MotRd as a stand-alone setting

[Lady Ligeia]

I am still in the process of deciding whether or not to get the MotRD book. One of the things I've heard about it is that its too heavily keyed to the Ravenloft setting to be run as a stand-alone setting.

I actually like the idea of the classes in MotRD, as well as how magic works as a corrupting influence. I don't want to use Call of Cthulhu d20 or d20 Past as the basic rules set, because they don't have the depth of detail as regards the Victorian era. All I plan to use for my game is MotRD, some parts of D20 Modern (monsters mainly), and the D20 Menace Manual.

So ... given that I want to run what can best be described as "X-Files set in 1890", is Masque of the Red Death really for me? Can I easily run it as a more or less generic Victorian supernatural investigation setting?

[ScS of the Fraternity]

I would suggest NOT buying the Masque of the Red Death book. The book itself is poorly written, and the rules included are less than stellar. Really, the only reason to buy the book is for the art.

For a 1890's X-files campaign, I think you might be better off going with D20 Modern rules and the D20 past supplement.
Of course, that might be too expensive if you don't already have one of the books.

You could always go to the Living Death site and download the FREE rules. Take it from me, the classes are nearly identical, and the book is much better written.

Or, if you want to get really creative you could go to the DMG and look into the Modern Age weapons listed there, and then adapt the standard classes, skills and feats to a 1890's theme. I've done that myself several times (Qtr 1-2, The great War Project, ect...).

[Dr Bloodworth]

I think you could do that. IMO, there's really not much tying Masque to Ravenloft other than that it's bundled under the Ravenloft brand. Sure, there's big similarities -- the Red Death is a close thing to one of the Dark Powers, and indeed may be one. The book references some Ravenloft-specific mechanics, too, like sinkholes of evil and the Fear/Horror/Madness save system. Unfortunately, it also leaves the explanation of those mechanics out, so you'll have to supply an alternative to those mechanics unless you want to pick up the core Ravenloft books too.

[Lady Ligeia]

What I need most of all is setting detail for the 1890's. I know I could easily use d20 Moder/Past and Call of Ctuhlhu d20 for the rules set, but that leaves me without detail of the era.

I've been wanting to run a game like this for a while, and unfortunately for me I sold my Cthulhu By Gaslight some time ago.

Deadlands is far too wonky, d20 or not, as is Space: 1889, and all of the recent "Steampunk" books (such as OGL Steampunk and Iron Kingdoms) rely too much on high magic and still use all the standard D&D races.

I want Victorian era Earth, low-powered and rare magic, and monsters. MotRD seems to fit the bill.

[Quinn]

From the standpoint of just giving a good, general background for the setting, I think the Masque book does a decent job. It's by no means comprehensive, but it does give a good overview of Victorian culture, and what's going on in various parts of the world, both historical and supernatural. I think it depends on the level of detail you're looking for. I wanted extensive detail so I've supplemented my campaign with some Call of Cthulhu material, particularly Cthulhu by Gaslight. Is there any way for you to borrow the book, or preview it at a game store before buying it? If so, you'd want to do so.

[Lady Ligeia]

I spent some time paging through it before my last game session there a few weeks ago. That's what got me interested in the book. I just skimmed it really, glancing over pages that caught my eye. It *really* seems to match the description of the game I'm interested in putting together.

FYI ... Chaosium is supposed to be coming out with a new, expanded version of Cthulhu by Gaslight. It might already be out ... I might look into that, too.

My biggest concern is that even if I get this book, I won't be able to run it. The group I game with are into D&D, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure I could interest them in Victorian monster chasers. Especially since I already run Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and I'd have to find a way to work MotRD into my already infrequent schedule.

[Quinn]

FYI ... Chaosium is supposed to be coming out with a new, expanded version of Cthulhu by Gaslight. It might already be out ... I might look into that, too.

I didn't know that! I'll be on the lookout for it!

Never hurts to float the idea past your group first. The biggest issue I've always had was whether or not people would get into a less combat oriented, low magic game. But even the most hack n' slash group that I DM'd really got into it.

[Reginald de Curry]

What I need most of all is setting detail for the 1890's. I know I could easily use d20 Moder/Past and Call of Ctuhlhu d20 for the rules set, but that leaves me without detail of the era.

I've been wanting to run a game like this for a while, and unfortunately for me I sold my Cthulhu By Gaslight some time ago.

Deadlands is far too wonky, d20 or not, as is Space: 1889, and all of the recent "Steampunk" books (such as OGL Steampunk and Iron Kingdoms) rely too much on high magic and still use all the standard D&D races.

I want Victorian era Earth, low-powered and rare magic, and monsters. MotRD seems to fit the bill.

