;)I'm just so excited I could die. Not as a ravenloft fan - I thought classic Ravenloft was supposed to be about oppressive horror, with humanesque heroes battling an endless tide of classic monsters. 4e Ravenloft, with 'playable ghosts and vampires' sounds more like a fun monster mash, with the PCs potentially on the monster's side of things.
But while that's not something I'm excited about for Ravenloft, it's exactly what I want for my 4e games and characters. Between Ravenloft and Heroes of Shadow, we're getting:
Necromancers
Hexblades
New Assassin stuff
Playable Ghosts
Playable Vampires
On top of that, we're getting Ravenloft as a setting and
Shadowfell: Gloomwrought and Beyond
so all sorts of good antihero PC stuff and Shadowfell setting information.
That is just awesome. As far as I can tell, Wizards have planned next year's product releases exclusively for me. :D
I've loosed the hope to see Ravenloft as a 4th Edition setting, but is really surprised me.
I should also mention that one of my favorite characters back in the day was a vampire bard in a Ravenloft campaign setting.
First WotC turns Forgotten Realms into a setting I actually want to play in again, then it releases Eberron and Dark Sun, and now Ravenloft! 4e is my favorite edition EVER.
I'm laughing to myself, as I looked at the tweets and yelled "WHAT?!?!" And I can't stop chuckling. I even had to explain it to my wife as she thought something was horribly wrong.
For those who are thrilled, more power to you. Though a (violent, gory) one-shot along the lines of The Halloween Which Almost Wasn't could be fun. Sprinkle in a little Mad Monster Party and an amusing evening could be had.
I hope it will be more successful and appreciated than Ghostwalk. Then again, that would not be difficult.
EDIT: Quick update: It will be a Gamma-Worldy deal, but with drop-ins for "normal" 4e. I am much more receptive to that.
I don't want to be a party pooper, bu those races are just gonna be a name with bonuses to certain ability scores and a few abilities. The whole issue of balance won't give us the real vampire or werewolf feel. Maybe I am wrong.
Insubstantial for ghost sounds over powered unless they have some sort of level adjustment, which I doubt. I wonder how they will balance it.
I don't really care about the player races myself, just the info on the domains - have they jumped to the Time of Unparalleled Darkness, for example?
My husband however is very interested in learning about playing vampires, werewolves and ghosts...
Still, awesome! And I think I should be appologising to Cyber-Dave for my vehement refusal of it being anything beyond incorporation into the Core Setting. So, I'm sorry. I was wrong.
I still believe that Ravenloft is meant to be part of the core setting as well, though.
And no gold_piece, I am pretty sure there will be only a board game and a 4e setting. As far as I understand it, there will be no standalone RPG that is seperate from the 4e rule set... I could be wrong though.
So Ravenloft is going to be a board game AND a standalone rpg AND a campaign setting for 4E. These are three separate products. Do I have that correct?
It's two products: the standalone RPG and 4e campaign setting are the same thing. I'm not really sure what they mean by that since I've always assumed you could pick and choose what you want in your games anyway...?
So Ravenloft is going to be a board game AND a standalone rpg AND a campaign setting for 4E. These are three separate products. Do I have that correct?
It's two products: the standalone RPG and 4e campaign setting are the same thing. I'm not really sure what they mean by that since I've always assumed you could pick and choose what you want in your games anyway...?
Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun use Core D&D rules, for the most part. Gamma World and Ravenloft feature many options and rules that would not be acceptable in the core setting, though they are compatible to an extent.
That's what I gather at least.
The Cullens, a Washington state family, was asked about their invitation to move to the Von Zarovich Castle and one of their sons, Edward, had this to say. "Well it's nice I guess. I mean it's not really important to me cause I'm at a difficult time in my, life trying to seduce this 18 year old. But I've seen the Travel Barovia brochures and let me tell you, I don't think I could really shine out there. No seriously, there's no sunlight there! How am I supposed to sparkle?"
Count Strahd Von Zarovich was unavailable for comment.
So Ravenloft is going to be a board game AND a standalone rpg AND a campaign setting for 4E. These are three separate products. Do I have that correct?
It's two products: the standalone RPG and 4e campaign setting are the same thing. I'm not really sure what they mean by that since I've always assumed you could pick and choose what you want in your games anyway...?
Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun use Core D&D rules, for the most part. Gamma World and Ravenloft feature many options and rules that would not be acceptable in the core setting, though they are compatible to an extent.
That's what I gather at least.
It's as good an explanation as any I've heard to date. I wonder if this is somehow tied into the Abyssal Plague?
This announcement also gives hope to other settings that were thought to be wrapped into the core setting and would not get individual treatments like Spelljammmer and Planescape.
So Ravenloft is going to be a board game AND a standalone rpg AND a campaign setting for 4E. These are three separate products. Do I have that correct?
It's two products: the standalone RPG and 4e campaign setting are the same thing. I'm not really sure what they mean by that since I've always assumed you could pick and choose what you want in your games anyway...?
Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun use Core D&D rules, for the most part. Gamma World and Ravenloft feature many options and rules that would not be acceptable in the core setting, though they are compatible to an extent.
That's what I gather at least.
It's as good an explanation as any I've heard to date. I wonder if this is somehow tied into the Abyssal Plague?
Thanks all. I'm still a little confused. By "standalone product" do you mean that you wouldn't need to have any core rules/essentials products to play?
Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun use Core D&D rules, for the most part. Gamma World and Ravenloft feature many options and rules that would not be acceptable in the core setting, though they are compatible to an extent.
That's what I gather at least.
I am going to come out and say that I think you are VERY wrong. Ravenloft will be a D&D campaign setting, just like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun are D&D settings. It will have a Dungeons and Dragons logo on its front cover. It will be called a campaign setting. It will, fundamentally, use the 4e rules. This will happen because of brand power. Ravenloft was once a D&D campaign setting. The D&D brand has power as a marketing tool. WotC will capitalize on that power. Gamma World is not a campaign setting. It will not have the D&D logo on its front cover. It is just a d20 system game. The reason for WotC's choice is probably the fact that Gamma World was never marketed as a D&D campaign setting.
That doesn't mean that Ravenloft won't feature a host of optional rules. It might. Dark Sun features a host of optional rules as well, such as alternative material rules, weapon breakage rules, defiling rules, overheating armor rules, and so on and so forth. All of these rules change the mechanics of the system itself. Many of those rules have no place in the "core setting." Rules like that might be found in Ravenloft as well. But Ravenloft, unlike Gamma World, and like Dark Sun, will get marketed as a D&D campaign setting.
I take-back 79.8% of the mean things I have said about WotC, Bill Slavicsek, Mike Mearls, Hasbro, and 4e!
Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun use Core D&D rules, for the most part. Gamma World and Ravenloft feature many options and rules that would not be acceptable in the core setting, though they are compatible to an extent.
That's what I gather at least.
I am going to come out and say that I think you are VERY wrong. Ravenloft will be a D&D campaign setting, just like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun are D&D settings. It will have a Dungeons and Dragons logo on its front cover. It will be called a campaign setting. It will, fundamentally, use the 4e rules. This will happen because of brand power. Ravenloft was once a D&D campaign setting. The D&D brand has power as a marketing tool. WotC will capitalize on that power. Gamma World is not a campaign setting. It will not have the D&D logo on its front cover. It is just a d20 system game. The reason for WotC's choice is probably the fact that Gamma World was never marketed as a D&D campaign setting.
That doesn't mean that Ravenloft won't feature a host of optional rules. It might. Dark Sun features a host of optional rules as well, such as alternative material rules, weapon breakage rules, defiling rules, overheating armor rules, and so on and so forth. All of these rules change the mechanics of the system itself. Many of those rules have no place in the "core setting." Rules like that might be found in Ravenloft as well. But Ravenloft, unlike Gamma World, and like Dark Sun, will get marketed as a D&D campaign setting.
Nope he is right. From what the devs said it is just like the Gamma World release this year.
From the D&D Twitter ..... "Should have said that Ravenloft wil be a campaign setting you can hook into your game AND is its own game (like gamma world for example)"
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
in fact, it's called :
D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game
well, Gamma World also has the DnD logo on it (look at the pic, on the top left corner)
www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/p...
in fact, it's called :D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game
(oh, and get your wallets ready for all the booster packs.)
(oh, and get your wallets ready for all the booster packs.)
Yea, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
For complete coverage of everything at the D&D Seminar, check Critical Hits.com
(oh, and get your wallets ready for all the booster packs.)
From the link:
The Assassin class is NOT in Heroes of Shadow, but it and the Revenant will appear in Heroes of the Fallen Lands Essentials product.
Uh .... what?
(oh, and get your wallets ready for all the booster packs.)
Yea, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
Well, that's interesting. Because the Booster packs will debut in the Gamma World Game, then you'll be able to buy them for your 4E game as the Fortune Cards, then you'll get more Boosters in the Ravenloft game.
So, how long until you're going to a D&D Encounters game and be forced to play with the Booster cards because "all the cool kids are doing it".
(oh, and get your wallets ready for all the booster packs.)
Yea, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
Well, that's interesting. Because the Booster packs will debut in the Gamma World Game, then you'll be able to buy them for your 4E game as the Fortune Cards, then you'll get more Boosters in the Ravenloft game.
So, how long until you're going to a D&D Encounters game and be forced to play with the Booster cards because "all the cool kids are doing it".
I won't be playing at D&D Encounters. I won't be buying booster cards. I am boycotting Gamma World because it includes booster cards. I won't be buying a single fortune card. It has not been confirmed that there will be booster cards for Ravenloft. If there are, I will have to seriously consider whether I want to buy it. I may, because I really love Ravenloft, but only if I can get away with using the product as a 4e campaign setting which I will run without booster cards. Any home game that I run will disallow booster cards (players can not use booster card material at my game table). Any home game that I play in that starts to include booster cards will be a home game that I quit playing in. Like I said, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
I won't be playing at D&D Encounters. I won't be buying booster cards. I am boycotting Gamma World because it includes booster cards. I won't be buying a single fortune card. It has not been confirmed that there will be booster cards for Ravenloft. If there are, I will have to seriously consider whether I want to buy it. I may, because I really love Ravenloft, but only if I can get away with using the product as a 4e campaign setting which I will run without booster cards. Any home game that I run will disallow booster cards (players can not use booster card material at my game table). Any home game that I play in that starts to include booster cards will be a home game that I quit playing in. Like I said, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
I am psyched about Ravenloft, but I am not enthused by its comparison to Gamma World. IMO, Gamma World is a wretched abortion of an RPG product and I'll have no part of it. I seriously hope these comparisons are more hype than actual fact.
