What to do about WotC's bombshell?

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Given that WotC is planning to do one book for each setting they address in 4E -- and from the sound of things, Ravenloft would be about halfway down their to-do list, hence may not get a turn until 5E -- it's unlikely they could give the setting a complete enough treatment to take it in a direction contrary to what's gone before. More likely we'd get a rule-revised version of Domains of Dread, period.

But whether we switch over in the netbooks is largely a separate issue from whether or not WotC eventually gives Ravenloft a nod. 4th Edition is coming next year, whereas any possible 'official' RL revival -- be it classic-Gothic-goodness or "Elf Pirate Strahd" awful -- will be three or more years away, after FR and (probably) Eberron have had their re-hashing. Frankly, Ravenloft is probably too grown-up a setting for them to bring it out any sooner than that: there'll be a considerable time-lag before we have to have a poll about "Is 4E Ravenloft for real?", too. If we ever do.

[Isabella]

Which is exactly why I see no point in promoting the uptake, let alone obliging the uptake, of a new game mechanic. And the more so when the cost of playing along with the profit centric strategy is actually a reason to walk away rather than to contribute more.

It seems that many people on the boards are concerned that 3.5e players will be cut out if the FoS shifts to 4e. But at the same time you seem to be calling to shut out anyone who wants to make the change, before anyone has even seen the product.

[Igor the Henchman]

Given that WotC is planning to do one book for each setting they address in 4E

Have they made a statement on this? I'm late on all the official rumors.

-- be it classic-Gothic-goodness or "Elf Pirate Strahd" awful --

I'm expecting a combination of both.

Why can't one setting have room for both?

[HuManBing]

Actually, speaking more rationally now that my initial Powers Check failure has subsided, I think I would also support the FoS going down a split-path model once 4th ed. comes out. It makes sense to keep the old fans and also appeal to new ones.

Besides, FoS is not a for profit venture, unlike WotC. It can clearly expect to spend some time in "labor of love" type projects to update or retrofit things.

Also, the chances of Wizards getting round to Ravenloft material is slim. And I've been playing 2nd ed. adventures with my 3.5 ed. adventuring party for quite some time without any huge problems.

So I'm somewhat more sanguine about the prospects of still having a place here in the FoS, 4.0 or no.

Of course, I have to be sanguine. I've suddenly developed a thirst for blood and the Scent (Ex) feat as part of my curse.

[order99]

Honestly?

Ignore the announcement right now. Ravenloft and Masque are not about systems...I've run Masque in Classic 2E mode (my fave), in 3E mode, using a lightly-houseruled Amazing Engine, played in a few Warhammer FRG-engined Masque adventures etc. I could port Masque to Call of Cthulu from Caosium, FYI's Mercenaries Spies & Private Eyes RPG(think Tunnels & Trolls with skills) and i've got a friend who wants me to test a Castles & Crusades Masque port as well.

Ravenloft and Masque are worlds, not rules. Wait until 4th comes out, then praise or moan.

[lostboy]

Completely agree with order99, who cares what the official rules are? Rl has and will always be the setting, the story and those within it, not about what feats/skills/attributes/kitchen sinks/elf ears Strahd has under various editions.

I have no understanding or even care about how 3E works let alone any interest in 4E. I come here for the ideas and stories in RL that I can use, and I get a huge amount form this site & I could put these ideas into practice under any of the systems order99 mentions.

So unless Wotc start putting out new RL material that isnt rehashed rules it doesnt even figure on my radar. And if the FoS goes entirely 4E I'll still get what I came for cos we'll still be debating who the GC's children are and what he and old wizlich are up to !

[maraudar]

I voted other. But then again I am one of those heathens that still uses 2e.


Maraudar

[WolfKook]

I'm with order99 in this one.

I recently bought an old DL book commemorating the 25th aniversary of the setting. By the time, the "official" rules for the setting were the card-based SAGA system; however, a lot of the fan-base still played AD&D 2nd Ed, so they made a mainly "rules-free" compendium and reprint of the first DL adventures, keeping just the events and encounters in the main text. They made, however, a rules-specific appendix, containing the rule information.

I think something like that should be made with the new edition.

[The Giamarga]

The 3E material by White Wolf pretty much already followed that design, with a rules chapter at the end of the book. All other references are limited to a sidebar here and there or some short notes on NPCs (e.g. human vampire Rog5, CE).

[Guardian of Twilight]

A very good friend of mine sent me this link just this morning, and I thought you guys would find it interesting...


http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... st13457928

[Spiteful Crow]

A very good friend of mine sent me this link just this morning, and I thought you guys would find it interesting...


http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.ph ... st13457928

It's so beautiful.

Seriously, I'm glad they're throwing out the dependancy on magical items and making them not cost XP to build.

I can't wait to see what the alignment system revamp is.

[EdwardPickmanDerby]

That article gives the very reason why a continued 3.5 presence is a must. From what it implies 4th edition is hard to convert from and to, while at least there are conversion guidelines between second and third. Publishing solely in 4th would shut out not just one set of us luddites, but several.

[Dion of the Fraternity]

Ravenloft and Masque are not about systems...Ravenloft and Masque are worlds, not rules. Wait until 4th comes out, then praise or moan.

EXACTLY. Although 4e is exciting, I personally almost don't give a damn about system of rules used for my Ravenloft games; I personally use the new Storytelling System for it, and I love it (sometimes even more so than d20). It' would be fun and perhaps challenging converting to 4e, and perhaps even Ravenloft might go the way of 4e, but that's okay with me! I'm one of those people who want to embrace change.

Speaking of which, the Player's Guide to Ravenloft is on track to be released later this year, as scheduled regardless of the announcement.

[Daisu]

I was never big fan of 3 and 3.5. "$th" might be a good reason to go back into running tabletop even though its a moneygrab.

[LordGodefroi]

Supporting a system that will require conversion only adds more work for a DM AND the FoS netbook editors. Since the most popular RL stuff is 3e, and what DMs and players will reference, stick with 3e until an official 4e Ravenloft appears.

In my opinion, conversion to a new game system shouldn't be expected of FoS as it adds more work for them. And its hard enough being a fan publisher without the extra work.

If, for example, someone wanted to use FUDGE as a system for RL, it would be the responsibility of the DM, not FoS, to convert the crunchy bits for game use. By the same token, those that want to use 4e for RL should convert to and from 3.5 on their own. Folks can still use FoS netbooks but the responsibility of converting them to their favored system will be on them.