Café de Nuit

TheSalemlord wrote:I dunno why...but I think I got something screwed in the code when I tried to reply ...Admin Help?

It seems to be fixed from this point forward. Not an admin, but my guess is that too many people quoted text with too many quote tags.

— onmyoji

Jester of the FoS wrote:http://www.5mwd.com/archives/6621
It echoes a lot of what I've said elsewhere here but also goes into some personal struggles and drama, so it's not a happy read

I guess it's depression kicking in, dont't worry I believe as long as this forum still goes on, good ideas will continue to be created.
And although I also know the feeling of anticipation for something new after years and being disappointed, I focus on my own ideas and the ideas being discussed here and presented in the netbooks that all of you, as members of the FoS have created all these years. So personally I am grateful for this and happy that I can share my Ravenloft obsessions with people who care about the setting as much as I do.

onmyoji wrote:It seems to be fixed from this point forward. Not an admin, but my guess is that too many people quoted text with too many quote tags.

I fixed it, I think. Two stray "td" tags. (For tables) Try not to use those, I guess. Not sure what's up with them causing that weird behavior. Might be something in the bbcode. No time to dig right now, so I just deleted them

Jester: Sounds to me like you're now travelling a bit in the woods. It happens to all of us man. Just look down from time to time and you might see our tread. It's just a fork in the road (easy for me to say to you now, but I carry my own roadside tales). You can only get so wet. No use dodging puddles after that. Give 'er, and keep on slopping. All roads end at the beginning of another...

Jester, thank you for sharing the very personal story. I hope everything gets better for you in the days ahead. I feel your pain, man: my two longest running campaigns I DM'd were 2nd edition Dark Sun and Ravenloft. I love the setting and the history. Arthas's 3e contributions were some of the best written (but not edited, /sich) role-playing accessories I have ever read. The Kargatane and now the Fraternity's netbooks are all really well done (I love the Nocturnal Sea and Souragne Gazeteers in particular). And yet sometime recently it feels like the hobby I have made a major staple of my life for the past 35 years or so decided it didn't want me to be a part of it anymore. Whether that's true or not is up to debate, but it FEELS like it. I was looking forward to VRGtR and am underwhelmed entirely by it. It feels like revisionism not to fix and improve, just to revise for its own sake. And to top it off Kentaro Like a, the creator of my internet non de plume, died this week as well, so no ending to Berserk for me. I hope you take the commiseration of an internet random in the way it was intended and really do hope things get better for you going forward

TheSalemlord wrote:Thanks for the Review Jester.

Right now, I don't know what to feel about that book... I wanted it so badly. Now I'm in doubt. My heart feels crushed...
I feel like... I must forget everything I've read, and played... to enjoy this... "New" Ravenloft.

You don't have to forget everything you ever read, played and loved about Ravenloft to enjoy the new book. Take from that what you like, adapt what you like and drop what you don't like.
Do you prefer NPC_822 as he/she/it was in 2e? 3e? go for that.

This book is made in a way to cherry-pick. You don't have to take it all. Despite what many people say, changing Domain_22 with the "new" version is not that hard work except for a couple of 3e domains that had strong interactions with nearby domains. But how many domains were REALLY integrated with their neighbors? Only Falkovnia from what I recall.
I see no reason why you can't change old Valachan with new Valachan for example if you prefer it.

Furthermore, the book has more than new versions of domains. It has ideas and options. It has items and new monsters.
What it DOES NOT have, and it sorely lacks, is ... NPCs. Man, the absence of NPCs is huge. If you just wanted this book so you can have your 5e version of Darklord_17 or NPC_822 you're in bad luck.

Last but not least, you can "duplicate" domains. You like BOTH the old Dementlieu and the new? No problem. Keep the Old Dementlieu in the core and rename the new Dementlieu as Mirage or something and keep it as an island in the mists.

Jester of the FoS wrote:It's on the same site:
http://www.5mwd.com/archives/6621
It echoes a lot of what I've said elsewhere here but also goes into some personal struggles and drama, so it's not a happy read

Thank you for sharing your personal story, Jester. It certainly informs your reaction to the book. My heart goes out to you. I hope you're getting whatever help you need to get through this time. I know it doesn't help much to say "things will get better," but that's all I've really got to offer you. Things will get better.

I think my reaction differs from yours because I've already been through the "D&D as published is no longer for me" thing. I'm past the grief and into acceptance, and have been since 4e. That particular pain is still raw for you, and comes at a time that's particularly fraught for other reasons.

