Café de Nuit

Mephisto wrote:
Lie the remains of TSR, it's spirit is cursed to watch as it's legacy is being destroyed by the Wizard of the Coast (Human Defiler lvl 12) and Hasbro (Ogre Thief lvl 20).

That sounds like a great 'parody level.'

Mephisto wrote:
lie the remains of TSR, it's spirit is cursed to watch as it's legacy is being destroyed by the Wizard of the Coast (Human Defiler lvl 12) and Hasbro (Ogre Thief lvl 20).

Haha

Resonant Curse wrote:https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/20 ... date-price

Viktra Mordenheim has Elise as the escaped flesh golem apparently.

I thought she would have created Eva who was "jealous" of her son Adam and attacked her husband Elliot?

So putting aside the concerns about accessibility, I'm wondering why there's no mention of Darkon. Tasha's book had that pic of Azalin, but there was no mention of him or Darkon in all the articles I read about VRGtR. Thoughts? There's no way they would forget about Azalin, would they?

Also, the investigator background could be cool. Anything you guys read about in the articles that has you jazzed?

There's a quote from John Mangrum from that thread all those years ago that's stuck with me for years. I had to go trawling through it to find it, but here it is. When someone said "Who bought HoL and CoD just because it had the Ravenloft logo on it?" Mangrum replied:

Make no mistake: Posts like this are the product of someone who doesn't care about quality. All you want are books with the Ravenloft logo shoveled your way, quality be damned. You sound like an addict, frankly, begging for a steady fix.

I mean, if you honestly don't care that the game accessories you're buying are filled with broken and unplayable rules, then you are the worst kind of fan and any game designer who pays heed to you is ultimately doing themselves in.

You are an enabler of bad books.

You are an open wallet, and you are explictly asking to be treated like one.

If you're happy to accept anything you get handed so long as it has the right label on it, then by golly, that is exactly what you get.

And that's something that stuck with me. I never bought Beast: The Primordial because of its terrible reviews, I've not bought Tasha's because of the mixed reviews. I've become more discerning when it comes to buying something and wait to see how it's received. It's why I'm not buying the new Werewolf: The Apocalypse game, as it's a boring buggy mess.

If this book comes out and it reviews badly, but you buy it because it's more Ravenloft, you aren't helping the setting, you're enabling terrible writers.

As an aside, rereading that thread from a 14 year gap, now it just comes off as incredibly cathartic for everyone involved. It was like a massive boil that needed to be lanced.

FiranDarcalus wrote:So putting aside the concerns about accessibility, I'm wondering why there's no mention of Darkon. Tasha's book had that pic of Azalin, but there was no mention of him or Darkon in all the articles I read about VRGtR. Thoughts? There's no way they would forget about Azalin, would they?

Also, the investigator background could be cool. Anything you guys read about in the articles that has you jazzed?

Don't worry I guess Darkon is among the 30 domains that are going to be mentioned and fortunately he probably is still the darklord as there is no mention of him being "S" that has sent a male clone of herself named Azalin to go around and write the doomsday Gazetteers...

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote:There's a quote from John Mangrum from that thread all those years ago that's stuck with me for years. I had to go trawling through it to find it, but here it is. When someone said "Who bought HoL and CoD just because it had the Ravenloft logo on it?" Mangrum replied:

Make no mistake: Posts like this are the product of someone who doesn't care about quality. All you want are books with the Ravenloft logo shoveled your way, quality be damned. You sound like an addict, frankly, begging for a steady fix.

I mean, if you honestly don't care that the game accessories you're buying are filled with broken and unplayable rules, then you are the worst kind of fan and any game designer who pays heed to you is ultimately doing themselves in.

You are an enabler of bad books.

You are an open wallet, and you are explictly asking to be treated like one.

If you're happy to accept anything you get handed so long as it has the right label on it, then by golly, that is exactly what you get.

The thing is are we excited that the line is somehow continued or nagging (me included) because it is not what we hoped for?

