Rache'thulu's page

I, personally, prefer the altering of spells. Why did he not save the old one? It's obsolete. If you take a look at the core mechanics of several powers they just upgrade further and further as you level. Or change slightly in what they do.

An example using the Ranger:
At level 19 a Ranger can take the Daily Exploit: Great Ram Arrow. It deals 3(w) + Dex mod damage and pushes the target a number os squares equal to your STR mod. The enemy is then knocked prone.
At Level 23 the Ranger learns a new -ENCOUNTER- power that deals 4 (w) + Dex Mod damage and pushes the target 2+WIS modifier squares. Hammer-Shot

Why would the ranger continue to use the 'less effective' power? Surely he could be a striker that thinks he's a single target controller and that's FINE with me. But if he drops the lower level power and takes the higher one... Why did he stop doing the lower one? Because his talent and skill improved.

How about Wizards? Let's compare Fireball and Fireburst, Shall we? Both deal 3d6 +Int mod in damage. The higher level one (Burst) has a smaller area and is an encounter power. Why on earth would a wizard pick that over the daily with the wider area? Why would he remove one from his spellbook and take the other?

My take on it is aim. He's learned to narrow it's effect and channel the magic more effectively, making the same overall effect more often in a smaller target zone. *shrug* He's re-writing his spells as he goes in an attempt to make them more effective or better.

Perhaps he only has so many pages he can fill and must make room? Perhaps he cannot learn from an enemy's spellbook because of the intricate and extremely personal note forms? One wizard might describe casting a fireball and cue it off of scent\ memories and hand gestures, while another might cue it off of the sound of crackling fire and his voice trembling with arcane might. So can they teach each other Possibly? Maybe? Depends on the DM.

I think spellcasting should be an extremely personal relationship with the magic itself... So deleting the old spells makes perfect sense to me as the wizard practices for endless hours to perfect his understanding of magic.

Just my opinion.

-Rachel-

OKay. You just became my new hero. *crowns Tadkil!*

*hugs!* I think it's awesome that you're teaching kids (yours or otherwise) how to play this game. D&D has always been prepped for the next generation. When it started as 'Chainmail' for the wargamer's benefit, when it morphed into true roleplay. When it advanced into AD&D and yet again in the third edition. It's gone from hand to hand and generation to generation.

With Fourth edition it brings in children. I was 12 when I first played D&D some *mumbles* years ago... >.>

It's time to get the next generation involved. And if that means making D&D a little more 'action oriented' I'm all for it. It's either that or watch our precious game vanish into the mists of time.

Thank you, Tadkil. For showing us all the way.
-Rachel-

I, for one, am very pleased with how 3rd edition and 4th edition are both turning out.

Sure, 3.5 won't get as many new rulebooks and probably won't be supported by WOTC any longer. But there is a metric ton of supplements, adventures, and fluff that people will be able to use to create adventure for another 15-30 years before they start retracing their steps.

As for 4th Edition it's got kind of a new feel to it and some bugs to work out of the system. But it's still a pretty good storytelling engine with a certain cinematic flair. I enjoy the modular stat blocks and the ability to modify creatures on the fly into higher level or lower level counterparts.

Both systems started with rather large labor pains in the community. As many people as there are talking about how 'Over-powered' the PCs are in this edition... There were at least as many when 3rd ed cropped up. I seem to recall a screaming hissy fit between fanboys at a convention about Barbarians getting a d12 hit dice. Now we're arguing over advancement speeds and how many powers a person gets.

In the end; D&D will continue on it's merry little way spreading confusion about Attacks of Opportunity, arguments on Line of Sight vs Line of Effect, and other trivia.

But please: Let's save the arguments and screaming, flaming hissy fits for the conventions. At least that way I get to giggle while watching two to twelve people getting escorted out of the con for violently attacking each other with cardboard weaponry.

-Rachel-

Hey, Chris! Umm... I hate to hijack the thread (more) But if I might tackle this one..?

