Ultimate Ravenloft: Global Mechanics

Coordinating community projects
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Ultimate Ravenloft: Global Mechanics

Post by WolfKook »

As we keep discussing the design goals, we should also start thinking on the special elements and rules (No play rules, but "world" mechanics) that define the Demiplane of Dread and make it different from the rest. With this I mean global things which affect everybody within the setting. These include (But are no limited to):
  • Curses
  • Darklords
  • Domains
  • Paths of Corruption
  • Prophecies (The Hyskosa Hexad, ToUD)
  • The Dark Powers
  • The Mists
  • The Vistani
Is there anything missing? (If so, feel free to include it).

The idea in this thread would be to define these elements (And I don't mean we should define the Dark Powers, at least not in a concrete and definite way), and how they'll be used within the context of URL (For example, if the "Close the Borders" mechanics is broken, as some have suggested, we should discuss here if we should eliminate it, or replace it with something else).

The idea is to create a collaborative definition. My suggestion would be for someone (brave :wink:) to create a candidate definition for each element, and to discuss it in this thread until we reach a refined definition for each element.

If you agree, we could start...
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
DeepShadow of FoS
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 2916
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:43 pm
Location: Heinfroth's Asylum

Post by DeepShadow of FoS »

I'm ready, and I nominate Nathan's unified theory for the Powers Checks.
The Avariel has borrowed wings,
The Puppeteer must cut the strings
The Orphan Queen must take the throne
The Queen of Orphans calls them home
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Post by WolfKook »

DeepShadow of FoS wrote:I'm ready, and I nominate Nathan's unified theory for the Powers Checks.
Nice. Nathan's Theory is very thorough and complete, and IMO it reflects what's necessary to become a Darklord. However, I'm a little concerned about its complexity. Has anyone used it in practice? How complex it is to implement?

(We haven't determined a rules system yet, but I guess the percentile system of Nathan's Unified Theory could be easily adapted into any system).
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
impworks
Agent of the Fraternity
Agent of the Fraternity
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by impworks »

While mostly reduced to rules in the books I'd add:

Fear, Horror and Madness

They are emphasised in Ravenloft far more than in other D&D settings.
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Post by WolfKook »

Well, I will dare to make a proposition. Looking in these threads, it's evident that the "Closed Domain Borders" is not really a very popular rule, having been introduced to support the Weekend-in-Hell style scenarios, and to prevent PCs to simply escape the terror they were into, it ended up being a rule that feels like dragging the PCs by their noses, making it uncomfortable for players and DMs alike.

Well, I propose to replace the rule with another rule: the "Concentration of Power".

The idea is: The Darklord can't close his domain borders, but while in his lair (and only in his lair), he can draw power from the whole domain, and concentrate it in a tiny space (i.e. His lair), effectively "closing" it (In some cases), and gaining additional powers (That could be uber-powers, like Azalin's memory alteration, which wouldn't be available if he was for some reason caught outside his tower). While concentrating power, however, his influence over the rest of the domain becomes less obvious, and if maintained for a long time, the Darklord could end up keeping just a tiny domain consisting of his own lair.

This way, we keep the "we're trapped" feeling, but only after the PCs have taken the decision of going to a Darklord's lair (Unless the DM is particularly cruel, and leaves them just there, and the option is still available). Moreover, we'll have villains that could pose two different challenge levels, depending on how the PCs manage to face them, but who have something to lose from keeping the extra-power for a long time, so they will eventually have to let go, or face the consequences.

Well. What do you think?
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
The Arcanist
Agent of the Fraternity
Agent of the Fraternity
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: México!

Post by The Arcanist »

It's an interesting idea, how about mixing them? DL's may close their domain or lair.

In the campaigns i've played there was never a problem with abusive DM's and darklords closing their borders just to railroad the PC's, but removing that threat would give PC's the chance of trying a quick or long distance attack and flee knowing that the darklord will not be able to follow (and i know that even if Azalin cant follow you out of darkon that is little comfort if he actually wants you dead).
We both may be ghoul meat tonight, but I'll catch your people before the flesh eaters find me Vistana!

