Is Ravenloft Dead?

[Mangrum]

Oh my goth, Mangrum, please
CAN YOU ACCEPT that there might be many useful things in HoL?
For some dms?

Where did I say different? My opinion of HoL has remained unchanged since I first read it -- an okay book, containing quite a few good ideas, that would have been much better overall if the game mechanics it used weren't so hopelessly convoluted.

But I don't think I've commented on HoL at all for at least two years, so why do you question my opinion of this book in particular?

I don't see obviously broken things in HoL EXCEPT from the blessed defender's use of expertise.

That says more about you than the book, I'm afraid. In my role running Ask Azalin, I found myself having to publically remedy dozens of rules errors in that book caught by more detail-oriented readers.

If you really want to see what's a bad rule, check Swashbuckling Adventures books. Nice raw material and excellent story, but absolutely bad in editing and play balancing.

More or less my opinion of the entire RL line, I'm afraid.

But then, on the apparently alien world I live in (or maybe the alternate dimension where I actually made comments about HoL that now need defending?), the fact that Company X's books are poorly written really has nothing to do with whether Company Y's books are poorly written.

When I was writing, you see, I looked at the best books that were being produced and thought, "Dammit, we need to do better." I didn't look at the worst books on the market and think, "Whew! At least we're better than them! My job here is done!"

You may not agree with my view on HoL, but at least, you should accept reality that it was put into great use, so you should not dismiss anyone who liked it as a junkie addict or whatever. I think that this bad and "I know it all" attitude is what caused you problems with the other authors.

This would be the "know it all attitude" I expressed while not communicating with those authors at all, right? Man! Am I the only guy here who doesn't think I possess vast and terrifying psychic powers?

[Mangrum]

As a note, here's a list of the problems in Heroes of Light the Kargatane thought were serious enough to quickly compile in a list that was sent to Arthaus during our last days on the line.

This is quoted verbatim -- including that opening comment I've put in bold -- from a longer list of errors that had been plaguing the RL product line up to that time. Gosh, we must have really hated HoL to start out with a compliment, right?

Heroes of Light
In general, this book has lots of good ideas, but the authors' knowledge of the D20 rules is frequently deeply flawed to the point of unusability.
* The various takes on the sects of the Church of Ezra in this book do not
reflect how they are presented in other books. (They were even more severe, but John got to review some of this before release.)
* The Anchorite Inquisitor can cast death ward without making a powers check as a class ability. According to R3E, death ward never requires a powers check to begin with. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The Detective prestige class can detect good/evil alignment. This directly contradicts R3E. We've since had to cover for this error in the RL DMG. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The Detective prestige class also reference the "Sharp-eyed" feat, which only appears in d20 Star Wars (d20 rules error)
* The Knight Errant's mount appears to be a dread companion, but this is never stated. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The Metaphysician can use astral projection. This is impossible in RL, as stated in R3E. We've since had to cover for this error in the RL DMG. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* Bestial Concience: This feat and Discompassionate Companion from Champions of Darkness appear to be overlapping, incompatible versions of the same feat. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The Conscience feat allows a character to modify the results of a powers check, which R3E explicitly forbids. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The Search for Knowledge sidebar is a different, incompatible system for library searches that competes with that presented in the earlier Van Richten's Arsenal. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)
* The name of the founder of the Noble Brotherhood of Assassins doesn't reflect the domain's French culture. (Thematic inconsistency)
* In addition, this secret society was apparently formed 200 years ago to destroy Dominic d'Honaire, a man who is currently about 58 years old.
* Ravenloft's atmosphere out of synch with that presented in R3E. The new authors present it as a morass of horrors with a few points of light; the stated goal is a world of light where evil lurks unseen in the shadows. (Thematic inconsistency)
* The Wanderers: These Vistani, although male, are listed as having the Sight. According to R3E (and elsewhere), that makes them Dukkars, aka legendary forces of evil. (Inconsistency with 2E and 3E Ravenloft)
*There are several references to a Virtue's Challenge special quality, which is nowhere to be found in the book.
* There is no adequate system provided for handling a White Arcanist's restriction on non-Necromantic spells. It doesn't clarify what happens to spells learned before taking levels in the class.
*The cleric domain requirements of the two anchorite prestige classes are needlessly complicated to the point of confusion.
* The Metaphysician prestige class references the Trustworthy feat, which
was from Song and Silence; this is not explained.

