DCC Ravenloft?

[daddystabz]

I have been wanting to run or play in a Ravenloft campaign for ages. My original idea was to do this in Labyrinth Lord + AEC but I am so enamored with the DCC RPG I am actually considering using it but something just doesn't feel right to me. Do you think DCC can do Ravenloft and how would I convert Domains of Dread style D&D 2e stats over to DCC?

I am trying to figure out a way the PCs could play through all the DCC published adventures for the DCC RPG and get trapped in Ravenloft for additional adventures as well OR just have the entire campaign be Ravenloft centered.

[beermotor]

Un-dead in DCC can be pretty fearsome. I'd think it'd mesh pretty well.

[Ravenheart87]

I am trying to figure out a way the PCs could play through all the DCC published adventures for the DCC RPG and get trapped in Ravenloft for additional adventures as well OR just have the entire campaign be Ravenloft centered.

The latter seems to be a very good idea. Start with level 0 peasants, who survive something horrific and become monster hunters. Like the team in Death of a Dark Lord.

[Skyscraper]

One thing about DCC is that starting at level 0, the players will fear the environment, considering how fragile their PCs are at that level.

Then, I think that the patrons can be very interesting addition to the Raventloft setting. I'm thinking, for example, of the Three Fates or some such, that would have followers among the gipsies. And then perhaps Stradh himself deals with a patron of undeath, and made a deal long ago, that got him into the state he is in.

[ragboy]

I have been wanting to run or play in a Ravenloft campaign for ages. My original idea was to do this in Labyrinth Lord + AEC but I am so enamored with the DCC RPG I am actually considering using it but something just doesn't feel right to me. Do you think DCC can do Ravenloft and how would I convert Domains of Dread style D&D 2e stats over to DCC?

I am trying to figure out a way the PCs could play through all the DCC published adventures for the DCC RPG and get trapped in Ravenloft for additional adventures as well OR just have the entire campaign be Ravenloft centered.

There's a 3PP supplement called Transylvania Adventures that's in the works. I figure Scott will chime in on this thread. If not, there's more info here: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 70&t=21452

[smathis]

I have been wanting to run or play in a Ravenloft campaign for ages. My original idea was to do this in Labyrinth Lord + AEC but I am so enamored with the DCC RPG I am actually considering using it but something just doesn't feel right to me. Do you think DCC can do Ravenloft and how would I convert Domains of Dread style D&D 2e stats over to DCC?

I am trying to figure out a way the PCs could play through all the DCC published adventures for the DCC RPG and get trapped in Ravenloft for additional adventures as well OR just have the entire campaign be Ravenloft centered.

I've been using the original Castle Ravenloft adventure in a playtest of high-level Transylvanian Adventures playtest. It works out very well. Using vanilla DCC for Ravenloft would be fine too.

As far as conversion, the things to keep an eye out for are...

• Converting THAC0 to AC on the fly. This isn't a big deal at all for those who've had some experience with this. It can be a shock for those who haven't (or who've forgotten that the to-hit mechanics in old D&D are inverted).
• My biggest issue (which thankfully doesn't need to be "resolved" until the second volume of TATG) is with the creatures that require a +1 weapon to hit. This wouldn't be a big deal for regular DCC characters. It just makes Clerics, Elves and Wizards that much more important. But my experience is that the characters in a DCC game don't walk around with oodles of magic items. And TATG is way more "low magic" than DCC. So... it's sort of a thing I need to work around. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm wide open. I'll say ghosts are a heckuva lot more frightening in TATG at this point than they probably are in any other traditional fantasy RPG setting (besides Dark Sun). Lol.

I'll send you a PM re: TATG. It's super-very-close. But that last mile can sometimes feel like forever.

[Ogrepuppy]

[*] My biggest issue (which thankfully doesn't need to be "resolved" until the second volume of TATG) is with the creatures that require a +1 weapon to hit.

They're scary for a reason: they're not easily vanquished.

The two Dracula films that Christopher Lee starred in that I've seen (Horror of Drac and Drac: Prince of Darkness) showed normal humans killing the Ol' Count simply by being clever and outsmarting him. I'd say it's not unreasonable to expect players (and their characters) to do the same.....using bad guys' allergens and weaknesses to kill them.

The Winchester brothers did much the same in the first few seasons of Supernatural.

Most of the characters in Buffy/Angel just use brute force and sheer Whedonesque grit. That, and really pointy sticks.

"Knowledge is the best weapon."

(Alternately, you could borrow a 4th edition-ism and say that, after a certain level the characters get an inherent bonus [to hit and/or damage] that scale up as they do. This represents their weeks, months and years of battling the Forces of Darkness™...they just know how to do it. Example: "At 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, your character gains a +1 to hit." Or somesuch.)