The system is indeed designed to put some dramatic power into the hands of the heroes through 'Action Points' which really, when you get down to it, let them take 2 standard actions in a round and gain a small bonus based on their chosen powers that inevitably goes away at the end of their next combat action. And yes, they get some pretty amazing and even whacky powers over the course of their careers. The ability to auto-heal 12/4 of their hit points per combat a certain number of times per day. But when you take into consideration that the party cleric can't cast more healing spells in a day than a person has healing surges... It becomes a bit more dangerous.

I will admit that some of the later powers you get are rather cheesy. But if you're playing an Epic Level Ravenloft game and have still managed to keep the fear in your players: Bravo. Up until level 15 or 18 it shouldn't be that hard to pull out Big Scary Monsters and situations that their abilities can't possibly hope to alter except to perhaps aid in their quick escape.

As for the monsters being unable to compete in cheesy superpowers? Baloney. Sure they don't get as many. But if your core rulebook non-ravenloft monster is around for more than one combat and has had time to rest and recouperate it had better be able to run faster than your players or be integral to your plot. *giggles*

Most monsters have encounter and at will powers. Only a few are assigned Daily powers and many have recharges. That means sometimes a monster gets to use the same power 3-4 times while a fighter only gets to use his once. Is it balanced? Probably Not. But it's really near to it!

Please, Chris! Grab the 4E books and read, cover to cover, so you have a full understanding of all the rules and thair balance. Rather than have your friends tell you their opinions on some of the rules.

Still. I see a -potential- for a well placed and well designed Realms of Dread setting in 4E. As for the Forgotten Realms being 'Ruined' as some people seem to think I feel it's par for the course. How many times has Mystra died now? *giggles some more* But yes. If they fail me I will be updating my 3e material, likely.... because Ravenloft is full of scary win.

-Rachel-

This is just semantics. I.e. that's a moronic argument. You want to get your way out of comparisons like this? That's totally fine, but that's half-assed at best. "Maybe, you know... among those... one of the..."

I don't give a f#~~. Want to have an opinion? Show me your opinion. Don't disguise it between wishy washy statements of crap. Have balls, dammit! And then, if your opinion is rightfully challenged, then yield. Don't engage in sad rhetoric exits like this. (rolls eyes)

Rache'thulu wrote:

Because with this new edition of D&D comes a very old precept of gameplay:

Everyone should understand how the game work

That alone shows me you don't know what you are talking about.

Wow. You really don't understand how this works do you? Allow me to explain a few things to you about myself and about posting in general.

First: I'm a playful person. I often make jokes to lighten the mood or point out the stupidity of an argument. Hence the sticking out of the tongue.

Second: My opinions are often placed towards the middle of my posts, which can be quite long as I'm a wordy person. Though I usually sum up in the last part of my post.

Third: I do not have balls. I am an adult woman, hence the name 'Rachel' as opposed to 'BobLorduvBarbaians' Or 'Bill'. Women typically don't have balls, unless you really want a discount and hit the right part of town.

Fourth: I don't take kindly to people who flame or intentionally slip past word filters with cute little comic strip cursing. If you can't get your point across without resorting to a letter followed by random symbols: Don't post.

That's just a tiny bit of who I am, for those that care! =-D

As for the 'Sad Rhetoric' it truly seems to me that you've discarded every point I've made in lieu of insulting a pair of statements. In the OD&D and, indeed, most editions before 4th the DM was privy to a massive number of rules, options, and various versions of the same rules. This edition's core books taken that away. They force ALL the players to memorize a certain amount of things (Combat, their powers, etc) and add a small amount of things on top of that.

It may not have been what you were discussing, but it was a point I thought I should make. If you want to Flame and Insult people please don't do it around me.

Again, thanks for reading.
-Rachel-

In PIN's defense he said 'I think', 'most critics', and 'one of the best DMGs ever'

He stated his opinion on other people's opinions on a book that is, basically, the fourth or fifth of it's kind (not including minor changes here or there or setting DM guides) Ergo he cannot be wrong. *sticks out tongue*

The Fourth Edition DMG -IS- at least somewhat rules light. It's thinner than the PHB, even! Why? Why wouldn't it be a big fat book filled with tons of rules and options?

Because with this new edition of D&D comes a very old precept of gameplay:

Everyone should understand how the game works.

Is that why magic items are in the PHB? Probably. So the players and DM all understand the vast majority of the game. What should be the DMs purview? Why, world-building, rewarding the players, and control of the monsters, of course! As well as creating the fun.