[Mangrum]

Oh, and since I'm going through the Kargatane archives, here's all the vicious things I had to say about VRGttWD while it was being written, egomaniacal tyrant that I am.

From June 27th, 2002:

Ryan Naylor wrote:
>
> By the way, if anyone has any comments/requests/suggestions for
> VRGtt walking Dead, now is the time to make them.

I've told you my main suggestion already [I'm referring to a chat conversation], and it sounds like you were way ahead of me there, but I'll repeat it here for posterity.

Model this book on the Guides to Ghosts and Ancient Dead; rather than tackle a selection of different menial undead, treat the "walking dead" as a category, and turn the book into a "kit" for creating more. I would gather that *most* of the varient zombies and such from second edition can be reinvented with just a salient ability or two -- cannibal zombies and desert zombies leap to mind immediately.

But, as mentioned, you guys are already breaking the walking dead into three categories, yes? Hungry dead, vengeful dead, and servitor dead, or something like that? I'm fuzzy on the details, but it sounded good to me.

* A general note about the twins; there's some very subtle differences in their writing styles. Laurie is the tomboy; she uses lots of "action" verbs with oomph. "Smite," "destroy," "skewer," etc. Her focus is combat and tactics and her writing should imply a real thrill in the hunt. Should Laurie address the reader directly, she simply writes "dear reader."

Gennifer focuses on magic and supernatural theory; her writing tends to focus more on emotion and feelings. Should Gennifer address the reader directly, she uses the phrase "gentle reader."

It's a very subtle difference -- these are women who likely spent their entire education sitting side-by-side in front of the same tutors, so their styles are natrually similar. If you review VRA, you'll see I didn't go out of my way to drag in any of the above "character touches." Really, I suggest simply adopting a certain mindset as you write. If you're writing as Laurie, you care more about smiting evil creatures and villains; bad guys deserve what they get. If you're writing as Gennifer, you care more about the feelings of the victims and the emotional ramifications of such hunts on the hunter.

* I'd scale up the critters to include the various "lords" (ghoul lord, zombie lord) at the high end. Come to think of it, "Dead Lords" would be a good topic for a section -- or even a chapter -- of its own.

* I'd use the standard VRG format --

I. Introduction. The twins introduce themselves, then the subject; they should relate their first encounter with the Walking Dead. Something in Mordent would be most appropriate. Then wrap up with the chapter-by-chapter overview.

II. Necrology. Lay out the basics; the twins' three categories of walking dead, appearance, origins.

III. Ordinary powers. Stuff common to all walking dead (or at least to all members of a category). I'd also discuss how the undead "heal" here.

IV. Extraordinary powers; salient abilities and such.

V. Vulnerabilities. Ways to take 'em down.

VI. I dunno, you might want a chapter on necromancers or some kind of Souragnien shaman that commands the dead. Or you could discuss the Dead Lords. Or both.

VII. The twins walk the reader through an example of a hunt.

JWM

Oh, dear god! What an ogre I was back then!

[Mangrum]

Mr Mangrum, do you really think we here at the FoS, hardcore RL fans for years, even for decades, will really think twice if there's a new book out that belongs to our favourite line?

Of course not.

And that's why properties that do nothing but rest on their laurels and suck money off the hardcore fans eventually wither and die. Even when those properties are as big as Star Trek.

You want to be real fans, and not just baby birds with your mouths open?

Don't support bad books.

Do support good books.

This is neither a new nor complicated concept.

When you uncritically buy everything that comes out for the line -- ultimately, you really are hurting the thing you think you love. It doesn't lead to sloppy design work, but it allows sloppy work to survive when it should be pruned away. It's the sort of attitude that allows a developer who says "getting the rules right is for the errata" -- and then never produces errata -- to keep their job, year after year.

You are, in effect, eliminating the advantages of "natural selection."

I know, I know. You don't want to hear this, because it's unpleasant, and I'm a bad, bad man for saying it. If only it weren't true. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe your uncritical support (known in other circles as being "yes-men") really is helping Ravenloft to thrive. 3E Ravenloft has gone from six releases a year to four, right? That must be good!

[Le Noir Faineant]

It's nice to see that you deeply care about the line, even after your break with WW.

Now, IMHO, the real question isn't how can one prevent people from buying bad books, but how can one promote the line better and make more people buy the material?

-As it was said earlier, this seems to be RLs major problem at the moment.

