The 4th edition FoS manifesto

[steveflam]

Welcome back amigo!!!!!! HOpe your vacation went well with the family

[Le Noir Faineant]

Hell yeah!

[BigBadQDaddy]

Besides, hello all, I am back!

Good to have you back

[Sylaire]

Likewise (although less dramatically) back...

...and hey, why not 4th Ed, eh? Since I last played in 2nd Ed., it just jerks everyone else back down to my level. Bring it on!

[Le Noir Faineant]

Hey, Sylaire!

[direheroics]

Joel (and FoSites):

If you've had a chance to look at the 2 preview books released by WOTC, some of the core design conceits (their terminology), don't play well with typical Ravenloft campaign types.

Foremost among these is that the game is set up to reward tactical play... that is to say miniatures and dungeons and multi-session dungeon crawls. Skills have been pared down to few, and only those affecting "active" uses (one of the designers actually makes a joke about campaigns that actually use the Profession skill not being fun). The core concept is that D&D is about killing monsters, finding treasure, etc. Action is fun.

Each class has a rigid role based on what they are to do with combat. They explicitly note that things like skills or non-combat abilities are left off of balancing considerations because they "aren't fun".

Obviously, the ideas posited of heroes beyond level 20 is a stark contrast to the established RVL setup.

The world is better constructed. Base D&D posits "points of light" in darkness... that most folks stay at home in their villages, with the windows locked, and adventurers are the ones made of sterner stuff. There's no symmetry in the planes, so at least two planes touch on the base world (Shadow and Faerie) and can pull things into and out of it (like cities that exist in one place during the day but disappear into the other plane at night) which fits in with the Mists and how RVL interacts with the primary world of D&D.

I turned down my playtest offer because I didn't have time for it, so I haven't seen the rules. Everything that I have read seems to be leading 4E down a path that's more like a fast-play boardgame than a story full of mystery and intrigue. I'm worried that the design tenets that WOTC put out for themselves make some of the core things we all love about RVL harder to jive with the new rule structure.

We fit in better with the fluff (I'd almost argue that much of the setting stuff from the second 4E preview book is almost lifted right from RVL's core setting), but I'm wary to say the least.

Making it fit might be a monsterous bit to tackle without considering how they've designed the Core game to function... story elements may not function well within the framework. Definitely check out the preview booklets if you have the chance to read someone else's copy.

With Paizo continuing to publish in 3.5, and many 3rd party publishers on the fence, there will obviously be a split. Working in both mediums, as best as the miniature and combat-centric WOTC d20 systems are becoming, is probably the safest bet.

All the best

[order99]

I'm sure that Ravenloft could be made to fit 4E, but the additions and changes would make it an entirely new game by that time...

I've never let 'system' get in the way of a good Ravenloft or Masque game, heck i've got one friend of mine gathering her flock for a Ravenloft game using TSR's Conan! ruleset...

I'd join in, but another friend really wants me to play in his Warhammer FRPG Masque mini-series-oh, and he's DARED me to make RL work using the old Star Frontiers RPG rules so i'm just gonna have to take his money(half the work's already been done since the Masque Amazing Engine rules just about plug in)...

Ravenloft and Masque are bigger than any one set of Rules!

[Rotipher of the FoS]

We're not planning to abandon the 3E/3.5 rules, direheroics -- in fact, we still try to satisfy 2E gamers when we can -- so don't worry that the new edition will leave Arthaus-era Ravenloft fans out in the cold, here. At the moment, we're waiting to see the new rulebooks ourselves, before we make up our minds just how much of a shift is appropriate.

Most likely, we'll begin providing two versions of statistics for major NPCs and monsters in our netbooks, as of 2009, and otherwise do our best to serve both editions. (2008's a little soon for that, as we'll need to get used to the new mechanics ourselves, first.) This year, we intend to provide some setting-specific basics (F/H/M checks, Powers checks), and perhaps some tailoring of the 4E cosmology to incorporate the Land of Mists' presence and quirks. Quoth the Raven, BTW, will stay open to articles for all editions of D&D, and even other game-systems.

For now, the teasers for 4E do make it look extremely wargame-like; however, this may be a skewed impression, based on how WotC is releasing information. Changes to combat or classes necessarily raise a lot more questions and doubts, among gamers, than changes to role-play encounters, due to those mechanics' complexity; therefore, they're slanting the previews to ease those doubts.

But WotC knows that there are plenty of folks who play RPGs for the interaction, not just the monster-bashing, so it's unlikely they'd overlook the role-playing side of things, even if they haven't been dropping many hints about those topics. 2E was far more role-play-friendly than 1E, yet the hints dropped before that edition debuted were mostly about combat mechanics, classes, magic or monsters, too.

[Joël of the FoS]

What she said!