The DMG is where you'll find the rules for adjudicating actions. Sure it's kind of open. Sure it's not well fleshed out. But that's so a DM can determine what happens in his game. When I read the damage and difficulty by level information the first time I was confused. But as I read the interesting little gameplay example of chandelier swinging ogre-kicks I really had to hand it to them. WOTC got D&D right in a new way.

With simple game mechanics that everyone at the table understands new actions can be created. And the players know they have the option to try it. While the DM has the info on how to deal with it.

That's the most I can ask for from WOTC and the D&D design team. Because while I loved 2e with it's rules for weapon speeds and 3/2 attack rounds... I like the quick and dirty method, too.

That's my opinion.

-Rachel-

Bill? -THAT- is something I can agree with you on without any divergent opinion. I find it pointless that some of the core monsters have changed alignment and style over the years. I also -despise- the new Carrion Crawler. For monster imagery and text I'll take 2e over any other edition. Ever.

Still. I don't, personally, find that a big enough turn off to leave the game forever or feel 4E has abandoned anyone. Otherwise I'd still be using the 2E rules set.

When it comes to the way a monster behaves or looks I run it under my purview. Based on how I like the creatures to be. I HATE the 4E dryad, or at least the way it was designed. The Lamia, too, makes no sense based on the lore of D&D. But, ultimately, the only thing I'll do there is twek some descriptions, alter attack methods, and maybe slip them a power or two that better suits them while stripping away that which is blatantly absurd.

In response to the end of this thread: I move for it. I suggest we all stop this discussion and instead walk away enriched by other people's opinions and perspectives. This will be my last post in this thread.

-Rachel-

Might I also add that the addition of the parrot in the foreground followed by a python or other snake, later was a nice touch on Burlew's part?

Though I found the Farscape reference a bit oddly placed, personally. They're already lampooning a sketch and a half (SPAM!) but adding in the obscurity of an intergalactic curseword translatable only by tiny ear implants is a bit far fetched.

Meanwhile I'm discussing it on a 4E board instead of in a 'Is this Really Relavant?' forum somewhere. Sorry.

Back to the original meaning of the thread!

*cracks whip*

-Rachel-

Oh Jebuz! I'mma have a nerdgasm! Combining D&D with Monty Python! Who'd have thought of it other than the people who watched Holy Grail or any of Flying Circus and played D&D.

Yes, indeed. The Cheese Shop and D&D combined make polearms funny again.

But yeah. That's what I think of when I think of D&D, to be honest. Not the Blue box. I think of AD&D and 2e.... That's where it became real for me. 1st ed was kind of a beer and pretzels game for me (and I don't drink!) and 3e is kinda a power game by comparison. 4E is a whole new beast that I'm just getting geared up to tame.

But yes. 2e. Where there were enough polearms to make your packmule safe from falling into 10 foot deep pit-traps.

-Rachel-

Wooooo! That's what I'm talking about! D&D when it was a pain in the neck to figure out! Give me rules so detailed I have to question what a bec-de-fauchard-fork-guisarme-glaive is and why it does the same exact thing a Halberd does for damage, reach, and style!

-Rachel-

Rache'thulu wrote:

extended argument focusing mostly on issues of rules

An interesting argument, but one that misses a chunk of the point, I feel. Your argument focuses very strongly on changes to the rules, but not a whole lot on other elements changed in 4e. It's not just rule changes that have caused players to charge abandonment.

There are myriad other changes to the metasetting and underlying lore of the game. For some people, those are a significant part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG. What rankles some the most is that many or even most of those changes were not at all necessary to support the new combat and character advancement rules. And for some players, tradition in the game, despite modifications in the rules, is important because it is what links different editions together.

I do believe that WotC, whether intending to or not, has abandoned the players for whom such considerations are important.

A Wonderful counterpoint. And I agree fully. You're right that I did focus almost exclusively on the rules changes rather than the setting changes. But for a simple reason.