Malodorous Goat Refugee
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

As long as the DM controls the Mists, though, an abusive DM can always dump the PCs wherever he or she chooses. I'm not sure it'd alleviate the problem of railroading in the slightest to remove border-closure from the setting.

FWIW, closing the borders wasn't always just about confining PCs within a domain, but also about confining the NPCs that lived there. Early on, the closing of borders was often cited as the reason why every 0-level NPC in the Core hadn't immigrated to Mordent years ago: people who tried to leave their homelands and get away from the resident monsters tended to get balked and/or killed en route. :roll:

Nowadays, of course, it's significant mainly as a national defense system.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Post by WolfKook »

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:FWIW, closing the borders wasn't always just about confining PCs within a domain, but also about confining the NPCs that lived there. Early on, the closing of borders was often cited as the reason why every 0-level NPC in the Core hadn't immigrated to Mordent years ago: people who tried to leave their homelands and get away from the resident monsters tended to get balked and/or killed en route. :roll:
Really? Well, I see the point, but I don't buy it completely. In the RW, there have been oppressive societies that have (yeap, quite surprisingly) kept most of their populations, for a number of reasons: Ties to the land, fear of the unknown (People fearing what lies beyond the domain borders, something that seems plausible in RL, and that could be fed with thousands of rumors of terrible places beyond the known land), siege mentality (Believing that *this* tyrant can protect us from *those* threats, an image most DLs seem to portrait), abusive debts (you can't leave this land unless you pay your debt), and just the fact that those who go tend not to come back (Even if they end up living hapilly ever after, the mere thought is frightening to most, especially in such a "disconnected" world).

Even then, FWIW, most of the damiplane's population tends to concentrate in the west coast of the Core, anyway.

Besides, if we're looking for consistency, we should try to prevent such Deus-ex-machina explanations for preventing such natural as human migrations from happening.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

Hey, I'm not saying I agreed with the rationale, just that it existed! In its early days, the Land of Mists was very much held together with spit and duct tape; making it plausible didn't become part of the agenda until several years into the product-line.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Post by WolfKook »

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Hey, I'm not saying I agreed with the rationale, just that it existed! In its early days, the Land of Mists was very much held together with spit and duct tape; making it plausible didn't become part of the agenda until several years into the product-line.
Hehehehehehehe... Sorry, Roti. I got a little carried away. Well, I guess that even if we don't use my proposal, there are no consistent reasons to keep the "Close Domains" rules.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
ScS of the Fraternity
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2409
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:46 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by ScS of the Fraternity »

I'm for some darklords closing borders, but far too many of them had lame uncharacteristic borders.

Thematically, the closed border makes the darklord's domain a kind of physical repersentation of their stuggle - as thought he players are imaginary people inside the nightmare of the Darklord, and thus have no existance beyond the domain. This is great for some Darklords, but less interesting for other, less insane darklords.

For most run-of-the-mill darklords, I would suggest "mudane" means of closing their borders.
Azalin, for example, would be able to close his border - but only in the same way that he could raise the dead anywhere in his realm.
Dominic D'honaire, on the other hand, wouldn't have a border closing ability, but would have Jager (ranger) companies on his payroll.
Evil Reigns!!!!
User avatar
impworks
Agent of the Fraternity
Agent of the Fraternity
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:29 pm
Contact:

Post by impworks »

I was going to say I've not closed a domain's border since the early days of Ravenloft when I was still learning how to GM. Strictly speaking that's true but then I realised I often run adventures which deliberately confine the PC's area of activity.

One of the things that makes Ravenloft distinctive from other settings is the Brigadoon like quality of domains that they can turn up in other worlds and in that context the closing the borders thing becomes a feature with obvious merit even if its a deux et machina but so is the domain just appearing somewhere else :-) . While Ultimate Ravenloft so far has focused on "fixing" issues with the setting throwing away that aspect out of hand would change the setting's flavour and usability...

