libris Mortis material) without significantly weaving them into the ongoing tale. I do like the prestige classes and presenting the sunsword and the holy symbol of ravenkind as legacy items. I do like the alternate class features options.

I'd tell you to check it out if you don't have access to the older I6 or House of Strahd. If you do have those modules, you may want to give Expedition to Castle Ravenloft a once over before you buy it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

What I didn't like about it was how "reimagining" some encounters essentially meant reworking them so that you could solve virtually any problem by making enough attack rolls. Madam Eva as a hag? Fighting Donavich?

I think the difference is that not every encounter requires solve-bu-sword, whereas other adventures have assumed that as a default.

This may be a pretty minor gripe too, but I haven't been able to find a description for the Aspect of Chernovog. I can find the stat block, but nothing that says what it looks like or behaves like. Am I just missing this description somewhere?

Where it is for all the other stuff, it isn't there, so it must have gotten lost in editing. This is one of the weak points of the game for me, artwork lacks. Lots of oddball monsters with "everything you need to run them" but no real details or source information. I mean, a Blaspheme might be in Libris Mortis, but telling me that would be handy. Having pictures for some of the major things would be nice also. (Chernovog is a good example.)

 

[Talmun]

<snip>
This may be a pretty minor gripe too, but I haven't been able to find a description for the Aspect of Chernovog. I can find the stat block, but nothing that says what it looks like or behaves like. Am I just missing this description somewhere?
<snip>

I wasn't able to find a description for him either, so i'm going to describe this since it's the same name, more or less, and it fits thematically.

My attempt at running ECR starts this Sunday, I can let the boards know how it goes if anyone is interested.

 

[Endur]

Am I just missing this description somewhere?

No, the adventure is missing some things, including the description of Chernovog.

But the presentation is superb. Whoever was doing the presentation deserves a bonus.

 

[Cor Azer]

Its been about two years since I ran my Ravenloft, but I believe if you just decide which Vistani version to use, and just modify things in that direction, there won't be much, if any, problem.

Of course if your campaign is already on going, just stick with the Vistani you are using now.

Excellent. I'm not actually running a Ravenloft game yet, but I was thinking of spinning off the Expedition mini-campaign into a full-blown Ravenloft game, so I was wondering what kind of stuff I needed to watch for "gotchas".

 

[Joël of the FoS]

Hey,

All the maps of the adventure are now found on the WotC site. Check in EtCR, map of the month. But %&*?% they kept the monsters location on it (so much for surprise, duh). Useless on a gaming table.

---

As someone did say, I also find the non-reference to esoteric / not well known monsters very annoying. There are some weird monsters in it and I have no idea which source book they were taken from, or EtCR doesn't have a picture to show me what it's looking like.

ex: a Troll stalker (large air elemental) ??? Rot reavers?

---

I really do not like the two pages encounter format:

- The fact that it's doomed to fill two pages can be an annoying reason for fillers;

- there are not monsters pic, as I said above;

- in the castle, some of these encounters locations do overlap, but amazingly do not show the information of the other nearby encounter.
Check maps on p 181 and 183: map of page 181 doesn't show trap shown on page 183.

- It's like if all encounters were treated separately, without the monster in next room reacting to the battle noise. Not very dynamic and we're back to D&D videogames or 1st ed dungeon crawl feel.

Conclusion on these encounter format: good idea for content (small map, stats and tactics) but put it back in the text, in the room description. Keep all the information at the same place. Simply because that way a DM has less chance to goof by forgetting something important in the nearby room.

Joël

 

[Treebore]

Hey,

All the maps of the adventure are now found on the WotC site. Check in EtCR, map of the month. But %&*?% they kept the monsters location on it (so much for surprise, duh). Useless on a gaming table.

---

As someone did say, I also find the non-reference to esoteric / not well known monsters very annoying. There are some weird monsters in it and I have no idea which source book they were taken from, or EtCR doesn't have a picture to show me what it's looking like.

ex: a Troll stalker (large air elemental) ??? Rot reavers?

---

I really do not like the two pages encounter format:

- The fact that it's doomed to fill two pages can be an annoying reason for fillers;

- there are not monsters pic, as I said above;

- in the castle, some of these encounters locations do overlap, but amazingly do not show the information of the other nearby encounter.
Check maps on p 181 and 183: map of page 181 doesn't show trap shown on page 183.

- It's like if all encounters were treated separately, without the monster in next room reacting to the battle noise. Not very dynamic and we're back to D&D videogames or 1st ed dungeon crawl feel.
Conclusion on these encounter format: good idea for content (small map, stats and tactics) but put it back in the text, in the room description. Keep all the information at the same place. Simply because that way a DM has less chance to goof by forgetting something important in the nearby room.

Joël

Hopefully what I bolded will show up in the quotes once this si posted, but as for the overlapping encounters comment, I look at it as that is why we pre-read/familiarize ourselves with ANY adventure we are going to run. I look at it as that is why a DM is needed.

I like having to make my own judgement calls and decisions. Maybe they didn't spell out such things because they knew DM's like me would feel insulted that I needed such things spelled out for me.


Who knows? Bottom line is that particular complaint is a non-issue for me.

As for the lack of certain descriptions and telling us which book is needed, they kind of do that in the beginning where they tell you which books would be "useful" but not "necessary" for utilizing this adventure.

But I do agree that they should leave no reason whatsoever for you to need to reference those books, so all info should be in this book. Unless its from the core 3, everyone who is a DM should have those. If they don't, it was their choice, so tough.

Thanks for pointing out the little errors, etc... I wasn't looking for things like that because I'm not running this under 3E rules anyways.


I still like this book a lot though. Lots of cool new ideas, new spins on old things to consider, plenty for me to consider, period. Use or discard, etc... My kind of adventure book.

Its nice liking a WOTC book so strongly for a change.

 

[Joël of the FoS]

I still like this book a lot though.

I also think it's a good book, despite the flaws I discussed above. It's not 100% to my taste as a Ravenlofter, but it's not bad.

Joël