Greyhawk is no longer the basic D&D setting. Instead they put one in that they happen to like. They've done what most setting designers have done and stolen people's favorite things from other settings. Names. Places. Things of that nature. And put them together with the intent of showcasing them. Frankly I'm glad that Greyhawk is no longer the 'basic' D&D setting. In 3rd Edition it got a bum rap because of it's position. So many things that should have been expounding on Greyhawk were instead made 'general'. Why? So you could drop it into any setting you like.

If player Abandonment is based on the core campaign setting, which I've -rarely- if ever used, I find it a strange argument indeed. Because D&D is a system, not a setting to me. Sure there's the marketing issues of multiple PHBs and such. There's the question of miniatures being a now all but core mechanic (though I'll still use potato chips, dice, lint... whatever!).

But if it's a setting change issue please don't bring it up until they release a Greyhawk book. And if they don't release it write one up yourself and submit it to Monte Cook, Heinsoo, and the others for publication.

The Core Setting isn't the game. And if you're hung up on that I really can't understand what you're hung up on.... It's ephemeral.

-Rachel-

I remember when Clerics were the only ones that could heal... and when Druids were an alternate path... And Paladins were ridiculed for... well... They're still more or less ridiculed.

But yes. Thank you, 4th Edition. Thank you for being a new incarnation to liven up the style, settings, and rules. Thank you for stirring some of us up and pushing a few of us into being Codgers. Thank you, 4E for making us all remember what gaming is really about: Having a good time with our friends that doesn't involve someone getting seriously injured in a funy maner.... Usually.

-Rachel-

Meh. I haven't read much on the nuking of the Realms. But hey! Whatever floats your boat. Have fun on Pathfinder or 3e or otherwise! *hugs lots!* As it is I'm running an online 3.5 over Yahoo in about two hours.
As for the kind of Fantasy it is? Make it your own. *smiles* I know I will. I'll turn the PoL idea back into Ravenloft or Midnight... I'm updating a campaign setting as we speak that I've been running homebrewed since 2e... In the end it's all up to you and whether or not you're having fun at the time. Good luck in Pathfinder!

-Rachel-

*hops on Poizen's lap*

Tell us more about the good old days Grandpa? What was it like to have Elf be both your class -and- race?

*giggles* Sorry. I'm a Blue Boxer, too, for the record. So if anyone thinks I'm too young: You're wrong. But like all women my true age is mostly a secret ('cause I like being mistaken for an 18 year old, still!)

-Rachel-

I don't agree with that appraisal of 4e Rache'.

Faceless big corporations don't greenlight pet projects (which is kinda what your hypothetical house rule system would be) on a whim.

It seems much (MUCH) more likely 4e was devised as a money making venture to me. Especially when you weigh in the GSL into the equation.

Look WoW has over ten million subscribers at the moment and that figure is going up. TEN MILLION. Is it so unlikely that wotc want to try to run off some of that herd?

There are many clues that point to money-making being the main (only?) engine driving 4e imo, for example;

The increased reliance on minis. (This is a licence to print money as far as rpgs are concerned.)

The price wotc will be charging for DDI.

The obvious visual references and rule additions aimed at WoW fans.

Heavier reliance on future supplements to fully round out the much less complete core rulebooks.

etc etc

I accept your argument but disagree.

While 4E is a venture in marketing and adding money it was not brought up by the Board of Directors of WOTC. It was something that someone was working on. Sure they had a goodly bit of marketing added on. But fundamentally it had to be someone standing up in front of the board saying 'I think this is worthwhile' And given who is on the creating team for D&D I think (this is ALL my opinion) that means what I've stated previously. Sure. They're making the most money out of it they can. But I'm more or less positive that the system came first and the money came second.

I don't think the Board said 'Hey! We're not making enough money of the seven to fourteen books we're making a year. Someone find a way to piss off most of the fan base and somehow net us more money' That's just ludicrous.

My ultimate statement is that the writers and creative directors of the D&D liscense did not abandon the fans of the game. They made the game better in their own opinions, likely based on the popular culture changes.

In the 70's think of your popular culture fantasy references and you'll likely think of Conan, Elmore, and so forth. There's a new breed of fantasy, and a new system needs to be made to support it.

So with all due respect, I stand by my previous statements.

-Rachel-

*hugs Paul Watson!* Well! That's actually a surprise. *sagenods* Thank you for contradicting me, though. I should not have stated an absolute and I do apologize for that.