Regarding boosters: although it's not confirmed, it does seem that boosters may be part of Ravenloft. I say this because of this quote from the Critical Hits article: "While keeping most of the information about this hidden for now, they did say there would be some interesting new physical components to the game of some kind. It will also be both a standalone game as well as fully useable in core D&D."
When you consider that the only other standalone WotC has produced includes boosters, this may be the "new physical component" they mention; possibly using cards for fear, horror, madness, or dark powers effects.
In short, while I am excited to see Ravenloft make a comeback in 2011 the comparison to Gamma World has removed almost all of my anticipation for the product's release. It's only marginally more interesting to me now than every other product on their release list whereas it was a guaranteed "must have" for me beforehand.
Only time will tell if WotC screwed the werewolf on this one.
If in the end it's something I'm not interested in, I'll just ignore them. It is supposed to be compatible with existing campaigns and they've managed quite fine without them to date.
I won't be playing at D&D Encounters. I won't be buying booster cards. I am boycotting Gamma World because it includes booster cards. I won't be buying a single fortune card. It has not been confirmed that there will be booster cards for Ravenloft. If there are, I will have to seriously consider whether I want to buy it. I may, because I really love Ravenloft, but only if I can get away with using the product as a 4e campaign setting which I will run without booster cards. Any home game that I run will disallow booster cards (players can not use booster card material at my game table). Any home game that I play in that starts to include booster cards will be a home game that I quit playing in. Like I said, that is one product line they will not be able to sell to me... I don't buy booster packs, end of story.
I am psyched about Ravenloft, but I am not enthused by its comparison to Gamma World. IMO, Gamma World is a wretched abortion of an RPG product and I'll have no part of it. I seriously hope these comparisons are more hype than actual fact.
Regarding boosters: although it's not confirmed, it does seem that boosters may be part of Ravenloft. I say this because of this quote from the Critical Hits article: "While keeping most of the information about this hidden for now, they did say there would be some interesting new physical components to the game of some kind. It will also be both a standalone game as well as fully useable in core D&D."
When you consider that the only other standalone WotC has produced includes boosters, this may be the "new physical component" they mention; possibly using cards for fear, horror, madness, or dark powers effects.
In short, while I am excited to see Ravenloft make a comeback in 2011 the comparison to Gamma World has removed almost all of my anticipation for the product's release. It's only marginally more interesting to me now than every other product on their release list whereas it was a guaranteed "must have" for me beforehand.
Only time will tell if WotC screwed the werewolf on this one.
I suppose that is how I feel. The news of a Raveloft setting is awesome. But if it turns out that the setting is tarnished by a CCG element, I may boycott it anywway. It is by far and away time that WotC learned, they cannot sell all their crap to all of us. Some of us are very strict about what we will buy. Tarnish your product with a CCRPG element, and you will lose a lot of us as customers.
From the link:The Assassin class is NOT in Heroes of Shadow, but it and the Revenant will appear in Heroes of the Fallen Lands Essentials product.
Uh .... what?
Somebody misunderstood something.
The assassin will remain DDi exclusive.
There will be new stuff for the assassin online to coincide with the release of HoS.
There will also be new 'Essentials'-style stuff for the assassin and the revenant online to coincide with the release of HotFL.
Audio of that part of the seminar is here (at about the 6 minute mark).
So, how long until you're going to a D&D Encounters game and be forced to play with the Booster cards because "all the cool kids are doing it".
If you are one of those kids who do what other cool kids do - sure you will be forced. As for me - I don't mind some randomness, but forced? That's BS.
Why do some of you automatically equate any type of card with Magic or Pokemon cards? All of the card products that have been announced have the same function: to replace rolling on a random chart with something that is faster, more visually appealing, and that can be expanded upon.
Ah, so it is as I hoped - thanks for the fuller details, Gazra!
Somebody misunderstood something.
The assassin will remain DDi exclusive.
There will be new stuff for the assassin online to coincide with the release of HoS.
There will also be new 'Essentials'-style stuff for the assassin and the revenant online to coincide with the release of HotFL.
Audio of that part of the seminar is here (at about the 6 minute mark).
Except that the blurb that WotC gave to retailers in the catalogue for the first quarter of next year. Which means someone is lying somewhere. The question is whether it is the devs at the con or whoever wrote up the blurb. If it is the latter than I imagine they could get slapped with a false advertisement suit. (although I doubt anyone would care enough to bring it) Frankly though it is obviously just going to be a self contained assassin "sub-class" that isn't the assassin but still qualifies as it for feats and such.
-=Edit: Okay I suppose they could have Heroes of Shadow contain a shadow rogue sub-class that is also called the assassin. Seems stupid, but stupidity is always a solution to deal with contratictions.=-
Except that the blurb that WotC gave to retailers in the catalogue for the first quarter of next year. Which means someone is lying somewhere. The question is whether it is the devs at the con or whoever wrote up the blurb. If it is the latter than I imagine they could get slapped with a false advertisement suit. (although I doubt anyone would care enough to bring it) Frankly though it is obviously just going to be a self contained assassin "sub-class" that isn't the assassin but still qualifies as it for feats and such.
Bwah? Seriously, why does somebody need to be lying when instead somone could just be mistaken, or some plans on an in development project might have changed. You know, because it's in development, which means the details are still developing.
Lawsuits? Seriously. Count to ten or something. Sheesh.
Bwah? Seriously, why does somebody need to be lying when instead somone could just be mistaken, or some plans on an in development project might have changed. You know, because it's in development, which means the details are still developing.
Lawsuits? Seriously. Count to ten or something. Sheesh.
If they were just mistaken that hardly makes the statement any more truthful. As for being in development, I hardly think that they would remove a third of the contents of the book when they are roughly two months off from sending the book off to typesetting.
And I never said I would be filing the lawsuit. I was just pointing out the possibility. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even have standing for the lawsuit to begin with.
EDIT: Also, the Heroes of Shadow blurb does not say that Assassins or even Necromancers and Hexblades will all be in the book. It says that they are examples of ruthless characters who tap into the Shadow power source. It goes on to say "However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet." So, a false advertisement suit would go nowhere.
As to what was said at the seminar, the assassin will not be in Heroes of Shadow. There will be options that an assassin can take, but nothing exclusively for the assassin. On the same day that the book comes out, there will be Dragon articles with new assassin exclusive options. The assassin and revenant will also not appear in Heroes of the Fallen Lands, as has been misreported. When that book comes out, there will be Dragon articles for the assassin and revenant with a new assassin build and a revenant with the PHB3 style optional secondary ability score.
They aren't two months away from sending the book off. They were still making last minute changes to Essentials last month and it is being released next month. Heroes of Shadow doesn't come out for another 7 and a half months.
I said until it is sent to be typeset. Based on previous developer comments we know that books are roughly sent out to be typset 5 months before they are set to be printed. Then about two months before they are supposed to be printed the final versions are sent to the printers.And there is a difference between "tweaking wording" and tossing out a third of your content.
EDIT: Also, the Heroes of Shadow blurb does not say that Assassins or even Necromancers and Hexblades will all be in the book. It says that they are examples of ruthless characters who tap into the Shadow power source. It goes on to say "However, not all beings that draw strength from the Shadowfell are vile, blackhearted fiends. A few even dare to call themselves heroes, using the power of darkness to fight darkness. Are they evil? No. Deeply disturbed and hounded by their own dark demons? You bet." So, a false advertisement suit would go nowhere.
Meh, after rereading the blurb, I suppose there is some wiggle room for the argument that it doesn't say the assassin will be in it. I still say it heavily implies that it will be in there, but whatever it hardly matters at this point.
Why do some of you automatically equate any type of card with Magic or Pokemon cards? All of the card products that have been announced have the same function: to replace rolling on a random chart with something that is faster, more visually appealing, and that can be expanded upon.
Am I having trouble reading or is this post actually the first one to mention MtG or Pokemon? ;)
By the way, it's amazing what you can learn about the final product from such a short tweet with "Ravenloft" misspelled. Future Releases never fails to impress me :P
Am I having trouble reading or is this post actually the first one to mention MtG or Pokemon? ;)
On this particular thread? Perhaps.
I play D&D but I also collect products from all editions, so I will probably pick up the cards for that purpose and follow what I have stated up above. Who knows, maybe there will even be a random card picker incorporated into DDI/Adventure Tools since subscribers already have access to all rules elements even if they do not purchase the physical products.
"Raveloft RPG will be a campaign setting and can be a stand alone game as well"
and three minutes later:
"Should have said that Ravenloft wil be a campaign setting you can hook into your game AND is its own game (like gamma world for example)".
I'm assuming that it probably is going to be a boxed set like Gamma World rather than two hardcover books. But it is an assumption and and I'm still none the wiser as to what these twitters really mean. If we're lucky, this week's Ampersand might clear up the ambiguity.
All of the card products that have been announced have the same function: to replace rolling . . . with something that is faster, more visually appealing, and that can be expanded upon.
Well if it's just an alternate method of determining random outcomes why don't we just let them replace rolling to hit with attack cards?
Yeah, I can see it now: Most of the commons can be misses and hits that do average damage or less; the uncommons can be hits that do better than average to maximum damage; and the rares can be critical hits that do up to double normal maximum damage. If they include even a single booster of these cards in the game's boxed set they can even say you'll never have to purchase any more of the cards (though you would have to shuffle more often).
No thanks. I'll keep my boring old dice thank you very much.
So where are we gettting that we have to buy boosters to play the game?
No you don't. You'll have 40 mutation cards and 40 tech cards in the box. If you need more - buy booster. I will if I like Gamma World.
All of the card products that have been announced have the same function: to replace rolling . . . with something that is faster, more visually appealing, and that can be expanded upon.
Well if it's just an alternate method of determining random outcomes why don't we just let them replace rolling to hit with attack cards?