Oh crap Jester! My best wishes to you, friend. I have nothing to say about the problems life threw at you and that's because I am (thankfully) not a person that had to deal with these. I honestly hope things get better for you.

If I may, about the D&D thing and Ravenloft, I understand your frustration but I think you would have been disappointed and please let me state why:
Ravenloft is an old setting. D&D next is very retro-adaptable. You can grab your 2e or 3e books, dust them off, use the recent versions of monsters and you would be done. I have run several 2e adventures (two of them Ravenloft) in D&D next and I would honestly say they run more smoothly in D&D next than 2e.
As such, WotC had to go with something totally new with Ravenloft. Giving us Richemulot exactly like it was in the Gazetteers but with 2 different dread possibilities, 1 adventure hook, 5e stats for Jaquiline and Louise would be... nothing. I would frankly feel cheated if 3/4 of the book I paid for were info I already had.
Not everyone feels the same (apparently a lot of people that had the 3E version of Ravenloft Core bought the 3.5 version that had literally just a few extra pages) but many do.

So, the ideal solution to please the most fans would be: "Condense the setting we knew, add a lot of things we didn't know, and make the book bigger so that there is enough 'old stuff' for people new to the setting and enough 'new stuff' for people that own the gazetteers"
But that takes money, creativity and a lot of risk.
IMO, the second best solution would be what they did: Go for new stuff. Rebrand. Make Falkovnia2. And business-wise, that's the safest option.


You are not forgotten by the WotC Jester. You don't need an update of the old books. They are still there and they are still being sold. But you have the books. It is not that you are not the target audience for WotC. It is that they have to work x2 as hard so that you would buy their books! It is harder to sell a car to a man that doesn't need a new one. Sure, a new car is nice. But you have your trusty older car so unless you're a car enthusiast or you can afford it, it is an expense for another day.

I can't speak for anyone but I love Dementlieu2. I also like Dementlieu1. So, what to do?
Keep both. Problem solved. Change the name of Dementlieu2 to something else and that is it. And this is just an example.
So, you have your old books and you can easily adapt them to 5e because 5e is very retro-compatible. And you have the new book to name-change what you like and keep everything. Both old and new.
I honestly think that if you see the new material as new material, not just updated material, there would be a lot of things you would like. Not all, but a lot.


About the "the previous Ravenloft was horrible"
Yeap, if that happened (which I believe you it would) I am very grateful I am not aware. And I don't want to go read people bashing Ravenloft because in the eyes of ultra-progressives and SJWs it was not a good setting. Or whatever other flaw they talk about.

alhoon wrote:As such, WotC had to go with something totally new with Ravenloft. Giving us Richemulot exactly like it was in the Gazetteers but with 2 different dread possibilities, 1 adventure hook, 5e stats for Jaquiline and Louise would be... nothing. I would frankly feel cheated if 3/4 of the book I paid for were info I already had.
.
.
So, the ideal solution to please the most fans would be: "Condense the setting we knew, add a lot of things we didn't know, and make the book bigger so that there is enough 'old stuff' for people new to the setting and enough 'new stuff' for people that own the gazetteers"
But that takes money, creativity and a lot of risk.
IMO, the second best solution would be what they did: Go for new stuff. Rebrand. Make Falkovnia2. And business-wise, that's the safest option.

As much as I don't want to split hairs with you, I'd like to emphasize that there's a difference between "going for new stuff" and "rebranding." While we got what most consider to be some nice rebrands (Kalakeri, Har'Akir), I don't think we actually got anything new.

Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I feel like WotC totally missed their own mark by spending an entire chapter detailing how to make your own domains with ease, and then not actually making any new ones themselves. If the old lore is so problematic, then why didn't they just give the 2-8-page domains a paragraph or two and give us half a dozen SOLID completely new domains. Not old ones with the dust brushed off and a fresh coat of paint, but completely newly written domains. "Oldies" like many here could then find creative ways to reattach those domains to the old combined Core. "Newbies" could interact with the domains however they pleased. And the emphasis on diversity/inclusion/etc. could be very well handled by those domains.

I honestly think that would've been the best case situation, and the sad part of that is that it was fully and unequivocally within WotC's power to deliver that to us. But they took the easy route instead.

— onmyoji

There are those of you that are cool with VRGtR, and there are those of you who are not cool with VRGtR.

To those who are cool with it, try selling the community here ideas from or inspired by the book.

Stop selling Wizards and their...jazz. If the focus remains on them and not their offering, then that offering is just wasted and fit for the pit.

