• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E New D&D Hardcover To Be Announced On The 23rd (Tomorrow)?

According to this page on Amazon.com, a new Dungeon & Dragons hardcover title for May will be announced tomorrow. Users in the US see the product below (those in the UK are seeing a Wizkids miniatures set instead).

So far signs look like Ravenloft, but we’ll know for sure tomorrow.

[Update -- also mentioned by Todd Kendrick, recently of D&D Beyond].

WotC has posted the below animation, which says “The Mist Beckons”.



Eu15emPXcAQLSQQ.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


dave2008

Legend
The players know that they aren't going to be expected to fight a CR 14 enemy when they are level 4, so they never see the vampire as a threat. They have killed enough zombies that they could fight them in their sleep.
Boy, I've neve played with a group that felt they would be saved by the plot. Then again, I don't play with published adventures either.
 



Okay. I suspect you and your players don’t play in a way that’s conducive to Ravenloft.

My players wouldn’t fireball a group of farmers on a hunch.
I've never known a hunch like that be wrong.

Largely because there is nothing harmless in D&D in general, and Ravenloft in particular.
They just don’t play that way. Therefore that very cynical outcome wouldn’t work. The fear that any group could be bestial murderers wouldn’t cause them to fireball everyone - though it might cause them to suspect everyone. The scene also followed on from a relatively secure scene in the Blue Water inn with Van Richten, which may have contributed to them taking the scene at face value.

If your only fear of Strahd is that he might kill you, then you need to work harder. My female bard player was mainly concerned that she would be dominated and bitten.
Whatever.

The worst that can happen is you roll up a new character.
Zombies are fine. Ravenloft zombies that don’t stop moving even after you’ve chopped them up are a different matter. When the zombie’s arm you just chopped off crawls along the floor and starts inching up the door towards the latch to let the others in then it may be different.
Most zombies do that in my game. Players always burn any bits just to make sure. They have seen Game of Thrones.
 

Shardstone

Adventurer
Publisher
I've never known a hunch like that be wrong.

Largely because there is nothing harmless in D&D in general, and Ravenloft in particular.

Whatever.

The worst that can happen is you roll up a new character.

Most zombies do that in my game. Players always burn any bits just to make sure. They have seen Game of Thrones.
Another weird post. If you're point is that all gamers are different we got that loud and clear. Are you now trying to say that your game method is better or something?
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Another weird post. If you're point is that all gamers are different we got that loud and clear. Are you now trying to say that your game method is better or something?
I believe the implication is that cynical, bordering on comic, opportunism and paranoia is pretty much the default for D&D parties, which makes invoking horror tropes difficult.

For what it's worth, that matches my experience. Obviously not every group is the same, but I've heard plenty of anecdotes of people not being able to pull off horror games for the same reasons.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
I've never known a hunch like that be wrong.
So what? If you’re you play a table where burning people before they’re proved guilty is par for the course, then Ravenloft isn’t for you.

I asked my party for two things. Create characters that are capable of being scared and create characters that have a fundamental flaw. I already knew they wouldn’t play murder hobos, I don’t need to ask them for that. If your characters are shoot first Murder Hobos then Ravenloft won’t work for you.
Largely because there is nothing harmless in D&D in general, and Ravenloft in particular.
Well i just said that they had just finished an encounter in a safe place with good people. If you run a place where everyone is an enemy then people might assume that they can kill with impunity. That isn’t Barovia. If your games never include allies or good NPCs then don’t play Ravenloft.
Whatever.


The worst that can happen is you roll up a new character.
Again. That would be a big deal at my table. Players get invested. If you’re not invested then no Ravenloft won’t work for you.
Most zombies do that in my game. Players always burn any bits just to make sure. They have seen Game of Thrones.
They burn them in mid combat? That cool. No problem keeping up with things when the number of enemies increases in numbers.

It sounds like you have it all worked out. Definitely don’t play Ravenloft. It sounds like a terrible idea for you.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I've never known a hunch like that be wrong.

Largely because there is nothing harmless in D&D in general, and Ravenloft in particular.

Whatever.

The worst that can happen is you roll up a new character.

Most zombies do that in my game. Players always burn any bits just to make sure. They have seen Game of Thrones.
Which is why the Dark Powers start toying with the adventurers; groups they meet ARE friendly farmers and whispers start reaching towns that the PCs are vile murderers and cannot be trusted. The towns close the doors to the PCs and getting food, warm beds and supplies becomes difficult without threat, theft, or violence. Meanwhile, every person they meet has a 50% chance of being an innocent the DP use to toy with the PCs until they have wallowed in innocent blood and become like the monsters they fight or learn to not shoot first and all questions later...

But you do you.
 

Mistwell

Legend
It's extremely well-established as a general point

Any claim about being "extremely" knowledgeable about a segment of the dark ages of history of the continent of Europe concerning those who are considered witches is an exaggeration. First, the dark ages themselves we are lacking in knowledge relative to the eras which came before and after it. Second, the subset of that history about witches is even less well known now. There is a distinct lack of records and artifacts from that era, particularly that subset of study, relative to the eras which came before and after it. These circumstances do not lend themselves to anyone claiming our level of knowledge is certain enough to claim anything about it is "extremely well established".