[Gemathustra]

You do make a very valid, nay, crucial point, Mr Mangrum, in that the customer, die-hard fan, or otherwise, needs to inform the product-maker of flaws in the merchandise, lest the product-maker be allowed to run rampant in spewing subpar products like so much goldfish feces.
On the other hand, I don't appreciate your condescending tone and approach to this problem. Then again, I'm not fond of the general mood of this thread at all.
I've found out, through painful personal experience that bad attitudes, finger-pointing, and burning people in effigy do very little to solve any problem, at all. Unless you want to burn down your house and get the living tar beaten out of you by the local fire marshall.
So let's recap:
1) Ravenloft has yet to be cancelled. Huzzah to that, and I think it's stupid of us to cry about it being cancelled.
2) Ravenloft needs better quality products. We'll start a letter-writing petition, then, with lots of liquid-eyed kittens and orphans.
3) I need money to fund my plans for world conquest and domination. I accept checks and cash.

[Mangrum]

2) Ravenloft needs better quality products. We'll start a letter-writing petition, then, with lots of liquid-eyed kittens and orphans.

And you wonder why I seem so condescending.

[midnightcat]

* The various takes on the sects of the Church of Ezra in this book do not
reflect how they are presented in other books. (They were even more severe, but John got to review some of this before release.)

I am Kind of Interested in this? Could you elaborate on this? I own the HOL and all the Gazetteers, the Van Richten Arsenal, Ravenloft DMG, and the main Ravenloft book, and I didn't see anything in the HOL's Orgnazation section, dealing with the church of Ezra, and the Blessed Army section that contradicted other Ezra sections in other books.

This is dealing, with the quality issue of the Ravenloft Books. I will agree alot of the Ravenloft books needs erratas, but so do alot of the WOTC books. I know The Ravenloft Books aren't Perferct but the same can be said for alot of 2nd editon Ravenloft books. An example: I for one HATE the Box set, Requiem: the Gim Harvest. Whoever came up with that idea was crazy, and the rules didn't work, plus it ignored basic Ravenloft ideas like a Darklord for the land. That was Broken till it was fixed in the Gazetteers. Plus thier are alot of modules, that aren't that great from the 2nd editon past too. So, thier being books that are bad is not a new phenomena for Ravenloft. Heck, You reviewed a good bit of those old "bad" products on the kargatane site.

I know you as an author, have a certain standard, and you have a love for the Ravenloft setting, so you want it to be the Best it can be. But aren't you being too harsh on the line? Overall, thier have been some great books, just as good as other D20 Products out on the market. Yes some the 3.5 revison books were pure crap, but it seems alot of Ravenloft fans either ignored or didn't buy: the Ravenloft Player Handbook, and the Denziens of Dread, well I know I didn't. Maybe it is true of what they say, Don't mix your work and your hobby together.

Oh, dear god! What an ogre I was back then!]

I don't think any of the fans think you are an Ogre. We all think you are a Great author, and by what we can tell form the message boards a pretty nice guy. You do seem alot more sarcastic then you did in the early days of the kargatane, and to me you seemed a bit more postive back then, but you have been through alot since then.

[Gemathustra]

And you wonder why I seem so condescending.

"Condescending" seems too nice a nice-nelly...
"Supremely arrogant" seems more appropriate.
Or, if you prefer, we can continue with this little game of "Let's Verbally Burn My Ex-Employers In Effigy" and accomplish nothing else.

This would be the "know it all attitude" I expressed while not communicating with those authors at all, right? Man! Am I the only guy here who doesn't think I possess vast and terrifying psychic powers?

No, that would be the "I know better than you" attitude.

[tec-goblin]

Where did I say different? My opinion of HoL has remained unchanged since I first read it -- an okay book, containing quite a few good ideas, that would have been much better overall if the game mechanics it used weren't so hopelessly convoluted.

But I don't think I've commented on HoL at all for at least two years, so why do you question my opinion of this book in particular?

"Jasper wrote:
Raise your hand out there if you didn't buy COD or HOL just because it had a bad review? Or stoped using DOD just because the stats were wrong. Or tossed out VRGTTWD because it was written in many voices?

You wrote:
I see very few of you out there.


And to be honest, in the case of those first two -- that's just plain embarrassing. While I was working on the line, I had to actively block readers like you out of my mind. I tried to write for readers who actually gave a damn. "

See above. I hoped you were just kidding but you insisted in this. Yes, you DID say it is embarassing and you ATTACKED someone who liked it.

I don't see obviously broken things in HoL EXCEPT from the blessed defender's use of expertise.