My point is it's one of the things that so many people do it got put into the game proper. They put it in during 3e and 3.5 to make things easier on DMs who needed rules on how minis move. In 4E they've further clarified these rules and added push, pull, and slide effects to make combat more fun and effective. The fighter no longer stands still trading blows with the enemy fighter. People get knocked back or pushed to the ground. I find that a lot more fun

My boyfriend has a level 1 dragonborn fighter that plans to use the Iron Vanguard Paragon path to be even more capable of pushing, sliding, and dealing damage to foes, thus keeping them far away from my lightly armored elven ranger who is much better at range.

In the end, love it or leave it. 4E is a game system. But don't accuse the writers of abandoning the players or making things 'less fantasy'.

-Rachel-

Wherever your brain and sanity are, currently, may they either stay there or return to you, whichever is applicable. *winks*

The reasons I'm all for your idea!
1 Theme!
2 Roleplay!
3 Breaking the Mold!
4 It makes bloody sense!

The reasons I'm opposed to your idea!
1 Gamer confusion.

4 to 1.

Name change! For The Win!

-Rachel-

Personally I'm all for it. You might have to explain it to your players a few dozen times to get it into their heads. But in the end a name change for a class, or race, is a totally functional setting by setting flavor modification.

I hope you don't mind if I still call mine Warlords and Paladins for now, though?

*with a sweet smile!*
-Rachel-

To me, specifically, 4E is a wonderful addition to my gaming books. Roleplay is my ideal but here's a new and easy system with which to do it.

Lots of people that didn't want to invest another $30-$90 in a new set of core books who missed out on 3e wound up getting the last edition for the price of one new edition book. I think that's awesome.

I'm happily in the boat on 4E being a good thing overall.

-Rachel-

I almost want to cry...

I've been on the forums as a lurker for weeks. I just recently joined as an active user and I've got to say something now that I've put myself out there.

Wizards did not abandon any of their fans.

Wizards didn't -have- any fans. Cripes! When 3e came out I was one of the vocal minority (in my gaming community) who supported the rules. Most of the people I know complained that the whole thing was some marketing ploy to get ten year olds to buy the game. I'd heard the 'It's not a roleplaying game' argument because of the giant focus 3E put on combat compared to the original 2e books. So I said to the other gamers 'Okay. So how do you do this in 2e.' Most of them scrambled for half a dozen combat supplements to 2e and pulled out different rulings on the same topic. Meanwhile I flipped to the 3e combat section and read it out.

Combat has and will always be the most rule-intensive part of D&D. To blame the system of being combat heavy is a pointless endeavor. It's like poking a whale with a spoon. No point on the spoon or in the action. You don't -NEED- rules to determine how fast your character manages to walk through opposite traffic on a busy street in New York. You need to know how much damage pushing the orc into the chasm is going to do and what kind of rolls you need to do it with.

As for the complaint that it's a miniatures styled game? Get over yourself. Name a D&Der who has never in his or her life used coins, toys, miniatures, dice, the occasional potato chip, or a gum wrapper to depict where a creature or object is in a hectic combat scenario. Go on. Take your time. I'll wait.

Yeah. That's what I thought. The rules for tactical movement and miniatures are so in depth because you -need- to know where stuff is for the combat. Since it breaks everything down into a simple inch by inch grid most people can get the gumption to draw it on a large sheet of paper or buy a map. But again: That's almost entirely about combat.

Roleplay? When have you ever needed rules for roleplaying? Alignments? I'm -SO- glad they trimmed that tree. Don't get me wrong. I -LOVE- my nine alignments. I always will. But trying to explain them to someone who has their own ideas of what good, evil, law, and chaos really mean is a nerve wracking affair. I'm sure we've all either been, played with, or had a player in a game we've run play Chaotic Neutral start pounding his head into walls or randomly attack people.

The original alignments were designed to have a comprehensive and balanced understanding of why people do things.