Anyway I was thinking that maybe a simple solution is to make this an optional feature in Ultimate Ravenloft. So for each domain we could have a supernatural way of closing the border along with suggestions, where appropriate, for other ways a Darklord has for confining a group to their domain.

Another thought (although I know we're not looking at the mechanics side at the moment) might be to have some special Villain abilities that can be applied to any NPC or monster to allow them to confine their victims. Some might be obviously supernatural while others might be as simple causing a snow storm that snows in the village they inhabbit. These would be mostly a fluff description with a bit of mechanic to describe how it works.
User avatar
Igor the Henchman
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 789
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:50 pm

Post by Igor the Henchman »

WolfKook wrote:As we keep discussing the design goals, we should also start thinking on the special elements and rules (No play rules, but "world" mechanics) that define the Demiplane of Dread and make it different from the rest. With this I mean global things which affect everybody within the setting. These include (But are no limited to):
  • Curses
  • Darklords
  • Domains
  • Paths of Corruption
  • Prophecies (The Hyskosa Hexad, ToUD)
  • The Dark Powers
  • The Mists
  • The Vistani
Is there anything missing? (If so, feel free to include it).
My views, point by point.

Paths of Corruption
This has been a pretty big mechanic in previous versions of Ravenloft. Messing with them is no small matter: first, are they needed? Assuming yes, what is their purpose in the game? Is there another way to reach the same goal more easily? Should they be mandatory or optional?

According to the Black Box, the original design goal for Powers Checks was to convey the "poetic justice" element of Ravenloft, and at the same time to discourage evil acts from PCs, as failing too many results in the world shunning you as a monster, or even becoming imprisoned as a Darklord (Domains of Dread even had a percentage roll mechanic to see if you got to keep playing your character at each corruption stage). In short, it was introduced as a "punishment" mechanic.

During 3E days, punishment mechanics have been growing less and less popular (for good or for ill), and the purpose began to evolve. The mechanic started to turn into a "PC customization tool". DMs welcomed failed Powers Checks as an opportunity to get creative on an original Corruption Path, and players welcomed the extra interesting detail it brought to their hero. I personally had one player who came into my Ravenloft game who looked forward to fail Powers Checks and earn eternal damnation. Where the game originally used the Powers Checks to discourage evil actions, this player saw an opportunity to make his hero more interesting and tragic. Echoes of that were felt in accessories such as Champions of Darkness, where the players get an option of playing "darker hereos", with a Corruption path already under way.

But then, how does one handle the increase of monstrous appearence, or the fact that the character ends up being removed from play (to the chagrin of the player)?

In my current campaign, I'm actually experimenting with doing away with the Powers Checks altogether. Surprisingly, this has improved my game in subtle ways. First benefit, it takes a load off my fatigued DM brain. I don't have to plan out Corruption paths, and risk player dissapointment if I end up twisting a PC in a way her player doesn't like. This leaves the PC customization task entirely in the players' hands.

Another benefit is better mutual understanding between players and DM. In previous Ravenloft games, I often had some players (from the WoD crowd) assume the actual goal of the campaign was failing as many powers checks as possible. When I explained it didn't work that way, they were confused as to why it was there - since I couldn't very well answer "to punish you if you get out of line, you cretins", they had me stumped. Other players assumed that, because such a mechanic was in place, the DM was supposed to catch the PCs red-handed whenever he could and gleefully dole out the punishment. When my game turned out different, it was their turn to be confused. Since I did away with the Powers checks altogether, the players just focus on playing their characters as they feel and enjoy the current adventure. And I don't have to explain the rules and their purpose anymore.