Yeah, I can see it now: Most of the commons can be misses and hits that do average damage or less; the uncommons can be hits that do better than average to maximum damage; and the rares can be critical hits that do up to double normal maximum damage. If they include even a single booster of these cards in the game's boxed set they can even say you'll never have to purchase any more of the cards (though you would have to shuffle more often).
No thanks. I'll keep my boring old dice thank you very much.
So you've just invented a stupid way of using the cards which WotC never even hinted at and then say "No thanks! I won't be buying". Wow! You are quintessential doomsayer. BTW most of the "OMG NO!" posts after yesterdays announcments go very close this way.
I've said it in other threads: If you like the setting (Gamma World) but not the CCG aspect, the best way to show your disfavor is to buy the core product without spending a cent on boosters. WotC might see this way that people definitely wants these awesome alternate settings but won't buy the damned random cards.
And I have said in other threads, I believe that to be false:
If you buy the core product, but not the boosters, and nobody else buys the boosters either, then that is the message that WotC will get. However, if all of us buy the core rulebook, and a sizable minority buys the boosters as well as the core rulebook, the message that will be sent to WotC is that the boosters are a smart business investment. They will make the same profit off the books as with any other RPG they make. Meanwhile, there will be a sizable minority of players who will feed the collectible card game aspect of the game. Since it takes far fewer players to generate a sizable portion of wealth off cards then it does to generate wealth off books (so long as the people buying the cards really get into the collectible craze), the message will be that the cards should be implemented into future RPGs that WotC makes in order to increase their profit margin. Those who hate CCGs just wont buy the CCG splats. Meanwhile, those who do will generate a sizable income increase in the brand. Those of us who hate CCGs will forever be forced to deal with a CCG aspect to the games we purchase from WotC, and we will have no one to blame but our own purchasing habits.
In my honest opinion, if you hate the idea of randomized collectible card rules distribution in your RPG, and you have a vested interest in keeping such rules distribution out of future WotC products, I seriously suggest you boycott this product line. If enough of us don't buy the rulebook at all then the income lost to boycotts might offset the income gained from a CCRPG model of distribution, and the message sent to WotC (in this case) will be that this is a terrible business idea. RPGs and CCGs should be kept separate as the market interested in their purchase is niche enough that WotC will be unable to sell as many D&D brand books as they currently do if they implement such a system into their primary RPG brand.
That is my opinion, in any case. And as such I won't be touching this product line with a ten foot pole.
Of course, if you purchase a used copy of the book then WotC still only makes a single purchase of the book in revenue from you. As someone else has already purchased the book, WotC won't be making any money off your purchase of the used copy. So, if you really want a copy I suggest you look for a used one. But that first requires that there be a used copy for sale...
But I might be a bit of a hypocrite. I love Ravenloft enough that even if this unspecified physical element is something collectible, I might purchase the product and not purchase the collectible elements. I might not, however. As I said, by doing so I risk giving WotC the wrong message, and tarnishing future products I would like to buy.
So you've just invented a stupid way of using the cards which WotC never even hinted at and then say "No thanks! I won't be buying". Wow! You are quintessential doomsayer. BTW most of the "OMG NO!" posts after yesterdays announcments go very close this way.
He is not a quintessential doomsayer. He knows what he likes. He likes products that don't distribute any facet of their rules via a randomized collectible booster model. He views the distribution of powers via that model to be just as bad as the distribution of your attack roll via that method. He will not be purchasing gamma world as a result. Someone else noted that the random physical element in Ravenloft might be something distributed randomly via a collectible means. He is noting that if that is the case he will be unhappy. That is not doomsaying. That is being self aware, and responsible in your purchasing habits.
So you've just invented a stupid way of using the cards which WotC never even hinted at and then say "No thanks! I won't be buying". Wow! You are quintessential doomsayer. BTW most of the "OMG NO!" posts after yesterdays announcments go very close this way.
He is not a quintessential doomsayer. He knows what he likes. He likes products that don't distribute any facet of their rules via a randomized collectible booster model. He views the distribution of powers via that model to be just as bad as the distribution of your attack roll via that method. He will not be purchasing gamma world as a result. Someone else noted that the random physical element in Ravenloft might be something distributed randomly via a collectible means. He is noting that if that is the case he will be unhappy. That is not doomsaying. That is being self aware, and responsible in your purchasing habits.
But he still invented a stupid way of using cards WotC never hinted at and then said "No thanks". ;)
It's like when it was first rumored that WotC was about to buy the D&D trademark: people went insane over changing their game into a CCG and vocally protested :D I am not making this up.
So you've just invented a stupid way of using the cards which WotC never even hinted at . . .
Actually, WotC did hint at the possibilty of cards by saying there would be a new physical component to the game (it was mentioned in a Critical Hits article). I believe these cards (if the new feature is, in fact, cards) will likely be tied to Ravenloft's fear, horror, madness, and dark powers aspects. While that isn't enough to outright kill my desire to buy the product (the way Gamma World's cards were), it does seriously dampen my excitement about the upcoming Ravenloft product.
. . . and then say "No thanks! I won't be buying".
Let me be clear. I did not say I won't be buying Ravenloft. What I said was that I will not tolerate cards replacing dice in the game. I expressed this sentiment quite clearly when I said: "No thanks. I'll keep my boring old dice thank you very much." You are the one transferring that sentiment to the Ravenloft product and misrepresenting my stated opinions in the process.
Allow me to further clarify, since Snarls muddied the waters about what I actually meant. I do not care what form it takes (attack-roll cards, loot determined by card draw, or powers gained from card draw), replacing the use of dice with cards is wholly unacceptable to me. If this is an alternate method only (with the cards containing nothing that is not already in the books) then it becomes a tolerable but despised aspect of the product.
Wow! You are quintessential doomsayer. BTW most of the "OMG NO!" posts after yesterdays announcments go very close this way.
Doomsaying is very annoying (As is someone misrepresenting what I've said. I am most displeased at you Snarls). I found doomsaying frustrating when the 3.5 crowd did it in the run up to 4e's release, and I still find it annoying. That's why I don't do it. Even if Ravenloft turns out to be a crap product (god willing, it won't happen that way) it isn't the doom of either role-playing, D&D, 4e, or even the Ravenloft setting. I simply know that a lot a people that will be seriously turned off by the inclusion of cards which contain game mechanics that can only be had by purchasing the boosters.
But I might be a bit of a hypocrite. I love Ravenloft enough that even if this unspecified physical element is something collectible, I might purchase the product and not purchase the collectible elements. I might not, however. As I said, by doing so I risk giving WotC the wrong message, and tarnishing future products I would like to buy.
There's nothing collectible about the cards. It's for randomness. Like in the Gamma World game, "Hey, you got a new mutation, pick a card and see what it is." There's no "collectibility" except maybe beyond players going "Wo0t! Dis pwerz is teh R0Xx0rs!!" and everyone seeking it out.
There is no deckbuilding.
It is, IMHO, a problem with players perception of WotC. Since they do MtG, as soon as the word "card" is mentioned there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Paizo puts out a set of item cards for every adventure path they publish (and other sets of cards to boot). Somehow I doubt they get the "ZOMG itz teh Magic!" comparisons.
Never ceases to amaze me how everthing WotC releases turns into arguments around here.
Looking at my bookshelf of 4ed books, I think the majority of them came out with little or no major controversy(FR books and Manual of the Planes being the only ones I can recall major controversies with, and I am stretching to include Manual of the Planes). It is just 4es that is causing such a large disagreement.
But I might be a bit of a hypocrite. I love Ravenloft enough that even if this unspecified physical element is something collectible, I might purchase the product and not purchase the collectible elements. I might not, however. As I said, by doing so I risk giving WotC the wrong message, and tarnishing future products I would like to buy.
There's nothing collectible about the cards. It's for randomness. Like in the Gamma World game, "Hey, you got a new mutation, pick a card and see what it is." There's no "collectibility" except maybe beyond players going "Wo0t! Dis pwerz is teh R0Xx0rs!!" and everyone seeking it out.
There is no deckbuilding.
It is, IMHO, a problem with players perception of WotC. Since they do MtG, as soon as the word "card" is mentioned there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Paizo puts out a set of item cards for every adventure path they publish (and other sets of cards to boot). Somehow I doubt they get the "ZOMG itz teh Magic!" comparisons.
While I'm not a big fan of it, it does take care of one issue with random mutations in previous GW editions ... the inability to put new mutations into extant charts. You couldn't really introduce a new power in a new supplement, then affix it to the chart in the previous book. The cards make this easy. Just add it to the deck.
While I'm not a big fan of it, it does take care of one issue with random mutations in previous GW editions ... the inability to put new mutations into extant charts. You couldn't really introduce a new power in a new supplement, then affix it to the chart in the previous book. The cards make this easy. Just add it to the deck.
Of course you could. Just make the last result on each table tell you to roll on another table. Or you could randomly roll for what table to roll on. Cards are just a money sink. The proof for that is that they are randomized in the boosters.
It is just 4es that is causing such a large disagreement.
To be fair, I wouldn't call it a large disagreement. Out of the three big D&D boards, this one has by far been the biggest target of nerdrage over Essentials. And even here, it is still a vocal minority of people who are upset.
In my honest opinion, if you hate the idea of randomized collectible card rules distribution in your RPG, and you have a vested interest in keeping such rules distribution out of future WotC products, I seriously suggest you boycott this product line.
The problem with this is that if you boycott the whole line, WotC doesn't know if you are boycotting Gamma World or the format since you bought nothing. If you get people to buy the core but not the boosters, then WotC is more likely to get the message that its the boosters that are an issue, not the campaign setting itself. Thats what you should be getting people do to here: boycott the part that is the issue, not the setting itself,
There is no deckbuilding.
Was there a announcement at gencon that they decided to change the format of Gamma World? Before they had said that booster packs would be random and that players would be able to build their own custom decks.
Amazing that in the Podcasts on TheTome, wizard came out and said the boosters were not designed to be collectable. They flat out said don't be buying them to get every card.
That's very true, but MtG is isn't meant to be collectible either. It's a trading card game. And you never have to buy any more boosters than needed to get 60 cards to play with. Just go ahead and see how far that gets you though.
Amazing that in the Podcasts on TheTome, wizard came out and said the boosters were not designed to be collectable. They flat out said don't be buying them to get every card.