And that's something that stuck with me. I never bought Beast: The Primordial because of its terrible reviews, I've not bought Tasha's because of the mixed reviews. I've become more discerning when it comes to buying something and wait to see how it's received. It's why I'm not buying the new Werewolf: The Apocalypse game, as it's a boring buggy mess.

If this book comes out and it reviews badly, but you buy it because it's more Ravenloft, you aren't helping the setting, you're enabling terrible writers.

As an aside, rereading that thread from a 14 year gap, now it just comes off as incredibly cathartic for everyone involved. It was like a massive boil that needed to be lanced.

So true... but again if the product declines in sales I believe it is more possible that the company will stop producing the line instead of trying to do a better job.

The point is are we excited that the ravenloft line continues somehow or just nagging (me included) because it is not what we hoped for?

On the subject of player comfort boundaries, I've had this happen in a game I've run:

One of the players specified in her background that her character had run away from home to avoid her jerk of a dad. Naturally I introduced a side-quest where she learns her father paid a local thieves' guild to kidnap her and bring her back. The PCs reacted in typical heroic fashion by whimsically hack-and-slashing their way through the thieves' headquarters. But the last fight went poorly for them and the character offered to surrender to make the baddies spare her friends. Now the fight was taking place in a torture chamber, which I had only included as scenery, to emphasize that it was a really evil organization. However, in the moment, I had the idea that the thieves' leader would order the PC to drop her weapons and let herself be strapped to one of the torture tables. The player accepted and the session ended on a cliffhanger. Before wrapping up, I promised the player that I don't feature actual torture in my games and that her character would be OK.

Next week, just as we're about to continue the game, one of the player's friends privately reveals to me that the player had spent a horrible week thinking about what happened in the game. As she sat down to play, her hands were shaking a little. She never once admitted it to my face, but when I started the game by having her character being immediately rescued, you could feel she was relieved. I never would have noticed if it wasn't pointed out to me. I like to think I'm a seasoned, considerate DM, but when I concentrate on the game, I can miss things that are right under my nose if it's not part of the adventure. I apologized to the player and made sure not to repeat that mistake again.

That was two years ago. And it wasn't even a horror game. Since that episode, I definitely believe that comfort boundaries is something RPG books should talk about more. Kudos to WotC.

Mephisto wrote: So true... but again if the product declines in sales I believe it is more possible that the company will stop producing the line instead of trying to do a better job.

The point is are we excited that the ravenloft line continues somehow or just nagging (me included) because it is not what we hoped for?

Pessimistically cautious?

Igor the Henchman wrote:On the subject of player comfort boundaries, I've had this happen in a game I've run:

One of the players specified in her background that her character had ran away from home to avoid her jerk of a dad. Naturally I introduced a side-quest where she learns her father paid a local thieves' guild to kidnap her and bring her back. The PCs reacted in typical heroic fashion by whimsically hack-and-slashing their way through the thieves' headquarters. But the last fight went poorly for them and the character offered to surrender to make the baddies spare her friends. Now the fight was taking place in a torture chamber, which I had only included as scenery, to emphasize that it was a really evil organization. However, in the moment, I had the idea that the thieves' leader would order the PC to drop her weapons and let herself be strapped to one of the torture tables. The player accepted and the session ended on a cliffhanger. Before wrapping up, I promised the player that I don't feature actual torture in my games and that her character would be OK.

Next week, just as we're about to continue the game, one of the player's friends privately reveals to me that the player had spent a horrible week thinking about what happened in the game. As she sat down to play, her hands were shaking a little. She never once admitted it to my face, but when I started the game by having her character being immediately rescued, you could feel she was relieved. I never would have noticed if it wasn't pointed out to me. I like to think I'm a seasoned, considerate DM, but when I concentrate on the game, I can miss things that are right under my nose if it's not part of the adventure. I apologized to the player and made sure not to repeat that mistake again.

That was last year. And it wasn't even a horror game. Since that episode, I definitely believe that comfort boundaries is something RPG books should talk about more. Kudos to WotC.

The question I have to ask is; why put such an obvious hook in your background that you know any good DM would use if it is going to traumatise you when actually used?

I'm not mocking, or belittling her, I just don't follow the logic.