Domains
I think domains are great. They provide setting flavor, guidelines for atmosphere, and adventure ideas. Some confusion comes from the different behavior of certain domains and unclear design goals for some of them, however. Some domain have a "home world" feel. They are places the PCs, especially natives, feel rather at home. When horror comes a-knocking, it is seen as a disturbing element, one the heroes must deal with so life returns to normal. Other domains are a nightmare prison that the PCs want to spend as little time as possible in. Some are very darklord-centric. Others not very much so. Some are very diverse in adventure possibilities ("rich"). Others are more limited and less customizable from the DM point of view ("clunky").

Should all domains be treated exactly the same, mechanic-wise? Should there be a distinction of role? Of mood? I don't really know, its a big question that requires a lot of common thought and diverse input.

Alternatively, previous iterations of the game assumed that whatever wasn't Mists in Ravenloft was automatically a domain. Metagaming question: does every square inch of land need a Darklord to rule over it? If yes, the setting veers towards "Gazetteer" mentality, where every spot of land eventually gets developed in great detail (such as the Core now, and Souragne, and Zherisia thanks to Fraternity Gazetteers).

If, on the other hand, you assume there are patches of territory (perhaps great patches of territory) that are unruled, you get the "points of light" mentality, where detailing is reserved for a few vital crossroads spots (ruled domains), while most of the setting is left for the DM to fill with whatever he or she needs for the next adventure (unclaimed lands).

Darklords.
Personally, I like the darklord concept as it has existed from the start. I think it works well, oozes of gothic atmosphere and provides for memorable villains. I have been dissapointed in the way many of the darklords have been written, however. Not guys like Strahd or Azalin, but smaller riff-raff like Ivana Boritsi or Dominic D'Honaire.

In my opinion, every darklord should be usable as a major adventure villain. Some are perfect for that. Others, forgive me for saying this, just aren't suited for villain duty in actual adventures. At all. I mean, they can be perfect as antagonists in novels, no questions asked. But a gaming table has its own caprices.

You meet Gabrielle Aderre at a tavern. She tries to seduce you into helping her with the Invidian resistance thing. You sense she's not telling you everything. You refuse. You follow her to see where she lives. You confront her. Big fight with lots of minions. Choice A: total party kill. Don't mess with the darklords, kids. Choice B: Players are sensible enough to retreat (not all players I've seen are that smart). Choice C: Couple of lucky hits on the Big Bad wolfwere minion, a Slow spell effect on Gabby, Crit, Crit, Sneak attack, and she's down. Choice D: She's unbeatable! She never fails her saving throw! She's got infinite hit points! Nothing can destroy a darklord! Never!

So yeah, there's a problem there. Game products kinda market darklords to be this ultimate terrifying evil, but then give them weak abilities and low-hit points-builds. Some even have no fighting prowess to speak of. Which is all right if your players hardly ever decide to draw swords (and a such a rare playing group you must have!)

The Vistani
I've said it before, I said it again: make them a playable race, already! For having already played a full-blooded vistana character in a play-by-post game back on the Kargatane site, take it from me: its loads of fun. LOADS of fun. You get to act mysterious and savvy, and call the other PCs "giorgios".

Plus, come on: the vistani have got to be the most over-detailed race this setting has, what with the Dukkars, Van Richten guides, Verteig (sp?), pacts with darklords and weird abilities. They got more attention from fans than all the non-human races combined! But you can't play them, and I don't quite grasp the reason why. You get a Half-Vistana substitute. Why a substitute? Why not the real thing? All those weird abilities they have - they can be rituals.

Say this: Mist Travel. Level 6 ritual. Components: specially enchanted Vardo, six vistani working in unison, must be performed on a foggy night. Knowledge: Arcana or Knowledge: Nature check. Or somesuch. Nothing gamebreaking at all.

The Dark Powers
From a design point of view, the dark powers are... less of a concern, I think. In previous iterations, they, as well as their MotRD equivelent the Red Death, are this unseen, unfathmoable presence the players never see. They have a very weak table presence during a game.