They said something similar before while also reveailing that the cards were random and that there was rarity system. The fact is that if there is a rarity system and the cards are randomly packaged, there will be "deckbuilding" and collectibility, no matter how hard they try feed us this line that the game isn't about power gaming.
But I might be a bit of a hypocrite. I love Ravenloft enough that even if this unspecified physical element is something collectible, I might purchase the product and not purchase the collectible elements. I might not, however. As I said, by doing so I risk giving WotC the wrong message, and tarnishing future products I would like to buy.
There's nothing collectible about the cards. It's for randomness. Like in the Gamma World game, "Hey, you got a new mutation, pick a card and see what it is." There's no "collectibility" except maybe beyond players going "Wo0t! Dis pwerz is teh R0Xx0rs!!" and everyone seeking it out.
There is no deckbuilding.
It is, IMHO, a problem with players perception of WotC. Since they do MtG, as soon as the word "card" is mentioned there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Paizo puts out a set of item cards for every adventure path they publish (and other sets of cards to boot). Somehow I doubt they get the "ZOMG itz teh Magic!" comparisons.
Um, no. The problem is not in the player's perception of WotC. The problem is that WotC has stated that the Gamma World cards will be released in booster packs. Those booster packs will have a rarity system. The information being disseminated via a randomized booster card distribution model with a rarity system will be powers that players can use. That equates to a collectible card game. You can feed people lines about it being there for "randomness" all you like. New powers released on randomly distributed cards, with varying rarity levels, are collectible. End of story.
In my honest opinion, if you hate the idea of randomized collectible card rules distribution in your RPG, and you have a vested interest in keeping such rules distribution out of future WotC products, I seriously suggest you boycott this product line.
The problem with this is that if you boycott the whole line, WotC doesn't know if you are boycotting Gamma World or the format since you bought nothing. If you get people to buy the core but not the boosters, then WotC is more likely to get the message that its the boosters that are an issue, not the campaign setting itself. Thats what you should be getting people do to here: boycott the part that is the issue, not the setting itself,
Except, as I noted, that is not good enough. Boycotting the cards alone will not achieve the desired result. If all of us buy the core rulebook, and a sizable minority buys the boosters as well as the core rulebook, the message that will be sent to WotC is that the boosters are a smart business investment. They will make the same profit off the books as with any other RPG they make. Meanwhile, there will be a sizable minority of players who will feed the collectible card game aspect of the game. Since it takes far fewer players to generate a sizable portion of wealth off cards then it does to generate wealth off books (so long as the people buying the cards really get into the collectible craze), the message will be that the cards should be implemented into future RPGs that WotC makes in order to increase their profit margin. Those who hate CCGs just wont buy the CCG splats. Meanwhile, those who do will generate a sizable income increase in the brand. Those of us who hate CCGs will forever be forced to deal with a CCG aspect to the games we purchase from WotC, and we will have no one to blame but our own purchasing habits.
Which means there is only one way to achieve the desired result; boycott the line completely. Of course, you are right, WotC will have no way of knowing whether it is the setting or the card element that turned people off. Unless, of course, you come here on tthe boards and tell WotC, "I would have bought Gamma World, but now I will not because it includes a collectable card game element to it." Which I have done, many times.
I am also now telling WotC that they should seriously consider NOT adding a collectable card game element to Ravenloft. I love Ravenloft. I REALLY want to purchase Ravenloft. If they add a collectable card game element to it I might not.
Never ceases to amaze me how everthing WotC releases turns into arguments around here.
I disagree.
I disagree with your disagreement. ;)
But who knows? The physical element could end up being something entirely different. It's really too early to tell. I'm really glad to know the Ravenloft RPG is being produced, but I kind of wish they had waited until later to announce it. The suspense of waiting over a year to start getting any real info about the return of my favorite campaign setting is going to be the death of me.
Amazing that in the Podcasts on TheTome, wizard came out and said the boosters were not designed to be collectable. They flat out said don't be buying them to get every card.
That's very true, but MtG is isn't meant to be collectible either. It's a trading card game. And you never have to buy any more boosters than needed to get 60 cards to play with. Just go ahead and see how far that gets you though.
Yep. I play MtG at home with my friends and familiy (like D&D). If it starts to get boring cause we just learn everything evryone can do, we go and buy a couple of boosters to refresh things. That's a great model and I like it. If something like that will be in D&D - that's great and I'll be buying it on the same pace as MtG. Me likes. So you peeps can boycott anything you want - I doubt you'll be able to do anything
BTW I saw a miniatures game that people at our FLGS play called Malfeaux(or something like that) where they use drawing cards from a deck instead of rolling dice. I don't know much about how its supposed to work in that game, but say for instance if you had 100 cards with 5 cards of each number from 1 to 20 then wouldn't it help stop the mass fluctuating of RNG at a table? Every nat 20 or nat 1 you drew meant that would be one less nat 1 or nat 20 that could occur until the deck was reshuffled. It might add some extra meta-gaming strategy to it also. I'd be more down to use a daily if there were about 20 cards left in the deck and I knew 4 nat 20s had yet to be drawn.
How will WotC make tons of money off the "CCG aspect" of Gamma World/Ravenloft? Doesn't everyone just print their **** off of Character Builder anyways?
Who says that the cards will be available over the character builder? I see absolutely zero reason to believe they will be, especially seeing as the cards being introduced to D&D are not part of character creation, and neither Gamma World or the new Ravenloft are going to be considered part of the core set of D&D (and rather are their own games that also happen to be compatible with 4e).
And they will make WotC lots of money (if people get into the card game craze) because of their price, and their random nature. I have done the calculations and posted them on the forums before. The end result is that to get the same amount of content as you find for one class in one Power book you end up paying more than 1,000$. I am not ok with that.
BTW I saw a miniatures game that people at our FLGS play called Malfeaux(or something like that) where they use drawing cards from a deck instead of rolling dice. I don't know much about how its supposed to work in that game, but say for instance if you had 100 cards with 5 cards of each number from 1 to 20 then wouldn't it help stop the mass fluctuating of RNG at a table? Every nat 20 or nat 1 you drew meant that would be one less nat 1 or nat 20 that could occur until the deck was reshuffled. It might add some extra meta-gaming strategy to it also. I'd be more down to use a daily if there were about 20 cards left in the deck and I knew 4 nat 20s had yet to be drawn.
Suit yourself, but I won't buy a game like that. That is not D&D to me. I like my dice.
Yep. I play MtG at home with my friends and familiy (like D&D). If it starts to get boring cause we just learn everything evryone can do, we go and buy a couple of boosters to refresh things. That's a great model and I like it. If something like that will be in D&D - that's great and I'll be buying it on the same pace as MtG. Me likes. So you peeps can boycott anything you want - I doubt you'll be able to do anything
We will see. It will really depend on how many of us boycott. When WotC originally bought the D&D brand there was a huge furor that they were going to turn the hobby into MtG. It has taken this long for WotC to introduce CCG elements into their RPG brands. I would argue that one fact is likely the result of the other. When 4e was released there was a huge furor over various elements of 4e. Now we see an essentials line that is a direct attempt to cater to the D&D fans bothered by those elements of 4e. WotC has a habit of listening to their customers. Boycotting Gamma World might not do anything in the near future. Gamma World is still going to be released. But if our actions do actually effect the game's sales, I am more than willing to bet that our actions will have an effect on WotCs policy with future games released.
We will see. It will really depend on how many of us boycott.
Yep. But also it depends of how many of us ignore your boycott and just go and buy things we like. We will see indeed.
We will see. It will really depend on how many of us boycott.
Yep. But also it depends of how many of us ignore your boycott and just go and buy things we like. We will see indeed.
Um, that doesn't "ignore our boycott." Everyone should purchase and buy whatever they like. I can't stress that enough. But you purchasing a product that you like doesn't mean that I suddenly have as well. If I don't purchase a product, whatever you do that is still a portion of the market share lost. You purchasing a product does not take away from the fact that I have not. If there are enough people like me, who will not purchase an RPG product because it contains a CCG distribution model to some facet of its rules, then the fact that you are purchasing the product does not matter. The game's market share will suffer. It's actual units sold might not meet expectations. WotC will adjust their sales tactics accordingly. The purpose of my boycott is not to effect your purchasing habits. I could care less what you do or do not buy.
The only real question is, how many people feel the way I do? I would hazard to guess, probably quite a few. There was a massive furor about WotC turning D&D into MtG before. There are many of us who have complained about this CCG element on the boards. I don't know if we are in the majority or not (and I would guess, probably not), but I think there are more than enough of us to influence WotC's decisions. A sizable minority might be enough (if that sizable minority completely avoids purchasing the product as opposed to simply not purchasing the booster packs). If I am wrong I am wrong. That will just mean that I will slowly faze out my regular practice of purchasing WotC products as they start to include more and more CCG elements in them, and I will start spending my money on other things. I will still have all my 4e books, which I quite love, so it is far from the end of the world. WotC will have to decide for itself whether my dollars, and the dollars of people with similar opinions to mine, are worth enough to keep or not. I trust them to make whatever decision best serves their interest as a company interested in making money, whether that decision best serves my interests or not.
Paizonians!
Hell, I've been boycotting D&D since 2008... And I know quite a few others that have as well. Some call us ...
Paizonians!
No thanks. I hate Pathfinder (because I hate 3e). I own almost every 2e product released (I am only missing the blue line of books). I own every 4e product released except for 6 (and of those 6, I will eventually buy 4 of them). As much as I really dislike CCG elements in my RPGs, I love 4e. Like 2e before it, it really floats my boat. 3e and Pathfinder? Not so much. I really dislike both games (and largely consider them to be the same game). I think 4e is a much better game than Pathfinder, in every possible shape and form. And to be honest, the only 4e product that has managed to include enough of a CCG element for me to write it off, to date, is Gamma World. The fortune cards that have been announced for 4e are so optional that I can largely write them off. I won't be buying them or using them in any games I play, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of D&D. And we don't know if such an element will be included in Ravenloft at all as of yet, or if it is whether it will be closer to the Gamma World model or the fortune card model, so I have high hopes for Ravenloft as well. You can keep your Pathfinder. That is one product I will also happily boycott.
There was a massive furor about WotC turning D&D into MtG before.
Oh c'mon. This talk goes on from 3d edition. Time will tell who is right. Let's agree to disagree and remember that we are brothers in 4E.
