What do you think the new setting will be, from Ampersand?

[Nymrohd]

I think it is reasonable for 4E to be somewhat unwilling to refedine basic terms for the first two years of its release (which includes the first 3 campaign settings). But after a while some redefinition may well be a good idea.

 

[Skywalker]

My guess is Dark Sun. With PHB3 introducing Psionics, I think WotC will want to stretch its 4e legs with the 3rd setting.

 

[Henry]

What WILL they do? No clue.

What do I WANT them to do? Dark Sun. I'd love to see it make a comeback. Unlike some sentiment here, Ari Marmell had a thread on ENWorld a while back working out the loose concepts of a Dark Sun setting, and it was going pretty well. It convinced me that 4E could convincingly do even a survivalist setting like Dark Sun rather well.

 

[jdrakeh]

Honestly, I find Ravenloft tough to buy at first blush. To me, it's always been about mixing Conan with Count Dracula. It's just a funny mash-up that strains credibility. Adding a tiefling or a warlock will hardly break the setting any more than it's already been broken. And goliaths & dragonborn are no more inherently silly than elves with many-voweled names.

To some degree, I concurr. It always seemed that, if there was ever a novel penned or film directed about a particular creature, the writers were forced to fit it into the Ravenloft setting somehow. I mean, it has zombies, werewolves, ghosts, mummies, Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, ad nauseum.

People can (and no doubt will) say that every monster of Ravenloft is a unique gem of creativity that owes no debt to modern movie monsters or classic Horror fiction. All this tells me is that such people haven't watched too many modern monster movies or read very much classic Horror fiction. For better or worse, I've been exposed to a lot of both.

This being the case, when Ravenloft borrows so much from better known genre works in such blatant ways, it borders on satire for the people familiar with said sources. It can be overwhelming at times. Despite this, I still like Ravenloft a lot (I'd say that it is my second favorite official AD&D setting, surpassed only by Greyhawk).

That said, I don't recall Ravenloft containing any rules that made it any more 'role-play' oriented than other D&D settings, though I guess that the Tarokka was an attempt at such rules (albeit one that never seemed to work out very well for publishers). For me, Ravenloft always seemed like bog standard D&D steeped in the tropes of Horror easily indentified as originating from other sources (which, incidentally, is why I like it).

 

[Wraith Form]

The 'rollplaying' crack is unnecessary and obnoxious, but the difference in styles is, I think, a fact.

I am going to be unapologetic about this. (Not just the above quote, but everyone who felt the need to respond.) My intent wasn't to be 'obnoxious'...it was to simply observe that Ravenloft has a "less superhero" approach to D&D (for most RL gamers) and that 4th edition is all about playing cinematic action-heroes.

Ravenloft is absolutely playable with 4th edition, but it seems to me (in my opinion) that it's ill-fitting and goes against RL's themes of 'everyman' heroes against overwhelming adversity.

I've been gaming and buying the books for both Ravenloft and 4th edition since the day they came out, so my feelings about their compatibility aren't based on lack of experience with either.

Matthew's post actually said it much more eloquently compared to the way that I intended in my original post. Now, let's move on please.

 

[Obryn]

I am going to be unapologetic about this. (Not just the above quote, but everyone who felt the need to respond.) My intent wasn't to be 'obnoxious'...it was to simply observe that Ravenloft has a "less superhero" approach to D&D (for most RL gamers) and that 4th edition is all about playing cinematic action-heroes.

Ravenloft is absolutely playable with 4th edition, but it seems to me (in my opinion) that it's ill-fitting and goes against RL's themes of 'everyman' heroes against overwhelming adversity.

I've been gaming and buying the books for both Ravenloft and 4th edition since the day they came out, so my feelings about their compatibility aren't based on lack of experience with either.

Matthew's post actually said it much more eloquently compared to the way that I intended in my original post. Now, let's move on please.

I think the part where I disagree is ... well, I guess everything, now that I think about it.

I think you're interjecting a narrative into Ravenloft that isn't really there - or wasn't when I was mostly checking it out, during 2e. As I said before, at its core, it's Conan meets Count Dracula. Originally, it was a sideshow - your party of normal old D&D characters are wandering around, the DM throws a pile of mist at them, and poof! They're in Ravenloft, killing werewolves and vampires and skeletons and mummies and anything else that made an appearance in black & white horror movies.