That's just me though.

alhoon wrote:You don't have to forget everything you ever read, played and loved about Ravenloft to enjoy the new book. Take from that what you like, adapt what you like and drop what you don't like.

I recall a particular Raveloft campaign in which we used to play, alhoon, where multiple domains in the Core had been either changed or completely absorbed into other ones. Sometimes change can be fun and breath of fresh air (or a whole new hell to explore)... The bitter pill with this new book is that it's difficult to ignore these changes when its the most recent published literature, especially if that's what most of the people are doing. Like Jester pointed out, it's not bad per se for new players getting into Ravenloft, but it's hard for veteran players to reconcile all of their old material to mesh with the new.

Not impossible to do, and I like some of the suggestions that you've previously pointed out, but it's easier to ignore the results of what happened because a lone halfling decided to go for a walk.

WotC had to go with something totally new with Ravenloft. Giving us Richemulot exactly like it was in the Gazetteers but with 2 different dread possibilities, 1 adventure hook, 5e stats for Jaquiline and Louise would be... nothing. I would frankly feel cheated if 3/4 of the book I paid for were info I already had.

I see this argument often and I cannot embrace or accept it because to my ears it sounds like...rhetoric built upon false premise?

Why is it always one or the other? The changes are GOOD because they did something DIFFERENT. Which in itself doesn't tackle the object at hand, which is the content we currently have in the book, but instead focuses on the "different-new" aspect of it as its own entity and by default it is deemed the "best" option they had to offer. Giving us the same old same old with 5e stats would be cheating, surely it would be, but why is that the only option? Why not advance the timeline and build upon established lore? Why do Forgotten Realms get that treatment? Why do new products in the Forgotten Realms, and any other setting published for 5e advance the timeline or respect the continuity of events (which mind you, they butcher lots of it, but not enough to incite outrage by the fandom) ? Why are these products not subject to the premises of the above argument? If they are, and if it is the BEST option there is for new products to be succesful, why haven't the Realms got a reboot already?

SilentRave wrote:

WotC had to go with something totally new with Ravenloft. Giving us Richemulot exactly like it was in the Gazetteers but with 2 different dread possibilities, 1 adventure hook, 5e stats for Jaquiline and Louise would be... nothing. I would frankly feel cheated if 3/4 of the book I paid for were info I already had.

I see this argument often and I cannot embrace or accept it because to my ears it sounds like...rhetoric built upon false premise?

Why is it always one or the other? The changes are GOOD because they did something DIFFERENT.

I suspect alhoon may feel the same way I do. It's not the changes are GOOD because they are DIFFERENT. It's that they are GOOD or BAD on their merits independent of whether they are DIFFERENT. Not innately BAD because they are DIFFERENT.

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:

SilentRave wrote:

WotC had to go with something totally new with Ravenloft. Giving us Richemulot exactly like it was in the Gazetteers but with 2 different dread possibilities, 1 adventure hook, 5e stats for Jaquiline and Louise would be... nothing. I would frankly feel cheated if 3/4 of the book I paid for were info I already had.

I see this argument often and I cannot embrace or accept it because to my ears it sounds like...rhetoric built upon false premise?

Why is it always one or the other? The changes are GOOD because they did something DIFFERENT.

I suspect alhoon may feel the same way I do. It's not the changes are GOOD because they are DIFFERENT. It's that they are GOOD or BAD on their merits independent of whether they are DIFFERENT. Not innately BAD because they are DIFFERENT.

I get that this is how you guys might feel but the argument doesn't contribute to the matter at hand, which is the content and the reason it HAD to be rebooted. Why did it HAVE to be rebooted ? Why is there a blindfolded hypothesis that the only other alternative was content already visited in the Gazetteers ?

Of course there is content that I do enjoy as well in the new book. Most of what Jester has written in his review as the good and the beautiful is spot on for me, yet again.

If the purpose of the product was to cater to the vast majority of the 5e audience, which is people who have played CoS and whose only experience with Ravenloft is just this adventure, then the only thing they had to do to make said audience happy, was to quasi-reboot Barovia and expand on what people enjoyed in CoS. What they did though was contradict their own established canon they presented in CoS, and they didn't even expand on anything important in that adventure. The order of the Silver Dragon along with Baba Lysaga were totally discarded and to my knowledge they don't even get a slight mention in the new book. The abbot is again just briefly mentioned in the Krezk section.

If the purpose was to appease the biggest audience, then why aren't these qualities that made CoS the best selling adventure in 5e not in the book ?