Our squabble only makes Paizonans heathens happy (just kidding).I'm a roleplayer, first and foremost. I'm not a boosterpack buyer.
Hell, I've been boycotting D&D since 2008... And I know quite a few others that have as well. Some call us ...
Paizonians!
How's that working out for you?
You know, if you've found a new game and a new company that makes you happy and fulfills your gaming desires, why are you here now? You must have some interest in all of this. Or maybe you really aren't as happy as you think you are in Paizonia. It could be you're just upset that some people enjoy something that you don't, and even though you claim to be perfectly happy without it, you want to make the people who do like it feel inferior to you. But that would make you something I can't call you due to the ToC. ;)
As for this specific thread?
Every once in a while, my inner Smeagol bubbles to the surface and likes to create some chaos. >
Thanks! And I hope I don't sound like I'm talking down to people here. I just wanted to point out that it seems every decision being made for D&D anymore is splintering the fanbase further and further.
People moan and complain. It is what people do over the internet. And it is damn hard to appease D&D's fanbase. The brand still manages to pull in top sales in the RPG market year after year, and probably will after everyone here stops buying RPG products.
4th Quarter: Ravenloft Roleplaying Game. Play vampires, werewolves, as well as other standard classes.
Will Vampires and Werewolves be monster classes?
Hell, I've been boycotting D&D since 2008... And I know quite a few others that have as well.
Not buying things you don't want isn't a boycott. A boycott is when you refuse to buy things even though you do want them, in order to make some sort of point of principle, or to send a message or exert pressure.
I'm not boycotting Magic the Gathering. I just don't have any interest in it. I'm also not boycotting Barbie dolls or Porsches or liquid nitrogen. I'm just not buying any of those things because I don't want any of them (and, in the case of Porsches, also because I probably couldn't afford one anyway).
If you're sticking with Pathfinder and not buying any D&D stuff because you don't like 4th edition D&D, that's your prerogative. But calling it a 'boycott' is a little pretentious.
Hell, I've been boycotting D&D since 2008... And I know quite a few others that have as well.
Not buying things you don't want isn't a boycott. A boycott is when you refuse to buy things even though you do want them, in order to make some sort of point of principle, or to send a message or exert pressure.
I'm not boycotting Magic the Gathering. I just don't have any interest in it. I'm also not boycotting Barbie dolls or Porsches or liquid nitrogen. I'm just not buying any of those things because I don't want any of them (and, in the case of Porsches, also because I probably couldn't afford one anyway).
If you're sticking with Pathfinder and not buying any D&D stuff because you don't like 4th edition D&D, that's your prerogative. But calling it a 'boycott' is a little pretentious.
Well, considering that I *DO* want lore information to be found in the FRPG and FRCG, not to mention some stuff in the Eberron books and DDI, but refuse to pay for them, I'd consider it a boycott.
Hell, I've been boycotting D&D since 2008... And I know quite a few others that have as well.
Not buying things you don't want isn't a boycott. A boycott is when you refuse to buy things even though you do want them, in order to make some sort of point of principle, or to send a message or exert pressure.
I'm not boycotting Magic the Gathering. I just don't have any interest in it. I'm also not boycotting Barbie dolls or Porsches or liquid nitrogen. I'm just not buying any of those things because I don't want any of them (and, in the case of Porsches, also because I probably couldn't afford one anyway).
If you're sticking with Pathfinder and not buying any D&D stuff because you don't like 4th edition D&D, that's your prerogative. But calling it a 'boycott' is a little pretentious.
Well, considering that I *DO* want lore information to be found in the FRPG and FRCG, not to mention some stuff in the Eberron books and DDI, but refuse to pay for them, I'd consider it a boycott.
In that case me having the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and refusing to touch any other Paizo book can be called a boycott?
The interesting thing is that you seem to be acting like nobody over at the Paizo forums is complaining about anything. Also, remember that the Paizonian community is tiny compared to the D&D one, and mostly made of people who already made an informed choice by going Pathfinder. It's a polarized community to begin with. D&D has an exponentially bigger userbase, with of course much more diversified tastes.
Are you actively choosing not to by Paizo because you dislike what they are doing? Then yes, you're boycotting.
Are you saying you bought the book to try it out, didn't really like it so aren't buying any new stuff (but mentioning it in this thread to prove that a boycott has only one definition and that is how you define it)? Then no, you're not boycotting it as I have determined what boycott means to me.
Are there complainers on the Paizo forums? Of course there are! That's what forums are for, after all. A place to discuss your ideas with others that share your interest and also hash out any dissappointments in those ideas. I dare you to show me a forum anywhere on the internet that doesn't have people that complain. So, it seems like you're bringing this up to show that Paizo's not perfect and imply that I am saying that when I've never said any such thing. I've stated, time and again, on this forum and others, that I prefer Pathfinder's rules for my fantasy gaming over 4th Edition. I've said numerous times that 4th Edition is a well-crafted ruleset and gave props to the designers and developers for creating a system that is easy to learn and use to bring new people into the hobby. But, just like there are people that prefer the Storyteller system or Mechwarrior RPG or Munchkin's system over other systems doesn't make one better or worse than the other.
As for the Paizo community being 'tiny' compared to the D&D one, I noticed that during the ENnie Award broadcast on NeonCon.com, the biggest complaints in the chatroom of viewers were from the D&D fans that were saying how unfair it was that Paizo was winning the 'popularity contest' and how the ENnies don't mean anything because it's the equivalent of the People's Choice Awards. So, if the WotC community is so much larger than the others out there, how is it that the PHB3 came in 2nd place to Mysteries of the Hollow Earth (Exile Game Studio, a company that produces MUCH less product than WotC).
Finally, I noticed that you began your paragraph saying how there are people complaining on the Paizo forums and then jumped two sentences later into saying how the Paizo community is polarized (I'm assuming you mean that we all agree), which contradicts the first statement. I don't deny that D&D has a bigger 'userbase', since they have been in the business since 1974 and have achieved world-wide brand recognizition. But, I ALSO notice that the forums here are focused only on the products produced by Hasbro/WotC, and the discussion is pretty much kept to the product. So I'm not sure how diversified the people here are, because there's nothing that really shows that diversification. Whereas the forums on the Paizo website if filled with threads on their products, threads on other games and products (including a quite large 4E group), plus threads and forums on everything from comic-books and movies, to discussions on religion, politics and philosophy.
C'mon by, I'll introduce you to everyone!
There don't seem to be any illustrations at all or mock-up cover for the coming Ravenloft game. Or has anyone seen otherwise?
Thanks for keeping this about Ravenloft drozz. Did you just pop your head up too argue about editions in every thread?
Seriously.
If I wanted to discuss Pathfinder I'd head over to Paizo. In all honesty, I have no desire to play Pathfinder, haven't bought a single Pathfinder product, and don't care to. Pathfinder has less than nothing to do with this thread. If you don't like 4E, congratulations, you can join the party with a bunch of other like-minded individuals. They're all sitting over there. Over here, however, are the 4E players, and we would prefer not to discuss other systems here.
If one were really that interested in discussing FR lore, they'd stick to the forum dedicated to Forgotten Realms. That's what it's there for.
Since I was responding to a post from someone else asking me questions, and this thread had lost the rails a while before I got here, I figured it was okay to post it. Thanks for pointing out that we're off the original subject of Ravenloft being announced as a stand-alone game next year.
So, I'm wondering if the vampire characters will sparkle... (I kid, I kid) Honestly, I do want to see what they are going to do with the IP. White Wolf did a pretty good job with it under the d20 Swords and Sorcery, bringing an level of creepiness to the game while the PCs still played heroes trying to resist the taint of the realms. I wonder if it will be more oriented to the RPG elements of playing a cursed character (like World of Darkness) or will it be more along the lines of 'here's-the-factions-battle-royale-go!".
I haven't played WoD but I guess they'll probably leave it to characters whether they'll be good or evil while leaning the book towards fighting the evil within and without. I remember that one of the Weathermay twins was a potential lycanthrope; then there are characters like the previously mentioned Jander Sunstar.
I'm curious as to whether they're keeping the White Wolf timeline; retconning it back a la Dark Sun; or possibly advancing it to the apocalyptic year of 775 BC.
I'm also guessing that there might be a major trimming of the domains, particularly various islands and clusters, particularly the Asian-themed, Egyptian and Indian ones if FR was anything to go by.
If we see rules for guns, I will be a happy camper.
I am wondering how they plan on bringing the different domains into 4th edition. Will we see a version of the core where you can sail to Mordent from Gloomwrought? No core at all, but several Islands of Terror? It will be very interesting to see what they decide to do.
I would also like to second the desire to see flintlocks, and other black-power muzzle-loaders, presented in the materials.
What if (I would do it) Hasbro buy a big, big, big capital stock of Paizo Publishing? Would end/stop debate about pathfinder and 4th edition?
Well, first off, Paizo's not publically traded, so they can't buy out Lisa & co. And I don't think they would sell even if Hasbro toted bags of money to their offices.
Regarding the debate between Pathfinder and 4th Edition: even if Hasbro bought out Paizo, turned around and stopped production on all of Paizo's products and forever turned off any mention of Pathfinder; the debate would continue.
Just as there are players out there publishing material and rules for 2nd Edition/AD&D, there will be people that continue playing 3.X/Pathfinder. And the real beauty is that because of the nature of the original SRD and d20 Gaming License, the fans could continue publishing Pathfinder (yes, Paizo made IT open content as well) on their own.
The debate, as I see it, has been over for longer than a year. The only people still bashing each other are in a minority (well, except for some of us Forgotten Realms fans, but that has nothing to do with 4E/3E, but the godawful changes of the Spellplague). The ones still flaming the Edition Wars are those that feel a need to be 'right' no matter what and everyone else is 'stupid'. I don't believe that and neither should anyone else around here.
As I've said before (and probably will again), it's a flippin' game people. If you are having fun and your friends are having fun, why the hell should it matter what other people think?
Go, have fun. Play the game.
I doubt they will use any of White Wolfs updated Ravenloft material. I assume that might cause some sort of problem with copyright infringement...
I don't know. Since White Wolf was licensing the Ravenloft property, it all effectively belongs to WotC/Hasbro anyway, much like Atari's video games still belong in effect to them.