Because we share some of your concerns, until there is a 4eversion of the Ravenloft setting that would appeal to most here, we'll keep 3.75 on the burner too, with a second set of rules being 4e when we will be happy and confident with it.

Joël

[DocBeard]

I think the focus is on combat because combat's what needed the most energy-the mystery and the social fight both play pretty well, but I won't lie, seeing those 4E improvements on the classic dungeon crawl made me drool, and some of the cosmology changes made me want to DM again.

I think there's enough room for all flavors, though. In fact, I'm allready working on a little piece that'll, I hope, serve as a guide as to how to smoothly intigrate the new major races into a Ravenloft campaign.

[A G Thing]

I still can't get past gnomes being monsters now?!?!?

It is hilarious but confusing to me...

Skills are getting squashed into broad catagories, world of warcraft style progression, and plus as much as I want combat to go faster some times I think they may be headed in the wrong direction making it a focus.

And the Gnome's man? What about the Gnome's?

"As the party looks back at the destruction and blood shed they glory in the ease the Evil Gnome Lord and his Gnomish minions where destroyed. Kobolds had been replaced in the chain of fodder and the meager treasure was hardly a compensation."

[Lord Soth]

Foremost among these is that the game is set up to reward tactical play... that is to say miniatures and dungeons and multi-session dungeon crawls. Skills have been pared down to few, and only those affecting "active" uses (one of the designers actually makes a joke about campaigns that actually use the Profession skill not being fun). The core concept is that D&D is about killing monsters, finding treasure, etc. Action is fun.

I wouldn't be concerned about it. A designer has actually stated that you can have a campaign without any combat. They're developing "social combat" rules, and while the skills have been pared down, what each skill does has been increased by a great deal. They're also pushing forth the idea of gaining XP from other challenges other then killing. All of that bodes well for Ravenloft, not ill.

Remember, we're just seeing previews at the moment. And naturally, the combat aspects are what're getting shown off, the most. What's getting shown is far from the entirety of the system, though. It's only the barest smidgeon of the whole. And many playtesters have said that there's much more to the system than combat. I don't know specifics more then anyone else, aside from playtersters and WotC itself, but given what's been said, I don't see much cause for concern in that regard. D&D isn't going to suddenly stop being an RPG and become a tabletop miniature wargame with 4E.

[Lord Soth]

I still can't get past gnomes being monsters now?!?!?

It is hilarious but confusing to me...

Check out page 135 of the 3.5 Monster Manual. You'll find the Gnome, there.

The Gnome's haven't been eliminated as a PC race. You just won't find them in the first PHB. Every race, in addition to getting their racial write-up, also has a list of Racial Feats they can choose from. They're just putting Gnomes off until later, so they can give them the full work-up that they gave the other races.

Although Gnomes will be available from the get-go as a player race. About a dozen or so monsters in the Monster Manual will have PC write-ups. Gnomes will be one of those races. They won't have a selection of racial feats like the core races in the PHB, but that'll come later. Probably in the PHBII. Either way, Gnome's haven't been cut. They're still in as a PC race, and they'll be available for play from Day One of 4E. They just won't get a write-up equal to that of the other PHB races until later on, when WotC can put more time into them and do a good job of them.

[Rotipher of the FoS]

For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if humans get to make a reappearance in the MM. They'd been there back in 1E, after all.

Not that I've heard anything to that effect, but if NPC classes are going bye-bye, they might need to include "monster" stats for humans who don't have PC classes.

[A G Thing]

I just find the fact that they are not in the players handbook anymore kind of odd.
I have plenty of players that play Kobolds and Orc's mostly in non Ravenloft settings and I never imagined that the Gnome would be religated to such as not to be standard.
I just view them as innovative crafts men and magic workers mostly, with a penchent for pranks, and to hear them kind of demoted is a little wierd to take in.
I just don't understand the reasoning except that it seems that Gnome's are more of a social race then others. I mean alot of what they were geared for was craftsmenship and illusions in 3rd and 3.5 except I never understood the Bard thing too much.

I just think that they may be trying to win over WoW fan's... Good luck WotC! Your going to need it for some of them.
Maybe you can get my friend Brian back from the brink of the abyss. I have not seen or heard from him in near 8 years since Everquest and I am sure he's graduated to WoW by now.
And the WoW Gnome's are just like I remember them in the previous editions and they are not relevent enough to be a main race in 4th?
No racial support for a race that I grew my D&D chops on.
It is just hard to let go of it as if it is a minor thing for me because I thought Gnomes were pretty good as a main race. (More in 2nd then 3rd!)

I don't like all that I am hearing about the new 4th edition mainly on the simplification side of things and I will buy perhaps a players handbook to play when someone runs it but I am on the sidelines for most of it till I get a better view.