[finarvyn]

I am trying to figure out a way the PCs could play through all the DCC published adventures for the DCC RPG and get trapped in Ravenloft for additional adventures as well OR just have the entire campaign be Ravenloft centered.

The latter seems to be a very good idea. Start with level 0 peasants, who survive something horrific and become monster hunters. Like the team in Death of a Dark Lord.

I like this idea. Certainly Ravenloft and DCC seem like an inspired fit, and the best way to get it going would be by introducing a bunch of zeroes to the setting.

[smathis]

The latter seems to be a very good idea. Start with level 0 peasants, who survive something horrific and become monster hunters. Like the team in Death of a Dark Lord.

That's a fantastically concise summary of TATG. That is, in a nutshell, the entire experience.

A group of "normal" people and their retainers stumble upon, investigate or otherwise encounter something horrific. That becomes a golden ticket into a subculture of monster hunters. The first book deals with the basics of what a group needs to play in a low-magic, high-action campaign where the differentiation in classes is based more on literary archetypes hybridized with the more traditional "role-based" classes.

The second and third books go into more detail of what it means to be enlisted into this demimonde of monster hunters. And why there really isn't anyway to go back once that line is crossed.

Most TATG 0-Level characters aren't "peasants", however. Some are poor. Some are peasants. But as a whole they cover a broader spectrum of economic class.

[smathis]

[*] My biggest issue (which thankfully doesn't need to be "resolved" until the second volume of TATG) is with the creatures that require a +1 weapon to hit.

They're scary for a reason: they're not easily vanquished.

The two Dracula films that Christopher Lee starred in that I've seen (Horror of Drac and Drac: Prince of Darkness) showed normal humans killing the Ol' Count simply by being clever and outsmarting him. I'd say it's not unreasonable to expect players (and their characters) to do the same.....using bad guys' allergens and weaknesses to kill them.

The Winchester brothers did much the same in the first few seasons of Supernatural.

Most of the characters in Buffy/Angel just use brute force and sheer Whedonesque grit. That, and really pointy sticks.

"Knowledge is the best weapon."

(Alternately, you could borrow a 4th edition-ism and say that, after a certain level the characters get an inherent bonus [to hit and/or damage] that scale up as they do. This represents their weeks, months and years of battling the Forces of Darkness™...they just know how to do it. Example: "At 4th level and every 3 levels thereafter, your character gains a +1 to hit." Or somesuch.)

That's interesting. "Knowledge is the best weapon" fits very well with the Investigation/Research mini-game in TATG. I'll have to go back over those charts to see if I've included ways to perhaps make certain substances act like, say, holy water or +1 weapons against creatures. Even if I've got a couple of insta-kill options in there.

As far as inherent bonus, there's an option in TATG to upgrade into an inherent bonus of sorts. I should make it more broad in scope. But perhaps also tweak it a bit to reflect a better price for such a broad advantage.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Where I've been struggling, though, is along the path of finding an alternative to "only hit by +1 weapons or better". Maybe there isn't one. But I've been trying (mostly in vain) to figure out how I can represent a creature being difficult to defeat without using that kind of sledgehammer. It mostly equates (in TATG) to "can't be hit". Which applies mostly to incorporeal creatures.

Lot to think about here. Thanks.

[GnomeBoy]

Where I've been struggling, though, is along the path of finding an alternative to "only hit by +1 weapons or better". Maybe there isn't one. But I've been trying (mostly in vain) to figure out how I can represent a creature being difficult to defeat without using that kind of sledgehammer. It mostly equates (in TATG) to "can't be hit". Which applies mostly to incorporeal creatures.

Have you been looking for an alternative to "only hit by [substance] weapons", because that seems like a solid premise to me.

Also, monsters that can 'save' from damage, might work for making them tougher, but not universally monolithicly so (in the way more hp would) what with the randomness of a save in there -- and if they have an aversion to silver (or whatever) those weapons get through with no save...

/2cp

[smathis]

Where I've been struggling, though, is along the path of finding an alternative to "only hit by +1 weapons or better". Maybe there isn't one. But I've been trying (mostly in vain) to figure out how I can represent a creature being difficult to defeat without using that kind of sledgehammer. It mostly equates (in TATG) to "can't be hit". Which applies mostly to incorporeal creatures.

Have you been looking for an alternative to "only hit by [substance] weapons", because that seems like a solid premise to me.

Also, monsters that can 'save' from damage, might work for making them tougher, but not universally monolithicly so (in the way more hp would) what with the randomness of a save in there -- and if they have an aversion to silver (or whatever) those weapons get through with no save...