I doubt they will use any of White Wolfs updated Ravenloft material. I assume that might cause some sort of problem with copyright infringement...
I don't know. Since White Wolf was licensing the Ravenloft property, it all effectively belongs to WotC/Hasbro anyway, much like Atari's video games still belong in effect to them.
I might be way off base here, but isn't it true that when you license a trademark the trademark continues to be the property of the company that owns it, but the material produced by the company licencsing the trademark belongs to the company producing the material? It is my understanding that Ravenloft belonged to, and continues to belong to, WotC. When the license agreement ended White Wolf lost all right to produce future Ravenloft products. However, whatever material they did produce before the agreement ran out continues to belong to them. So, if WotC wants to use their updated time line they would have to license that material from White Wolf. Am I wrong?
I might be way off base here, but isn't it true that when you license a trademark the trademark continues to be the property of the company that owns it, but the material produced by the company licencsing the trademark belongs to the company producing the material? It is my understanding that Ravenloft belonged to, and continues to belong to, WotC. When the license agreement ended White Wolf lost all right to produce future Ravenloft products. However, whatever material they did produce before the agreement ran out continues to belong to them. So, if WotC wants to use their updated time line they would have to license that material from White Wolf. Am I wrong?
Depends on the license that was initially drafted. If the license doesn't address this issue then most likely WotC has no right to the published work. However it would have been both practical and (I believe) legal for WotC to include a clause giving them license to produce derivative works of any material published under the license. The only question is whether such a clause is in there or not.
I know there is at least a moderate interest in introducing black powder weapons in D&D, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I dislike telling my players they can't have something, but I'll never allow guns in D&D games I run. I don't think I'd even want to be a player in a game with guns. It just doesn't fit my idea of fantasy.
As that (the exclusion of guns) is your preference, that is also your right. I will say however that guns are present in a fair number of gothic horror works. Dr. Frankenstein had a gun (a muzzle-loader I believe), and the cowboy character from Dracula had both a Winchester repeating rifle and a revolver (which are far more technologically advanced than any muzzle-loader). Allow me to further say that while you find denying access to certain items distasteful, it is something that can be done with a minimum of fuss; especially when compared to the task of creating firearms mechanics from scratch (for those who want their inclusion).
I know there is at least a moderate interest in introducing black powder weapons in D&D, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I dislike telling my players they can't have something, but I'll never allow guns in D&D games I run. I don't think I'd even want to be a player in a game with guns. It just doesn't fit my idea of fantasy.
As that (the exclusion of guns) is your preference, that is also your right. I will say however that guns are present in a fair number of gothic horror works. Dr. Frankenstein had a gun (a muzzle-loader I believe), and the cowboy character from Dracula had both a Winchester repeating rifle and a revolver (which are far more technologically advanced than any muzzle-loader). Allow me to further say that while you find denying access to certain items distasteful, it is something that can be done with a minimum of fuss; especially when compared to the task of creating firearms mechanics from scratch (for those who want their inclusion).
I've had this argument before, and I understand the desire for it by the opposite side. It's hard to remove material from the game once it's in though. Players see options in books and want it in the game.
I've always been a proponent of third party publishers introducing black powder weapons. 3PP material is easy for a DM to simply say "Nope, I'm not allowing it." Of course, then the argument is "Well then we don't trust the playtesting!"
There's no right or wrong. There are just two polar opposite opinions. I simply hope mine "wins."
I know there is at least a moderate interest in introducing black powder weapons in D&D, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I dislike telling my players they can't have something, but I'll never allow guns in D&D games I run. I don't think I'd even want to be a player in a game with guns. It just doesn't fit my idea of fantasy.
As that (the exclusion of guns) is your preference, that is also your right. I will say however that guns are present in a fair number of gothic horror works. Dr. Frankenstein had a gun (a muzzle-loader I believe), and the cowboy character from Dracula had both a Winchester repeating rifle and a revolver (which are far more technologically advanced than any muzzle-loader). Allow me to further say that while you find denying access to certain items distasteful, it is something that can be done with a minimum of fuss; especially when compared to the task of creating firearms mechanics from scratch (for those who want their inclusion).
I've had this argument before, and I understand the desire for it by the opposite side. It's hard to remove material from the game once it's in though. Players see options in books and want it in the game.
I've always been a proponent of third party publishers introducing black powder weapons. 3PP material is easy for a DM to simply say "Nope, I'm not allowing it." Of course, then the argument is "Well then we don't trust the playtesting!"
There's no right or wrong. There are just two polar opposite opinions. I simply hope mine "wins."
I must confess I'm not interested in having the arguement either. I can say from personal experience that saying no is much eaiser, and less time consuming, than homebrewing and playtesting your own firearms and accompanying feats. Of course, I may have simply had more cooperative players in that regard.
I am curious about 1 thing though: Do you not use any 3PP materials? I ask because there is always the possibility that a 3PP you trust (and whose materials you have used before) puts out a book with firearms in it. The only way to maintain the basis for your arguement is to never use 3PP materials.
Also, while I respect your personal preference to keep firearms out of your campaigns, I think you are overestimating the difficulty of denying them. Ravenloft is considered and called a "stand-alone" product (like Gamma World). You are no more compelled to allow things from Ravenloft than you are compelled to allow players to use Gamma World's tech or mutation cards.
I do disagree that there is no right or wrong on this issue, but I will say that there clearly appears to be no intentional malice in your position. It's one thing to deny firearms in a campaign you are DM'ing for; it's quite another to take the position that WotC shouldn't ever publish firearms rules in books or online articles because you feel that denying them is inconvenient.
Witch hunter miniature, dwarfs and Empire from Warhammer fantasy, Fable II, dwarf player character from Sacred videogame, Final Fantasy..
But... if you allow guns in your fantasy campaign setting the danger is all PCs wouldn´t want hand-to-hand or martial arts combat. Knight with shinning armour or gunman?
I hope yours looses. Firearms are an accepted part of Ravenloft.
Only one of us can! Still hope it's me!
I know there is at least a moderate interest in introducing black powder weapons in D&D, but I really hope it doesn't happen. I dislike telling my players they can't have something, but I'll never allow guns in D&D games I run. I don't think I'd even want to be a player in a game with guns. It just doesn't fit my idea of fantasy.
As that (the exclusion of guns) is your preference, that is also your right. I will say however that guns are present in a fair number of gothic horror works. Dr. Frankenstein had a gun (a muzzle-loader I believe), and the cowboy character from Dracula had both a Winchester repeating rifle and a revolver (which are far more technologically advanced than any muzzle-loader). Allow me to further say that while you find denying access to certain items distasteful, it is something that can be done with a minimum of fuss; especially when compared to the task of creating firearms mechanics from scratch (for those who want their inclusion).
I've had this argument before, and I understand the desire for it by the opposite side. It's hard to remove material from the game once it's in though. Players see options in books and want it in the game.
I've always been a proponent of third party publishers introducing black powder weapons. 3PP material is easy for a DM to simply say "Nope, I'm not allowing it." Of course, then the argument is "Well then we don't trust the playtesting!"
There's no right or wrong. There are just two polar opposite opinions. I simply hope mine "wins."
I must confess I'm not interested in having the arguement either. I can say from personal experience that saying no is much eaiser, and less time consuming, than homebrewing and playtesting your own firearms and accompanying feats. Of course, I may have simply had more cooperative players in that regard.
I am curious about 1 thing though: Do you not use any 3PP materials? I ask because there is always the possibility that a 3PP you trust (and whose materials you have used before) puts out a book with firearms in it. The only way to maintain the basis for your arguement is to never use 3PP materials.
Also, while I respect your personal preference to keep firearms out of your campaigns, I think you are overestimating the difficulty of denying them. Ravenloft is considered and called a "stand-alone" product (like Gamma World). You are no more compelled to allow things from Ravenloft than you are compelled to allow players to use Gamma World's tech or mutation cards.
I do disagree that there is no right or wrong on this issue, but I will say that there clearly appears to be no intentional malice in your position. It's one thing to deny firearms in a campaign you are DM'ing for; it's quite another to take the position that WotC shouldn't ever publish firearms rules in books or online articles because you feel that denying them is inconvenient.
You're absolutely right, there is no malice intended on my part. Personally I never want to see WotC publish any firearms, but I know that there is an entire faction on the opposite side of the fence.
As far as 3PP, no, I generally don't use any materials not publshed by Wizards.
I understand that Gamma World and Ravenloft are semi-standalone, but they are 4E compatible. I just don't want to have to argue with myy players if they decide they want a gun.
Gunpowder + fantasy?
Witch hunter miniature, dwarfs and Empire from Warhammer fantasy, Fable II, dwarf player character from Sacred videogame, Final Fantasy..
But... if you allow guns in your fantasy campaign setting the danger is all PCs wouldn´t want hand-to-hand or martial arts combat. Knight with shinning armour or gunman?
That's exactly my fear. My monsters literally bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Gunpowders, superpowers, legendary magic artifact, modern military vehicules/machines, monster mount (or ally), battle spelljammers bombardment, castle siege with catapults... a new system of rules about PXs rewards could be necesary when PCs are using too powerful help/stuff.
Another consideration is accuracy. If we are talking about powder-and-ball firearms (especially muskets), they are much less accurate than crossbows and longbows are. Firearms in 4e may well have only a +1 proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
And lets not forget that blackpowder guns don't fire when they get wet
Also, while a gun is inherently superior (from a damage perspective) when making a basic ranged attack, there is no assurance that will be the case when it is used with powers. Lets say a muzzle-loaded rifle (firing a .75 caliber ball) does 2d8 damage. There is no reason why guns cannot be designed so that they only do half of this damage (or 1d8 damage) when used in an attack power.
@AlioTheFool: Gamma World is also billed as 4e compatible. Do you find it difficult to tell players they can't use Gamma World mutation/tech cards in an ordinary 4e campaign? I would wager that you don't, because Gamma World is a "stand-alone" product with unique features intended to portray the feeling of that specific setting and not the feeling of D&D as a whole.
Another thing to consider is the firearms we're talking about. A muzzle-loaded rifle can be loaded and fired (accurately) three times per minute by a trained soldier. That is a lot of time spent reloading. For most characters using such guns (depending upon how the rules are composed) each gun will end up firing only a single shot per encounter. There is a very good reason why pirates and musketeers used swords. Once you've got off your first shot, you aren't likely to get to reload until the fight is over.