Waitaminute... Hey kids! New Igor word, right here: Table Presence. Concerns any sort of game element. Determines the amount of attention the element receives during your average game session. Strong Table-Presence elements tend to be vital, recurring mechanics. Elements with weak table presence are obscure game mechanics and fluff details. For instance: death and dying rules have a strong table presence in most games. Details on Falkovnian grain import-exports usually have a weak table presence. The term can be used selectively to different types of game. For example, Goblin fighting stats have a strong table presence in adventures featuring lots of goblins, and a weak table presence in adventures that don't feature them at all.

The Dark Powers seem to have a constant Table Presence of 0.

This might mean they aren't such a vital game element. Unless you retool them so they are more prominent (but then, you'd have to define them more), you could conceivably not worry about them until the very end. Concentrate on creating the best possible setting, then adapt the Dark Powers lore to suit it. Add it at the end, like the little cherry on top.
User avatar
WolfKook
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:10 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bogotá, Colombia
Contact:

Post by WolfKook »

Paths of Corruption

I have to say that I've never thought about them too much, perhaps because I haven't really used them that much, maybe because I'm too lazy and I don't want to slow down play while making power checks and creating paths of corruption. Perhaps that makes my game similar to your latest games, Igor.

So, I'm with you on this one, but I don't know what effect would that cause in other game tables. I still like the mechanic, or at least the intent of the mechanic: To create a sense of poetic justice, and to force players to refrain from doing "evil" deeds. However, as you say, punishment mechanics are out, and the Power Checks/Paths of Corruption rules end up rewarding the exact behavior they started up trying to punish.

So, Any alternate ideas here? Perhaps a mechanic rewarding "good" behavior instead of "evil"? Perhaps making the paths of corruption less rewarding (Oh! Cool Powers!)? Or maybe we should get rid of the paths altogether...? I don't know if that would be good for the game, as they are intimately tied to the process of becoming a darklord...

Domains

I also love domains. However, I have to say that I like those which have that "home world" feel you talk about that those that do not: The 3E idea of making RL a "world worth fighting for" gave it great amount of roleplaying value. Because of that, I also find richer domains more enjoyable than clunkier domains. Likewise, I prefer those which are not so darklord-centric, and more normal domains versus those which are more alien.

But that's just me. I also see the necessity of having domains like Bluetspur (Which I don't really like, and haven't used, ever), but I really think those domains belong outside the Core (I've always liked Nathan's idea of placing Bluetspur on the moon).

The idea of having unruled patches of land seems a little strange for me, given the stablished canon. However, it doesn't stop it from being interesting. The idea of having an unclaimed city in the middle of three particularly oppressive domains sounds intriguing, and the message it would bring to the players ("It can be done") seems to be the right one. I would be afraid about the implementation of such a thing, though.

I also like the idea of movable domain borders as representatives of the conflict between rivaling darklords. They should be "mostly" rigid, IMO, however, and again, the implementation worries me a little.

Darklords

I see your point. The idea of "increase playability" in the design goals also points to giving darklords more table presence :wink: in case they need to have one.

The Vistani

Your idea sounds great, and I don't think it would unbalance the game that much. Also, it would make the setting more attractive (Another one of our goals).

The Dark Powers

IMO, they have to stay, just as they are: As an unexplainable force that moves things around in the whole setting, and which is not subject to any kind of mortal comprehension.
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"
William Blake
User avatar
order99
Arch-villain
Arch-villain
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: The Vinkus,OZ

Post by order99 »

I think that Masque had a glorious idea with the 'Sinkhole of Evil' concept, it was one of the few things I imported to my 2E base system-and quite frankly, I think it captures the feel of a Darklord's power as well as(if not better) than 'Closing the Borders'.

And i'm a big fan of Ritual Magic as well-with the extra Casting Times/Proficiency Check mechanics already in play, it was easy enough to blend the two. Ravenloft couldn't hurt to have a good dollop of Ritual Magic thrown in...
"And did she ever come out?"
"Not Yet".
Post Reply