/2cp

I'm cool with the "only hit by silver weapons" and such. It's the "only hit by +1 or better weapons" that I'm a bit flummoxed with. I'm okay with it for some monsters. Things that are overtly magical or mythical like, say, a medusa. But it seems like a cop-out for a ghost who really shouldn't be hit by anything at all.

I really, really like that saving throw against damage idea. That's way cool. I will definitely be using that in the monster book (assuming it playtests well).

I think that's a great way to model some incorporeal creatures' resistance to taking damage.

Thanks, GnomeBoy. That answered a question for the second book that I was really struggling with.

[TheNobleDrake]

Where I've been struggling, though, is along the path of finding an alternative to "only hit by +1 weapons or better". Maybe there isn't one. But I've been trying (mostly in vain) to figure out how I can represent a creature being difficult to defeat without using that kind of sledgehammer. It mostly equates (in TATG) to "can't be hit". Which applies mostly to incorporeal creatures.

Have you been looking for an alternative to "only hit by [substance] weapons", because that seems like a solid premise to me.

Also, monsters that can 'save' from damage, might work for making them tougher, but not universally monolithicly so (in the way more hp would) what with the randomness of a save in there -- and if they have an aversion to silver (or whatever) those weapons get through with no save...

/2cp

My personal take on the matter of "only hit by":

Rather than consider the attack a miss that deals 0 damage, have the attack hit and the weapon deal damage as normal.

...but if it isn't made of the right material it doesn't kill the creature, only incapacitates it until the ridiculously high regeneration of the creature kicks in.

For an example, I present the damage related rules for my own personal werewolf:

Regeneration: If the werewolf starts its turn with at least 1 HP, it regenerates one third its maximum HP. If the werewolf is at 0 HP when it starts it turn, it is instead incapacitated and appears in all ways to be dead for 1d4 rounds, after which it is restored to one third its maximum HP, regains consciousness and may take its turn normally.

Silver vulnerability: Damage dealt to a werewolf by means of a silver weapon cannot be regenerated, but can be healed through rest or other sources of healing. If a werewolf is reduced to 0 HP by a silver weapon, or takes any amount of damage from a silver weapon while already at 0 HP, it dies.

The only thing I am still wavering on is whether to allow spells to also bypass this type of regeneration, or leave it to the single solution... I lean toward letting the supernatural kill the supernatural.


Added afterthought: when it comes to reduced damage from non-magical weapons, I tend to simplify down to resistance (half damage) or immunity and then make sure that there is some way left to deal with the creature. I tend to reserve immunity for special cases though... so most things that are listed in AD&D as only being hit by +1 weapons would instead have "resistance to non-magical weapons".

[smathis]

My personal take on the matter of "only hit by":

Rather than consider the attack a miss that deals 0 damage, have the attack hit and the weapon deal damage as normal.

...but if it isn't made of the right material it doesn't kill the creature, only incapacitates it until the ridiculously high regeneration of the creature kicks in.

For an example, I present the damage related rules for my own personal werewolf:

Regeneration: If the werewolf starts its turn with at least 1 HP, it regenerates one third its maximum HP. If the werewolf is at 0 HP when it starts it turn, it is instead incapacitated and appears in all ways to be dead for 1d4 rounds, after which it is restored to one third its maximum HP, regains consciousness and may take its turn normally.

Silver vulnerability: Damage dealt to a werewolf by means of a silver weapon cannot be regenerated, but can be healed through rest or other sources of healing. If a werewolf is reduced to 0 HP by a silver weapon, or takes any amount of damage from a silver weapon while already at 0 HP, it dies.

The only thing I am still wavering on is whether to allow spells to also bypass this type of regeneration, or leave it to the single solution... I lean toward letting the supernatural kill the supernatural.


Added afterthought: when it comes to reduced damage from non-magical weapons, I tend to simplify down to resistance (half damage) or immunity and then make sure that there is some way left to deal with the creature. I tend to reserve immunity for special cases though... so most things that are listed in AD&D as only being hit by +1 weapons would instead have "resistance to non-magical weapons".

That's a very interesting take, ND.

In general, I've tried to keep things in TATG down to the most simple change possible. And even then it's still... yeah... a little more complex than I thought it would be.

The issue I had with "only hit by" was that it was using one thing ("only hit by +1 or better") and applying it to many different cases. That was further complicated by no one in TATG having anything resembling a +1 whatever.

The latter issue is mitigated by the sort of "inherent bonus" thing mentioned upthread. There's an option in there that allows characters to "plus up" their trained weapons. The Exotics are the best at this. But it's available to others as well.

The former issue is branched into several "types" of damage immunity...