Another consideration is accuracy. If we are talking about powder-and-ball firearms (especially muskets), they are much less accurate than crossbows and longbows are. Firearms in 4e may well have only a +1 proficiency bonus to attack rolls.
And lets not forget that blackpowder guns don't fire when they get wet
Also, while a gun is inherently superior (from a damage perspective) when making a basic ranged attack, there is no assurance that will be the case when it is used with powers. Lets say a muzzle-loaded rifle (firing a .75 caliber ball) does 2d8 damage. There is no reason why guns cannot be designed so that they only do half of this damage (or 1d8 damage) when used in an attack power.
@AlioTheFool: Gamma World is also billed as 4e compatible. Do you find it difficult to tell players they can't use Gamma World mutation/tech cards in an ordinary 4e campaign? I would wager that you don't, because Gamma World is a "stand-alone" product with unique features intended to portray the feeling of that specific setting and not the feeling of D&D as a whole.
I doubt you'd see an option that handicapped in 4E (the downgraded damage/attack bonus firearms.) It just doesn't fit 4E design. Either way, I'm sure Wizards would introduce something balanced. I have no worries that a black powder weapon would be built fairly, it's simply that I firmly believe that D&D should be played without black powder weapons.
As for Gamma World, it's a completely different story from Ravenloft. Gamma World is a post-apocalyptic setting. It has a completely different world from D&D. Ravenloft, on the other hand, exists on the fringe of the D&D core world. In 4E it's actually smack dab in the middle of the Shadowfell.
Obviously, no matter what, I'm going to allow/disallow what I want. My preference is just to not have to disallow guns.
...or what if PC has got six loaded guns, ready to shoot...(and a squire who load them)?
Itself-loading crossbow was a magic item from "arms equipment guide"... and there was a spell from "Races of wood" to load a crossbow (if your PC use it to creat a magic weapon... ).
I remeber a litle construct from Eberron (homunculi) what it was a bow.
Itself-loading magic gun?
As for Gamma World, it's a completely different story from Ravenloft. Gamma World is a post-apocalyptic setting. It has a completely different world from D&D. Ravenloft, on the other hand, exists on the fringe of the D&D core world. In 4E it's actually smack dab in the middle of the Shadowfell.
Well, both Gamma World and Ravenloft are going to be stand-alone DnD settings though, so including Ravenloft in a mainstream game is technically just as optional as including a gateway to Gamma World, including the laser guns and mutants.
In fact, it has been revealed that the apocolypse that created Terra Gamma (Gamma World) was a scientific experiment that cause all realities to exist simultaneously for a moment. If this is the case, Gamma World is probably as close to Faerun or Athas or Eberron, metaphyscially speaking, as the Domains of Dread.
As for Gamma World, it's a completely different story from Ravenloft. Gamma World is a post-apocalyptic setting. It has a completely different world from D&D. Ravenloft, on the other hand, exists on the fringe of the D&D core world. In 4E it's actually smack dab in the middle of the Shadowfell.
Well, both Gamma World and Ravenloft are going to be stand-alone DnD settings though, so including Ravenloft in a mainstream game is technically just as optional as including a gateway to Gamma World, including the laser guns and mutants.
In fact, it has been revealed that the apocolypse that created Terra Gamma (Gamma World) was a scientific experiment that cause all realities to exist simultaneously for a moment. If this is the case, Gamma World is probably as close to Faerun or Athas or Eberron, metaphyscially speaking, as the Domains of Dread.
This is why I said I really didn't want to get into an argument over this. Someone is always going to have a "You're wrong" response. (I'm not accusing you of trying to argue. I don't sense any intent there. I'm just saying this is why I didn't really want to get too deep into it.)
From my understanding, Ravenloft will exist within the Shadowfell of the D&D cosmology. Gamma World will not actually exist within D&D's cosmology, but will work with the D&D mechanical system. That's a big difference.
Whereas Gamma World is being billed as a seperate game that you can play with D&D if you so choose, the branding of Ravenloft (at least according to Bill Slavicek in the D&D Preview at GenCon) is that it is part of D&D but for marketing purposes can be viewed as a standalone game as well.
It makes sense too. Ravenloft's setting fits well enough within the established fantasy settings within D&D's worlds. It's easy enough to imagine an area populated with Vampires, Werewolves, etc. on any existing D&D planet (Thay on Faerun, or Karnath on Eberron) whereas you wouldn't see laser guns (or whatever Gamma World has) in Cormyr or Sharn.
I think the best way to handle it is have different timelines in ravenloft.Depending on the timeline the experience was different anyways.That way if you want your guns you use timeline Z,if you want medieval you use timeline X.
While I would have no problem with that, Alio has already said that he doesn't want WotC to ever publish any firearms rules at all because he doesn't want to have to deny the option to his players who may ask for them. Make of that what you will, but I personally find that selfish as it's much easier to say "Sorry, no guns" than it is to homebrew and playtest your own balanced firearms.
This is why I am surprised that this is the Setting for 2011, though a lot of buzz has been going on because of the board game. I like that the Neverwinter Guide is being released, that sorta being the default "setting" slot for the year as Ravenloft is being released durring the holidays. I hope that Sharn (in Eberron) will be next for 2012.
I'v got mixed feelings about this. I'll wait and see what it offers.
The main reason for it to be a stand alone is the dark nature of the setting and the fact that most Heroic Campaigns won't have the player playing Vampires/Werewolves and such.
I don't know if its seperate precisely because of the dark nature of the setting but because they want to include vampire, werewolf, et al, super powers that don't fit neatly within DnD's class system. If you look at the mutant PCs in Gamma World, the mutations dictate powers: they effectively replace the class system. If could be that WotC wants to make Ravenloft like Gamma World so that they can have a lot more freedom to give ghost, vampire, werewolf and other monsterous PCs full suites of monster powers instead of classes.
The thing is that Melee characters will mostly outperform Ranged Weapon characters, even ones armed with guns. The way I see it, light pistols do around 1d6 to 1d8, heavier pistols are around 1d8 to 1d10, and rifles are around 1d10 to 2d6 damage.
There currently exists no ranged equivalent of power attack, many class features simply don't work with ranged weapons, and when you consider that most powers involving melee weapons tend to scale up in damage by generally having higher multipliers and more ways to get extra bonuses, I definitely see melee weapon characters doing better in the damage department, unless you have a rifle using Ranger that's really min-maxed.
A Monk against six Worg-riders with blunderbusses will easily slaughter those Goblins, since that many monsters in a fight even ones with guns are most likely minions. And even if they weren't minions, the Monk has superior mobility and many many tricks because they are a PC and not a Monster.
I too am very interested to see how this turns out, largely in that it is the reverse theme of the core game.
4th edition was very pro-player. Codes of honour, alignments, being friendly with your god and all manner of rp restrictions were removed. At the same time, combat became bigger and safer for a party, who were capable of chewing through a lot more without much hassle. It was certainly very heroic and even low level characters could do big, impressive things.
Ravenloft is the reverse. It is set against the player, often forcing them to make difficult rp choices, sometimes with no apparent happy outcome. The party is usually only successful in small amounts, with villains running the world and that world bending to accomodate and protect them. Heroic characters in ravenloft are rare, because they usually end up turning evil, or being killed.
Ravenloft would lose a lot of its appeal if the party was your typical pack of awesome, shiny paladin folk running around stomping anything that got in their way. It isnt just another "bug hunt", it needs much more finesse and i dare say a whole new rack of storytelling rules to keep its theme.
I think the best way to handle it is have different timelines in ravenloft.Depending on the timeline the experience was different anyways.That way if you want your guns you use timeline Z,if you want medieval you use timeline X.
While I would have no problem with that, Alio has already said that he doesn't want WotC to ever publish any firearms rules at all because he doesn't want to have to deny the option to his players who may ask for them. Make of that what you will, but I personally find that selfish as it's much easier to say "Sorry, no guns" than it is to homebrew and playtest your own balanced firearms.
Awesome. You managed to turn it into an argument anyway. Congratulations.
Sorry if it sounds selfish. (No, I'm not actually sorry.) I don't want any firearms in D&D. First off, you could re-flavor any power in the game to be called a firearm-based power if you really wanted them that badly. Change crossbows to muskets and use the mechanic to fulfill your idea. Secondly, you could use whatever is introduced in Gamma World in terms of firearms and you'd have what you want too.
It has nothing to do with being selfish. We want two different things from the same game. Only one of us can be satisfied. I'm not sitting here calling you selfish now am I?
Old guns such as a matchlocks, flintlocks and caplocks are balanced.
The thing is that Melee characters will mostly outperform Ranged Weapon characters, even ones armed with guns. The way I see it, light pistols do around 1d6 to 1d8, heavier pistols are around 1d8 to 1d10, and rifles are around 1d10 to 2d6 damage.
There currently exists no ranged equivalent of power attack, many class features simply don't work with ranged weapons, and when you consider that most powers involving melee weapons tend to scale up in damage by generally having higher multipliers and more ways to get extra bonuses, I definitely see melee weapon characters doing better in the damage department, unless you have a rifle using Ranger that's really min-maxed.
A Monk against six Worg-riders with blunderbusses will easily slaughter those Goblins, since that many monsters in a fight even ones with guns are most likely minions. And even if they weren't minions, the Monk has superior mobility and many many tricks because they are a PC and not a Monster.
For me, it has nothing to do with balance. It has to do with flavor. I can't remember which book I read it in (I want to say it was the Champion PHB from BECMI, but maybe not) where it specifically said D&D occurs in a world much like our own during the middle ages without the discovery of black powder (not verbatim.) I've always agreed with that line of thought.
A Magic Missile does what, 6 damage on an autohit on a sniper hiding behind a crate? A bullet from that sniper between the eyes deals 1dDead to that wizard.
I'm fundamentally against guns in D&D. There are more than enough systems out there that deal with guns (and even 4E-based products such as Alternity) that handle guns just fine, without it being intertwined with canon that must then be denied by me at the table.
The worst part of it is, guns are ALREADY an accepted part of the Ravenloft cannon. So, you actually want WotC to break the cannon of Ravenloft for your own desires. If that is not selfish, I don't know what is...
Awesome. You managed to turn it into an argument anyway. Congratulations.