I notice there's a total lack of sources for your claims, too
You didn't ask for any but I was quoting from good sources. If you'd like to start discussing sources I can do that - googling those quotes will get you to them. But If we're going to go down that route, you will need to produce "extraordinary" levels of evidence that it's "well established" across Europe in the dark ages. Which is the claim you made. I strongly suspect you don't want to go down that route. But, here's the opportunity.

If we want more nuance, we could say that fairly reliably in Britain at least, up until the later middle ages, people make some kind of distinction between "evil magic" and "good or neutral magic". This tends to be true in antiquity as well, where we have sources. What changes later on is that all magic becomes regarded as evil. That's what I'm calling an aberration. It's rarely the case in human history that that approach is taken.
None of that new "nuanced" claim bares even a vague resemblance to the claims you made earlier. I find it far more compelling, but it would have been a heck of a lot more appreciated if you had started there rather than with the claims of certainty that everyone was wrong for daring to imply your prior extreme claim was anything but pure and accurate.
 


Which is why the Dark Powers start toying with the adventurers; groups they meet ARE friendly farmers and whispers start reaching towns that the PCs are vile murderers and cannot be trusted. The towns close the doors to the PCs and getting food, warm beds and supplies becomes difficult without threat, theft, or violence. Meanwhile, every person they meet has a 50% chance of being an innocent the DP use to toy with the PCs until they have wallowed in innocent blood and become like the monsters they fight or learn to not shoot first and all questions later...

But you do you.
I'm pretty sure my players would have great fun being monsters...
 



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Also, the key approach should be "let's make D&D in gothic costume" and definitely not "lets try if we can bend D&D enough to be kinda like realistic horror game".
I agree. I love gothic horror, but I don’t think D&D is a great vehicle for horror. However, I did find Curse of Strahd to do a fantastic job of injecting a gothic horror aesthetic into what was very much a D&D adventure. And that’s what I hope to see more of from this book. D&D doesn’t need to be Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness. Better to let it be D&D, but to play with some gothic horror trappings within that space.
I believe the implication is that cynical, bordering on comic, opportunism and paranoia is pretty much the default for D&D parties, which makes invoking horror tropes difficult.

For what it's worth, that matches my experience. Obviously not every group is the same, but I've heard plenty of anecdotes of people not being able to pull off horror games for the same reasons.
I tend to see more heroism than cynicism and opportunism being the default in D&D. Like you say though, I guess every group is different, and I don’t suppose Ravenloft would work well for a party like that.
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
I tend to see more heroism than cynicism and opportunism being the default in D&D. Like you say though, I guess every group is different, and I don’t suppose Ravenloft would work well for a party like that.
Yea, we must play with different parties. :) I generally need to bait the hook with something they can earn, a general call of "we need to save the village from X" is generally met with shrugs.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Okay. I suspect you and your players don’t play in a way that’s conducive to Ravenloft.

My players wouldn’t fireball a group of farmers on a hunch. They just don’t play that way. Therefore that very cynical outcome wouldn’t work. The fear that any group could be bestial murderers wouldn’t cause them to fireball everyone - though it might cause them to suspect everyone. The scene also followed on from a relatively secure scene in the Blue Water inn with Van Richten, which may have contributed to them taking the scene at face value.

If your only fear of Strahd is that he might kill you, then you need to work harder. My female bard player was mainly concerned that she would be dominated and bitten.

Zombies are fine. Ravenloft zombies that don’t stop moving even after you’ve chopped them up are a different matter. When the zombie’s arm you just chopped off crawls along the floor and starts inching up the door towards the latch to let the others in then it may be different.

Ravenloft is NOT for everyone. Then again neither is Darksun or Planescape. It’s just one them of campaign that resonates with a lot of people.

The problem is, if everyone complains that it’s not their favourite setting that gets published then it just generates a lot of negativity... and guess what, campaign settings become less likely to happen.

Everyone will get their flavor eventually. I just understand why they chose Ravenloft first.
My players also wouldn't fireball a bunch of farmers like that. As an example one once said "I'm going to aim those scorching rays at that pillar not what I now see is a kid with a sling because we are in the middle of a parade in sharn & I bet vaporizing a child is a crime" in the middle of a very inept assassination attempt by a bunch of commoners forced into it by way of kidnapped relatives. They went on to look at the notes hoping for clues & spend a session or two tracking down the kidnappers who had a grudge with them. That same group later went to ravenloft after fleeing the mists for months of weekly sessions & spent a few months Working with a collecion of to dragonmarked heirs/engineer types to fix up/modernize ravenloft for profit while the Dark Powers pulled strings for extra fun.

edit:am ->aim
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Yea, we must play with different parties. :) I generally need to bait the hook with something they can earn, a general call of "we need to save the village from X" is generally met with shrugs.
It depends on the campaign and player buy-in, I suppose. I’ve run games where the premise was that the characters were primarily self-interested and motivated by personal gain, and I’ve run games where the premise was that the characters were heroes, saving people/villages/maybe eventually the world with little expectation of reward. Usually I run games somewhere in-between. One thing I like about Curse of Strahd is that the personal gain motive and the heroic motive overlap - whether you want to escape Barovia or save it from its evil master, either way you’ve got to find the relics and use them to kill Strahd. It pretty much works as long as the players don’t want to replace Strahd as all-powerful dictator for eternity.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top