That says more about you than the book, I'm afraid. In my role running Ask Azalin, I found myself having to publically remedy dozens of rules errors in that book caught by more detail-oriented readers.

Excuse me, I spoke for "obviously broken things". Not just errors. I hope you understand now that I say it twice. The link below refers to something obviously broken. You say "dozens of errors". Okay, point me to an RPG book with rules which has not at least 12 errors.

When I was writing, you see, I looked at the best books that were being produced and thought, "Dammit, we need to do better." I didn't look at the worst books on the market and think, "Whew! At least we're better than them! My job here is done!"

Yes, but when someone is clearly above the average, flaming him in that way seems just too much for me. Look at the White Wolf books. Vampire: the bloodlines has as many errors, bad formating and bad editing decisions as the whole 3.0 and 3.5 RV line combined. I am serious on this. I can point you to ridiculously unplayable rules. AEG is even worst, particularly when writing d20 rules. WotC is quite good in 3.5, but the spirit is lacking in many of the books.
IMO, the PrCs in HoL are more playable than the ones in VRA. I've playtested them in tournaments where the eyes of about 5 dms and many many players where searching for things to exploit and they worked. It goes in reverse for the feats, though.

This would be the "know it all attitude" I expressed while not communicating with those authors at all, right? Man! Am I the only guy here who doesn't think I possess vast and terrifying psychic powers?

No, I wasn't referring to that. I think you were correct in that. I was guessing about your attitude and scoptic remarks in the forums for example. It's your tone when communicating with them personally (which you have said yourself that it was impolite - I don't know how it was, but judging from what I've seen here, I suspect you are right)

[tec-goblin]

Don't support bad books.

Do support good books.

The problem is what someone judges as bad and what not.
Personally, I find the quality of RV books quite good. I have some issues with web support which I have expressed many many times.
I also have some problems with the layout etc.
And when I see an error, I point it into the errata section.
Oh man, you could see me flaming AEGs authors, editors and developers at the same time! Yes, sometimes I do NOT support bad boks. I voicely and publicly say my opinion.

I am almost sure that it goes about the same with most people here. Just disagreeing with you in the subject of what's a good book or not doesn't make us zombies

[tec-goblin]

First of all, I don't see a really long list below. I've noticed more errors in books with less rules. Many times. Seeing the severity of each error would be interesting. Let's start

* The various takes on the sects of the Church of Ezra in this book do not
reflect how they are presented in other books. (They were even more severe, but John got to review some of this before release.)

I also do not see any important differences from the other books regarding this. They are complimentary

* The Anchorite Inquisitor can cast death ward without making a powers check as a class ability. According to R3E, death ward never requires a powers check to begin with. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

Yes, this is an error. I had noted it and I was a bit confused about it. Not something really problematic, though.

* The Detective prestige class can detect good/evil alignment. This directly contradicts R3E. We've since had to cover for this error in the RL DMG. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

I think it's one of the most important errors in the book. Having a rare class able to do something as detecting evil would work, if it could just detect if someone is penitent or corrupted. Easily corrected, but yet important.

* The Detective prestige class also reference the "Sharp-eyed" feat, which only appears in d20 Star Wars (d20 rules error)

And it appeared in Legacies of Blood! That was a funny error . Also easily corrected.

* The Knight Errant's mount appears to be a dread companion, but this is never stated. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

Well, that's not very much of a problem: I mean there are guidelines in the main book that make us understand it's a dread companion. It would help to point it out clearly, anyway.

* The Metaphysician can use astral projection. This is impossible in RL, as stated in R3E. We've since had to cover for this error in the RL DMG. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

Interesting. Astral projection is an interesting ability. But I disagree. It is possible - he just travels through the mists. That's the way I interpreted the rule (as it is stated in the Teleportation section). It's very easy to do this that way.

* Bestial Concience: This feat and Discompassionate Companion from Champions of Darkness appear to be overlapping, incompatible versions of the same feat. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

That's a small problem of sychronization- it happens very very often when books come out about the same time - even WotC does it from time to time.

* The Conscience feat allows a character to modify the results of a powers check, which R3E explicitly forbids. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

And so what? I mean it's a special rule, overruling the general. And it seems a bit appropriate. So... I don't have any problem at all. And it basically works for small evil acts (less than 10% chance) usually. And you have to be Blessed, which IS hard.

* The Search for Knowledge sidebar is a different, incompatible system for library searches that competes with that presented in the earlier Van Richten's Arsenal. (Inconsistency with 3E Ravenloft)

Where the hell is that?