Baloney. They're guidelines to said motivations and to reactions. Nothing more. If you don't like the new alignment system don't use it? But I prefer to have a few clearly defined alignments in my game. They've lumped Chaos in with evil and made Lawful something good. They made Chaotic Good part of Good and Lawful Evil part of evil. While there are exceptions to the rules (The Lawful Evil overlord taking over the country and yet still holding to his code of honor) it's a pretty balanced system. And it got rid of True Neutral, thank God. Anyone who can claim to be true neutral in reality is either lying or a real nasty person. Unaligned makes a lot more sense.

Now I can sit here on a soapbox and exult to you why I like or dislike 4e for a thousand more words. But why bother? You've got your own opinions on the matter and that's perfectly fine and acceptable. I might not share your views but I -do- respect them.

What was the original topic? Fan abandonment? Duh! *slaps forehead* Sorry. I get tangential.

In summary no. Wizards did not 'Fire' their customers. They did not 'Abandon' their fanbase. The Big Wigs at Wizards certainly -are- a faceless corporation. But they're not the ones that designed, playtested, brainstormed, and worked on this latest incarnation of D&D.

There was no massive company memo that said 'Hey! World of Wonderflap is out-selling DDO: Stormreach! Make a new computer game but for the tabletop!' And if anyone thinks there was they're likely wearing a helmet and eating paste while sitting, chained, in their parents basement.

This game was made as an improvement on the original d20 rules set that some members of the office didn't like. How many people reading this post have made a game system of their own, shown it to their friends, and started playing? Show of hands, please! I'm of the opinion that that is exactly what happened. Home rules got out of control and a new system was born. It was far -after- that that one of the 4E developers went to the bigwigs and said 'Look! Look at my shiny pie-charts and bar graphs! I'm making a presentation! Give me funding, pleeeeeeeease?'

While this may be an over dramatization please. I beg of you, remember that the guys making these games also play these games. You're talking about other gamers when you discuss abandoning the fans. D&D has always been and always will be about gamers getting together, having some fun, and going home with stories about who caught the dragon by surprise or used silverware in a catapult this week.

Gaming is, and always will be, about the fans. Because we're the ones with the stories to tell. The rules just give us a way to describe it mechanically.

Thanks for reading

-Rachel-

I wholeheartedly agree, Arelas. About the 2e books.

Frankly I just can't be frightened of a 4e Ravenloft. Why? Because tweaking and pacing are so much easier than most people seem to think.

I'm pretty sure that unless they get some hardcore Ravenloft fans working on the project -any- 4E Ravenloft is gonna look like the Van Helsing Movie. (Mmm... Hugh...)

But why worry about it? If it sucks you'll just adjust the pacing or go back to the 2e or, surprisingly well adapted, 3e rulebooks. Or you'll wind up using the Ravenloft books for 4th ed and taking out what you don't like. *shrugs* In my opinion that's a win/win scenario.

So don't get worked up or upset if 4E messes it up a little. I actually have one friend who refuses to touch the 4e system (even in my home-brewed world that I've been updating from 2e to 3e to 4e) because the evil gods now have Angels, Hill Giants are the descendants of Rock Titans, and Dryads look like pointy shambling mounds. I've got 3 players that -want- to do the 3e to 4e crossover and I, personally, like the ease of the system. It's kind of rules-light with plenty of leeway so that combat doesn't get bogged down by three people searching through chapter nine for the rules on grappling and coming up with three different interpretations.

Don't worry about how unfun it might be. There's no law against cracking the cover of a book before you buy it. Unless you have one of those book nazi game-store owners... 'This -isn't- a library! Buy it, first!' One of those guys you know has issues since he seems to think you're going to walk out of his store stealing the whole book through a photographic memory....

If you don't like what you see at first glance just adapt the 3e rules. Personally I can't wait! As soon as my own world is done I'm going to do a -little- tweaking for 3e-4e and start in on a game with my boyfriend and his family. They're not my usual gaming group but it'll be fun to scare the bejeebers out of his nephew. *insert maniacal laughter here*

Again! Sorry for the horrendously long post with it's run on sentences, rambling, and oh bugger I'm doing it again, darn it!

Blame Croshaw and his Zero Punctuation!!

-Rachel-

Sorry to post again so soon after my tirade of suggestions. But I have to agree with the posts after mine. Use what's provided. Make minions that the group must protect. Or, if your players are up for a single night of zombie Terror have them each make three characters with minion HP or First Level HP. Then run a game of survival horror. Just an idea.