I've given the reasons why I'm not spending fifty bucks on this one.

But I'll be interested to see what those of you who do buy the book think of the world content and new/altered characters. Not having read the book, I am in the same situation as everybody else on this thread. It could be full of surprises.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote: The question I have to ask is; why put such an obvious hook in your background that you know any good DM would use if it is going to traumatise you when actually used?

I'm not mocking, or belittling her, I just don't follow the logic.

It was her first D&D character and I guess she wanted to play a heroic dwarven fighter who gets free from under a tyranical parent's thumb. I don't think she knew much about D&D before the first session, but soon took to it like a fish to water. Everything had been going fine until that episode. I definitely should have gotten to know her boundaries better before putting her character in that situation.

Maybe Drakov tried one too many Dead Man's vampaigns and Azalin finally got annoyed enough to just spam undead into the realm until we reached zombie apocalyspe level?

Mephisto wrote:lie the remains of TSR, it's spirit is cursed to watch as it's legacy is being destroyed by the Wizard of the Coast (Human Defiler lvl 12) and Hasbro (Ogre Thief lvl 20).

I'm always reminded of the Transformers fandom at times like this...
https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Ruined_FOREVER
https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Trukk_not_munky

The thing is, it's not forced diversity SJW identity politic whatchamacallit behind the changes. It really isn't.
It's just someone thinking their ideas are better and being in a position to enact their head canon and remove their pet peeves.

We saw the exact same thing with the Forgotten Realms in 4th Edition where they made radical changes to that setting to "improve" it. And a lot of fans loved the changes. And a lot of fans hated the revisions.
I'm getting the same vibe now, where Schneider is making big changes to Falkovnia because it always rubbed him the wrong way and he personally feels it's redundant. So he's making it something he thinks its cooler, to the chagrin of everyone who liked the original.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote:But if you tell your players "I'd like to run a horror game set in a gothic setting," they are forewarned that it's not going to be high fantasy adventure. There are going to be grim and unpleasant things. It's up to me to tell them that the adventure might have mature themes, it's up to them if they want to play. It is perfectly acceptable to say to a player, "I don't think you could handle the themes of this game, so I think you should sit this one out."

And you're making a great argument for why a "lengthy section" is needed.

Because "horror" means lots of different things to different people. When I say "horror" you might think I mean gloomy atmospheric suspense and growing dread and unease. But when I say "horror" I might mean torture-porn ala Saw where I disempower your player character and describe their agonizing, disfiguring torture in lurid detail.

It's not hard to sit down and ask your players "okay, is there anything people want to see in this campaign and what they DON'T want to see?"
Because unless you ask, you won't know how your players feel about torture, rape, child endangerment, child abuse, molestation, animal cruelty, dead babies, spiders, clowns, damage to eyes/ teeth, and the like.

You may think it's a nonissue to, say, do a story about a corrupt priest who is molesting altar-boys and secretly running a prostitution ring that holds orgies for the nobility out of the church basement. That's all pretty basic tropes. But if one of your players was abused by an uncle as a child, that might be somewhat upsetting and bring back deeply traumatic memories that take them out of the game.
Or you might be playing with a veteran who served overseas and has PTSD after being injured by an IED. And they might have flashbacks to that time from otherwise innocuous triggers, and would prefer you avoid them.
No one gets through life undamaged. We all have our baggage.

And at the end of the game, people are playing to have FUN. And as a storyteller and DM you *need* to know what will get in the way of them having fun, and to avoid that.

ewancummins wrote:I don't play new school hipster games nobody's ever heard of, so I wouldn't know. But in most games I have seen you get at most a sidebar or small box in the front of the book. Palladium Games does not endorse drug use, the occult, etc.

I remember seeing the Palladium disclaimer in the late '90s and thinking that was pandering to censors and moral crusaders angry about D&D and Satanism.

And, yes, those low budget indie games like Pathfinder, Vampire the Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu...

Not a single game you named is new. PF is a retclone of 3.5 with some house rules tacked on, and it came out when?
CoC is one of the oldest still-published RPGs.