I don't see where it's ever been about "everymen" conquering vast horrors, unless that was something White Wolf threw into it during their turn at the helm. It's about already-superheroic elves with silly names and ale-loving dwarves getting thrown into a land where undead are a little beefier, Dracula is real, and everyone's sad most of the time. It was like a parody of gothic horror.

...am I missing something?

-O

 

[Klaus]

To some degree, I concurr. It always seemed that, if there was ever a novel penned or film directed about a particular creature, the writers were forced to fit it into the Ravenloft setting somehow. I mean, it has zombies, werewolves, ghosts, mummies, Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, ad nauseum.

People can (and no doubt will) say that every monster of Ravenloft is a unique gem of creativity that owes no debt to modern movie monsters or classic Horror fiction. All this tells me is that such people haven't watched too many modern monster movies or read very much classic Horror fiction. For better or worse, I've been exposed to a lot of both.

This being the case, when Ravenloft borrows so much from better known genre works in such blatant ways, it borders on satire for the people familiar with said sources. It can be overwhelming at times. Despite this, I still like Ravenloft a lot (I'd say that it is my second favorite official AD&D setting, surpassed only by Greyhawk).

That said, I don't recall Ravenloft containing any rules that made it any more 'role-play' oriented than other D&D settings, though I guess that the Tarokka was an attempt at such rules (albeit one that never seemed to work out very well for publishers). For me, Ravenloft always seemed like bog standard D&D steeped in the tropes of Horror easily indentified as originating from other sources (which, incidentally, is why I like it).

Look at the perfect Raveloft movie, "Sleepy Hollow". That is how Ravenloft feels to me, as opposed to the ealier "FR characters get drawn into gothic setting".

The thing with Ravenloft is that every monster or NPC, while based on familar -- even clichéd -- tropes, has its own backstory and personality. It's never "werewolf #2", it's "Karl Yugsbern, werewolf".

 

[ki11erDM]

After thinking about it for a while I just want them to release something that is minable for my own world, as I won’t be running anything they publish anyway.

Eberron is not, in anyway, minable for me, and I will not be buying any of the books. 4e’s FR’s countries have been minable, as well as the new classes and mechanics (which is why I love the FR books). Darksun’s rules could be but the fluff will be useless. I am already heavily mining old Ravenloft fluff (incorporating 4e’s shadowfell ideas) so some mechanics to go with would be nice. DL… won’t be minable for me. OA could be darn nice as I have a spot open on my campaign map for that type of setting.

But what I really want to see is something new. Maybe something based on either Nordic or Egyptian lore.

 

[jdrakeh]

Look at the perfect Raveloft movie, "Sleepy Hollow". That is how Ravenloft feels to me, as opposed to the ealier "FR characters get drawn into gothic setting".

I think it can feel like that, but it takes some work on the part of the DM to maintain that feel consistently. Out of the box, parts of Ravenloft absolutely have the feel. Other parts of it have a "OMG! Let's watch some Hammer films and go on a vodka bender!" feel.

The thing with Ravenloft is that every monster or NPC, while based on familar -- even clichéd -- tropes, has its own backstory and personality. It's never "werewolf #2", it's "Karl Yugsbern, werewolf".

I think that this is usually true but not always. That said, it's also not always a problem, as I previously mention — it's only a problem when the tropes become so frequent or so blatant as to be absurd (a problem that, again, I find must be mitigated by the GM from time to time).

Frex, the were-X thing that was going on with Darklords (or pretenders) for a period was frustratingly stupid, IMHO. I, of course, refer to the apparent mandate to have a Darklord of every possible were-creature type. Were-badger? WTF?!?

 

[TwoSix]

I agree. I think I would rather see Greyhawk and Dragonlance than Dark Sun and Ravenloft for this reason.

It is, however, kind of disappointing to me that 4e won't embrace are re-definition of its own terms. I play different settings to play different types of heroes, to re-define the kinds of adventures and the kinds of characters I play. Different settings appeal to me as different genrea.

It's kind of disappointing that 4e is all the same game, just with different names.

Consider the design team has been working on 4e for at least 3 years now. They might be both a) comfortable enough with the system and b) desirous of a new challenge; to pick a more radical setting to show off the modularity of 4e's design and stretch their design legs out a bit.