The main point of Gothic horror isn't a 'Zombies are coming I have to fight or flee!' situation. It's a living breathing terror that grips and holds to players. You don't get that from any game's mechanics. You get that from the situations, the interaction, and villains who are questionable. If you've got a dungeon crawl in a haunted house it's still a dungeon crawl. Spooky, sure, but that's Survival Horror. For Gothic horror you need an unnameable dread or a concrete (and untouchable) villain... Likely untouchable because of his position or the repercussions of fighting him.

Or Far Worse: Because one or more PCs empathize or sympathize with him or her.

So make horror about the story, not the gameplay. If your players aren't sitting at the edge of their sheets with anticipation for the next word coming out of the Dread-Lord's mouth and are instead trying to hit him with 7(W) +Dex +12d8s of damage either you've not set the mood or they're not into the Gothic Horror style.

Just some thoughts.
-Rachel-

I've been a lurker on these message boards for weeks now, but this topic forced me to go sign up and post.
I'll say this for everyone: I Love Gothic Horror. I Love Ravenloft.

4E can run Ravenloft pretty easily.

How is that possible you might ask..? You don't have to nerf players or make superpowered monsters to counteract the big flashy powers of 4E characters. The descriptions of the powers can be altered without changing their fundamental mechanics in any way. A Paragon level example would be the level 19 rogue power 'Snake's Retreat'. You strike a big hit for 6(W) + Dex and then make immediate interrupts to move a square every time the creature attacks you thereby avoiding all atacks. Doesn't that sound like a big Werewolf moment? Any big scary monster, really. The Rogue gets it's attention and spends the rest of the fight backing away from it every time it swings. Ducking under tables and out windows as it relentlessly chases him down... at least until it makes the saving throw and smacks him, but good.

Why bother Nerfing Monsters? Just pull out Hard encounters every time. Big Hefty Beefy HP monsters with higher ACs than the PCs would normally have to deal with. Send them a Werewolf or Vampire 3 levels early. Make it all but unkillable by sending it 4-5 levels early. Or make it a Solo. Or Both!

Sure! They've got a Wizard or Sorceror in the party (Sorc is fundamentally the same as a wizard but RPs not having a spellbook) But guess what? No really useful divination magic to pierce the veils of a good gothic horror mystery game. And the locals are spooked by magic anyhow so using it publicly is begging for a lynch mob or at the very least an impolite request to leave and never return. They've got a Cleric? Whoop tee doo! Not every enemy can be turned and there are only so many healing surges said cleric can give out in a day. And if the Fighter starts intimidating all your monsters to make them surrender at bloodied: Make them Fearless. Give them a +30 fear bonus and sneer when the fighter tries to make a horde of slavering undead fall to his charisma.

Toss in a few zombie horror moments with minions. Use them as fodder to slow down the party and make them waste their encounter powers, then have the big bad guy they're meant to fight join the fight late, after they've used an action point and second winds all around. Here's a fun one that'll make your characters feel suddenly inadequate:

Have a double-length encounter with no rest. The characters enter into a mansion (crypt, Castle, Lonely graveyard, wherever!) Where they -know- Vampires need slaying. So the party is all geared up. Unleash an unholy flurry of Vampire Minions at them. Gleefully describe the beheadings in gory detail as they cut a swath through these foul beasts. Then have the Vampire Lord (Elite or Solo with 2-3 levels on the party) come in with a few lieutenants. The party's got little to no chance and has to flee. From Vampires. After dark. In a shadowy and nasty place. You're well within your right to lay ambushes and other encounters. Pick off one or two of the fleeing ones in silence. When they finally stop to catch their breath they turn and see Alistair is gone. Then a few hours later have the party's own cleric attack them as a fangtooth. Minion? Elite? Solo? Up to you. All can be equally unnerving.

The key to running a successful Ravenloft game in 4E isn't making the characters powers work less often or less effectively. It's making sure they know they're in a world where no matter how much they fight; evil is -always- there, waiting in the darkness, ready to strike at them when they're -not- ready for it.

Thanks for reading.
-Rachel-