* The name of the founder of the Noble Brotherhood of Assassins doesn't reflect the domain's French culture. (Thematic inconsistency)

Only the "Mad" part. The rest could mean he just has ties to another country. And this is an extremely extremely trivial issue I would never bring up.

* In addition, this secret society was apparently formed 200 years ago to destroy Dominic d'Honaire, a man who is currently about 58 years old.

Yes, here you are right. Unless it's part of false history. This is the second serious problem (I think the third is the way blessed defender's expertise works).

* Ravenloft's atmosphere out of synch with that presented in R3E. The new authors present it as a morass of horrors with a few points of light; the stated goal is a world of light where evil lurks unseen in the shadows. (Thematic inconsistency)

Eh? I don't think so. I think that HoL actually HELPED many of my players see Ravenloft as a world which has its good sides. Their opinion on the quality of life in Ravenloft increased. Material in this book also helped me to stop some of the players in the tournaments I have referred to to think the evil as "weekends in hell".

* The Wanderers: These Vistani, although male, are listed as having the Sight. According to R3E (and elsewhere), that makes them Dukkars, aka legendary forces of evil. (Inconsistency with 2E and 3E Ravenloft)

Mmm... make it fourth serious error.

*There are several references to a Virtue's Challenge special quality, which is nowhere to be found in the book.

It's the test of virtue, no problem with this.

* There is no adequate system provided for handling a White Arcanist's restriction on non-Necromantic spells. It doesn't clarify what happens to spells learned before taking levels in the class.

Well, he just continues being corrupted by them

*The cleric domain requirements of the two anchorite prestige classes are needlessly complicated to the point of confusion.

I don't think so. A bit better formatting of the armor restriction would help, but anyway, I liked very much this armor restriction.

* The Metaphysician prestige class references the Trustworthy feat, which
was from Song and Silence; this is not explained.

Okay, nobody will die with this. And I think it made its way to 3.5 if I remember correctly (or was it just the Negotiator?). Yes it's still an error, but not very important.

So, a bunch of small errors, 4 important ones. Typical. The average RV book has less, but it usually has less rules anyway. And the average WotC book has more, but more in the "small errors" part (and that's it because WotC books have more rules). And that's it without getting into other S&S, WW and AEG material which really s***s in that regard.
Half a sheet of errata could easily correct the above. The problem is we didn't have it. That's what I am complaining about. Not the printed material.

[Steve Miller]

I know for a fact that John would have preferred to focus on his own projects rather than spending time the developers should have spent ensuring adherence to their format outlines (among other things).

Then he SHOULD have focused on his projects. Or was his family being held hostage?

[Steve Miller]

* The Detective prestige class also reference the "Sharp-eyed" feat, which only appears in d20 Star Wars (d20 rules error)

And it appeared in Legacies of Blood! That was a funny error . Also easily corrected.

Consider the "error" corrected. Errata via follow-on products!

Actually, the "Legacies of Blood" feat is different from the "Star Wars" one. (Same name, different game function. I slipped and used a feat name that already existed.)

[Mortavius]

I would defend John here on his list of things with HoL. After all, what he presented that list for was to correct the errors BEFORE they went to the printers. He didn't submit this after, he tried to prevent mistakes. What's wrong with that? Yes, some of the errors are small. But just because they're small, they should be ignored or glossed over? Even a small error has the potential to cause havoc with a game session. If the errors are only paid attention to when they are big, then we're going to have some real interesting books come out with a bunch of little errors and no big ones. Well, when does it become *enough* little errors to constitute a problem? One? Five? Twenty?

In John's opinion, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong John) he believes that even one error is too much. And that's admirable, no matter which way you look at it. It may be unrealistic (after all, we're only human), but it's still noble to strive for perfection in one's work. And to be proud of that struggle.

For what it's worth, I thought that HoL had some *bigger* errors than CoD. A class that can detect evil? This is something that goes completely against the setting. A class that can leave Ravenloft? Again, something impossible by even a 9th level spell. A feat that can modify Powers Checks? Again, something that shouldn't be able to happen.

It's okay if you don't think these are huge deals; maybe they aren't. But for some people they are. And the Kargatane went to some trouble in the first few Ravenloft books to lay out the ground rules for Ravenloft; what can and can't work. This book then, contermands those rules. I'd be upset too. Especially, if as John says, he tried to fix these problems and was ignored.