Sorry if it sounds selfish. (No, I'm not actually sorry.) I don't want any firearms in D&D. First off, you could re-flavor any power in the game to be called a firearm-based power if you really wanted them that badly. Change crossbows to muskets and use the mechanic to fulfill your idea. Secondly, you could use whatever is introduced in Gamma World in terms of firearms and you'd have what you want too.
It has nothing to do with being selfish. We want two different things from the same game. Only one of us can be satisfied. I'm not sitting here calling you selfish now am I?
I didn't call you selfish. I don't know you personally, though at this point I don't actually care to, so I wouldn't be able to speak from a position of any authority were I to make that claim. What I said was that you appear selfish . . . and you do. You are saying that you don't like guns in your game (that's fine, I have no intention of forcing you to allow characters to have them). You go on to say that you would have to deny the use of firearms if they were ever published (again, this is fine, I still have no intention of forcing you to let your characters have them). Where you appear selfish is by saying that it's so hard to say no to your players that WotC should never publish firearms rules. I am not denying options to you and your group. You are seeking to deny options to all other groups that play the game. Your behaviour in this case is selfish because you can just say no and ignore firearms, whereas we can't just whisper yes into the books and make balanced firearms (and accompanying support) appear.
Also, I honestly didn't want this arguement. I also don't want the things you allow and disallow in your group to determine what is allowable in other people's groups. You don't make the game, so you don't get to have that kind of power over other peoples' play groups. This is nothing personal on my part. I would feel the same way if you wanted to deny the publication of an Arcane power source because you don't want to have to deny that to players in your group.
Ravenloft is not only not a core rulebook, it's specifically billed as a "stand alone" product. As a DM you are not obliged to allow anything you don't want to include from it. By the same token, you don't have to allow Artificers or anything else from the setting specific guides in any other setting you play in. You don't have to allow your players to play Defilers just because Dark Sun is out, and you wouldn't have to allow firearms in your game just because Ravenloft included them.
NO GUNS IN D&D!
For me, it has nothing to do with balance. It has to do with flavor. I can't remember which book I read it in (I want to say it was the Champion PHB from BECMI, but maybe not) where it specifically said D&D occurs in a world much like our own during the middle ages without the discovery of black powder (not verbatim.) I've always agreed with that line of thought.
A Magic Missile does what, 6 damage on an autohit on a sniper hiding behind a crate? A bullet from that sniper between the eyes deals 1dDead to that wizard.
I'm fundamentally against guns in D&D. There are more than enough systems out there that deal with guns (and even 4E-based products such as Alternity) that handle guns just fine, without it being intertwined with canon that must then be denied by me at the table.
I disagree with D&D being exclusively middle ages. It's whatever the players and the DM want it to be. It's defined as a Fantasy Role-Playing Game, and Fantasy does not necessarily equal no guns. As there's many different flavours of fantasy out there.
Also there's been a mention of guns in various campaign settings to varying degrees including Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms (starwheel pistols), Mystara (Savage Coast sub-campaign), Spelljammer (the Giff and other forces) and Planescape (one of the Factors of the Fated uses them). It's probably Ravenloft that has the most references as it's based on Gothic Horror and not Medieval Fantasy.
And yes guns are completely a flavour thing, it has nothing to do with balance. And a sniper with a rifle is not going to do any more damage than the sniper with a crossbow to the Wizard (and the fact that the Wizard is also proficient with simple firearms).
Wow, nothing like personal attacks to make a conversation no longer worth having. I'm done arguing with you two.
NO GUNS IN D&D!
How about....
YES, OPTIONS IN D&D!
I mean, really, i hate elves, halfings and the rest of the generic tolkien fare but i'm not going to tell WotC not to put them in the game because i know other people use them. If i don't want them in my game i can say "no"... its really just that easy.
Its one thing to tell you're own group "no" to an official option but its sort of ridiculous to try and deny every group the option.
Wow, nothing like personal attacks to make a conversation no longer worth having. I'm done arguing with you two.
NO GUNS IN D&D!
How about....
YES, OPTIONS IN D&D!
I mean, really, i hate elves, halfings and the rest of the generic tolkien fare but i'm not going to tell WotC not to put them in the game because i know other people use them. If i don't want them in my game i can say "no"... its really just that easy.
Its one thing to tell you're own group "no" to an official option but its sort of ridiculous to try and deny every group the option.
+1
Wow, nothing like personal attacks to make a conversation no longer worth having. I'm done arguing with you two.
NO GUNS IN D&D!
How about....
YES, OPTIONS IN D&D!
I mean, really, i hate elves, halfings and the rest of the generic tolkien fare but i'm not going to tell WotC not to put them in the game because i know other people use them. If i don't want them in my game i can say "no"... its really just that easy.
Its one thing to tell you're own group "no" to an official option but its sort of ridiculous to try and deny every group the option.
+2
For me, it has nothing to do with balance. It has to do with flavor. I can't remember which book I read it in (I want to say it was the Champion PHB from BECMI, but maybe not) where it specifically said D&D occurs in a world much like our own during the middle ages without the discovery of black powder (not verbatim.) I've always agreed with that line of thought.
A Magic Missile does what, 6 damage on an autohit on a sniper hiding behind a crate? A bullet from that sniper between the eyes deals 1dDead to that wizard.
I'm fundamentally against guns in D&D. There are more than enough systems out there that deal with guns (and even 4E-based products such as Alternity) that handle guns just fine, without it being intertwined with canon that must then be denied by me at the table.
I disagree with D&D being exclusively middle ages. It's whatever the players and the DM want it to be. It's defined as a Fantasy Role-Playing Game, and Fantasy does not necessarily equal no guns. As there's many different flavours of fantasy out there.
Also there's been a mention of guns in various campaign settings to varying degrees including Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms (starwheel pistols), Mystara (Savage Coast sub-campaign), Spelljammer (the Giff and other forces) and Planescape (one of the Factors of the Fated uses them). It's probably Ravenloft that has the most references as it's based on Gothic Horror and not Medieval Fantasy.
And yes guns are completely a flavour thing, it has nothing to do with balance. And a sniper with a rifle is not going to do any more damage than the sniper with a crossbow to the Wizard (and the fact that the Wizard is also proficient with simple firearms).
You can disagree, but what I said will still be correct. I honestly have zero desire to continue this discussion, but to simply prove my point I went and found the exact quote I was referencing earlier. It appears in the Dungeon Master's Companion: Book Two from the Companion boxed set, by Frank Mentzer, ©1984 TSR. It can be found on page 4, under the title "The Setting" and reads as follows:
"The D&D fantasy world is loosely based on medieval Europe, before the invention of the printing press, and without firearms..."
That's taken directly from a book published by the original makers of the game. I didn't make it up. It specifically states "without firearms" so we can argue until the Sun burns out and it won't change what's written in the book that formed my preliminary vision of the game.
No guns in D&D.
And an interesting aside, I distinctly remember guns in the 2e PHB (arquebus) and the 3e DMG (from muskets to automatics). So, were those editions somehow not D&D? ...because it seems now that OD&D had laser guns, 2e had guns, and 3e had guns. Its only correct at this point that 4e follow the "true" lineage of the game and include guns too since this arguemnt is apparently about appealing to tradition, right?
Im not sure what something written in 1984 by someone that has nothing to do with the modern game has anything do with what material WotC should make. Of course, as long as we are buying into the "appeal to authority" falacy i'll just throw it out there that by 1984, Gygax had already put out Expedition of Barrier Peaks, introducing laser guns from outer space into D&D. So, if we are appealing to the founders of the game then surely laser guns should be part of DnD.
And an interesting aside, I distinctly remember guns in the 2e PHB (arquebus) and the 3e DMG (from muskets to automatics). So, were those editions somehow not D&D? ...because it seems now that OD&D had laser guns, 2e had guns, and 3e had guns. Its only correct at this point that 4e follow the "true" lineage of the game and include guns too since this arguemnt is apparently about appealing to tradition, right?
+1
The context of the entire conversation was what I feel D&D is. That line was a foundational building block of my determination of what D&D is. Not to mention that in not a single fantasy novel I have ever read did anyone have a firearm.
I don't want guns in D&D. That is based on my own bias. I think guns in D&D is wrong and that's based on some of the earliest writing in the game's history.
This is really tiring though. The same small group is going to keep attacking me even though I stated right from the start I wasn't looking for an argument. Whatever.
Okay, I'm really tiring of this (though I guess it's my own fault for allowing myself to keep getting roped back in.)
The context of the entire conversation was what I feel D&D is. That line was a foundational building block of my determination of what D&D is. Not to mention that in not a single fantasy novel I have ever read did anyone have a firearm.
I don't want guns in D&D. That is based on my own bias. I think guns in D&D is wrong and that's based on some of the earliest writing in the game's history.
This is really tiring though. The same small group is going to keep attacking me even though I stated right from the start I wasn't looking for an argument. Whatever.
We're not looking for an argument either. You're totally free to say no to anything that you don't want in your campaigns. We're not gonna jump in some kind of a "jerkmobile" and drive to your house and make you use rules or materials you don't want to. All we want is the option of saying yes to using that stuff in our groups which you are in no way required to be a part of. Why is this concept so hard for people?
The context of the entire conversation was what I feel D&D is. That line was a foundational building block of my determination of what D&D is. Not to mention that in not a single fantasy novel I have ever read did anyone have a firearm.
Plenty of fantasy novels have guns in them. I remember that L.E. Modesti Jr. had guns in some of his novels, they have have someone with a gun on the cover of them. Philip Pullman wrote a bunch of fantasy novels, with the His Dark Materials series, and that had guns, airships and familiars. China Mieville also has guns in his fantasy novels too, and he's someone who actually was into D&D unlike those other authors.
As far as guns go, of course they should be in there. They're part of Ravenloft.
I never really understood the whole "no guns in my fantasy tra-la-la" argument. If you have halberds and plate armor you should have guns because they're all from the same period. They had guns in the Middle Ages. Sorry that's just how it was.
And as far as what is true to the original nature of D&D, the arquebus has some stats in the very first supplement for D&D ever published, called "Supplement I: Greyhawk", from 1975. So guns have been in D&D for 35 years. Oh, and that book was written by a guy named Gary Gygax (and Rob Kuntz)... you may have heard of him.