1) Corporeal, mythical entities that cannot be harmed by normal weapons. These would be creatures like the Medusa and such. For these guys/gals, a +1 or better makes sense, IMO.

2) Corporeal creatures that are only harmed by specific types of weapons -- "silver", "weapons made of wood", "cold iron" or "weapons wielded by a woman" and the like. It makes no sense to me that a +1 weapon that doesn't meet those conditions would damage this type of creature. Yet, in traditional D&D it does. That's weird to me. Also, a weapon that meets the requirements doesn't just "damage" the creature. It often destroys it outright. That's something that isn't usually conveyed in D&D. So there's that.

3) Incorporeal creatures. That's the real problem I'm facing with this. It's sort of like issue #2 on steroids.

For #2, TATG will have some creatures that will experience catastrophic bodily harm from certain weapons/circumstances. There will be others (like werewolves) for whom silver is just the price of entry. I'm not a fan of regeneration in the middle of combat. Werewolves will just be doggone hard to kill. And they definitely won't carry over damage from one fight to the next. Unless it's caused by a silver weapon.

For #3, I really like GnomeBoy's damage save. It would be very easy to implement. And solves that issue I was having. For a bog-standard apparition... one of the ghosts that may not really know it's dead... that save DC would be real high. For a wraith? Probably real low.

Monsters in TATG are flat out scary. I was hoping to maintain that scare factor while giving some homage to the way it's always been done.

Oddly, Vampires fall somewhere between #1 and #2. Likely leaning more in the #2 category. I'm not liking how few creatures in TATG can be affected by critical hits. I'll probably change that a bit.

And don't get me started on the "many deaths of Dracula" in the Hammer films. Suffice to say, the hunters rarely outsmarted the Big D. In almost every movie (with a few notable ones), Dracula went out like a chump -- like "whoops, i tripped and fell on a stake" or "whoops, i inexplicably walked out onto a frozen river that wasn't all the way frozen". That won't be happening in TATG, lol.

And, yes, Dracula will be a Patron.

[Ogrepuppy]

Dracula went out like a chump -- like "whoops, i tripped and fell on a stake" or "whoops, i inexplicably walked out onto a frozen river that wasn't all the way frozen".

Or, "Ooops, I *ahem* forgot that it's past sunrise and that I'm standing right in front of a curtained window"..... ::disintegrate::

[smathis]

Dracula went out like a chump -- like "whoops, i tripped and fell on a stake" or "whoops, i inexplicably walked out onto a frozen river that wasn't all the way frozen".

Or, "Ooops, I *ahem* forgot that it's past sunrise and that I'm standing right in front of a curtained window"..... ::disintegrate::

Totally. Dracula was always so menacing in those movies... until the last 10 minutes. My favorite outro was probably "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave" where Dracula is totally about to kill every last mother-heffer that has messed with his favorite hidey-hole and -- what do you know...

Whoop... whoop... waaaaaaaaaahhhhh....

Splat.

Staked on a golden cross that just happened to be positioned at such an angle that it would impale Lee's Dracula if he happened to fall. Which he did. Right onto it.

It wasn't so much that Lee's Dracula was unintelligent. He was cold-blooded and an evil genius. He was just really, really unlucky and a little bit clumsy.

Cursed, really.

Which puts a whole new spin on the "curse" of vampirism.

[GnomeBoy]

Dracula went out like a chump -- like "whoops, i tripped and fell on a stake" or "whoops, i inexplicably walked out onto a frozen river that wasn't all the way frozen".

Or, "Ooops, I *ahem* forgot that it's past sunrise and that I'm standing right in front of a curtained window"..... ::disintegrate::

Am I crazy, or did he die in one of the movies by falling into a bathtub with a running tap?

...I suppose that question might not be an either/or proposition...

[smathis]

Dracula went out like a chump -- like "whoops, i tripped and fell on a stake" or "whoops, i inexplicably walked out onto a frozen river that wasn't all the way frozen".

Or, "Ooops, I *ahem* forgot that it's past sunrise and that I'm standing right in front of a curtained window"..... ::disintegrate::

Am I crazy, or did he die in one of the movies by falling into a bathtub with a running tap?

...I suppose that question might not be an either/or proposition...

Not crazy.

In Dracula 1972 A.D., Dracula's chief satanic-ringleader/henchman (who calls himself Johnny Alucard) is killed by a shower in a bathtub. In that one, Dracula himself is killed by falling into a pit of wooden stakes.

[GnomeBoy]

Ah, so my memory wasn't completely off -- that scene (again, if I'm remembering correctly after probably close to 40 years) is where I got my love of rooftop chases from. And if my memory is off, that love comes from some other scene/movie...