I don't think the new MotRD is quite as bad as ScS says, but I read it as source material and outright disregarded the rules. It should give you a decent starting point, though you'll still have to do a lot of research (one of my gripes about the setting). Deadlands is its own beast, but Back East: The North gives a lot of info on the Masons that could easily be incorporated into MotRD, with a few changes (it's not D20-statted, for one thing).

[Igor the Henchman]

I would suggest NOT buying the Masque of the Red Death book. The book itself is poorly written, and the rules included are less than stellar. Really, the only reason to buy the book is for the art.

Look, Stephen... How to put this tactfully? This is becoming annoying. While your concern over the quality of the setting is admirable, do you even have a reason to post on this board, these days, other than to discourage people from trying out the campaign book? You've left a perfectly comprehensive review in the Reviews section (actually the first one anyone will read). So the point is made already. I mean, if getting visitors to boycott the book is what you want... you're in the Fraternity, dammit, put a big sign on the main page and be done with it!

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I would suggest NOT buying the Masque of the Red Death book. The book itself is poorly written, and the rules included are less than stellar. Really, the only reason to buy the book is for the art.

Look, Stephen... How to put this tactfully? This is becoming annoying. While your concern over the quality of the setting is admirable, do you even have a reason to post on this board, these days, other than to discourage people from trying out the campaign book? You've left a perfectly comprehensive review in the Reviews section (actually the first one anyone will read). So the point is made already. I mean, if getting visitors to boycott the book is what you want... you're in the Fraternity, dammit, put a big sign on the main page and be done with it!

But to counter your argument, Iggy. How can the line improve if people aren't told the prevailing feeling over certain books?

Whilst I don't share ScS's feelings about Masque, I think it's a good book with poorly edited sections, it is probably for the best that he tells someone the shortcomings of the book.

Personally, I'd have said something positive about the book, then mentioned its negatives. But that isn't always possible, Champions of Darkness, for example, has no positive points, save it was probably printed on recycled paper.

[Quinn]

But to counter your argument, Iggy. How can the line improve if people aren't told the prevailing feeling over certain books?

Whilst I don't share ScS's feelings about Masque, I think it's a good book with poorly edited sections, it is probably for the best that he tells someone the shortcomings of the book.

Personally, I'd have said something positive about the book, then mentioned its negatives. But that isn't always possible, Champions of Darkness, for example, has no positive points, save it was probably printed on recycled paper.

I agree. As much as I enjoy MotRD, I can't say that I was entirely thrilled with the 3.5 version. And given that there are free rules available on the Living Death website, I'd say it'd do newcomers a disservice not to point them out the shortcomings of the actual book.

[Don Fernando]

I agree. As much as I enjoy MotRD, I can't say that I was entirely thrilled with the 3.5 version. And given that there are free rules available on the Living Death website, I'd say it'd do newcomers a disservice not to point them out the shortcomings of the actual book.

Exactly. Actually this book has caused a lot of controversy because it is a mediocre Book. Half of the buyers are not happy with it and the other half just uses it as it sees fit (ignoring the rules and using the background info for example).
Moreover, as Quinn said there are free rules on the internet (which are better done and free of any charge), which makesyou think twice (or even more) before buying the MotRD 3.5 book.

[Lady Ligeia]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Sadly, my current financial state doesn't allow me a $35+ luxury item I might not ever get to use.

However, that won't stop me. I still want to run a game like this, and I do own D20 Modern and D20 Past as well as the free resources here and elsewhere. If I get a chance to run my "Victorian X Files" game, I will just use that.

But I will keep posting here. Just becaue I will likely not be using the MotRD rules set, there is no reason I can't contribute to this forum and share ideas. The core concepts would be the same, so ideas would cross over very well. The D20 Modern "Shadow Chasers" campaign model features a very familiar idea ... a malignant demi-plane (called simply "Shadow") that touches the Earth from time to time and spills monsters and creatures of nightmares into the otherwise normal world. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Thanks again for the replies. If I get a chance, I will still probably pick up MotRD, but it's not on the horizon for me at the moment.

[Quinn]

Absolutely, Ligeia. Shadow Chasers is similar to MotRD to be almost identical. For me, it's the setting and the story that are the most important aspects of MotRD. The rules....well, for me it's whatever is the easiest, lightest toolset to work with. Before starting my campaign, I debated between using d20 Modern/d20 Past, d20 Call of Cthulhu, Living Death, Masque 3.5 or even the old 2nd edition rules!

I started leaning towards the Living Death rules (which I think have a few problems of their own), but then eventually settled on Masque 3.5 because one of my players also had the book, and I felt that I could resolve some of the issues in the 3.5 rules.

[ScS of the Fraternity]

However, that won't stop me. I still want to run a game like this, and I do own D20 Modern and D20 Past as well as the free resources here and elsewhere. If I get a chance to run my "Victorian X Files" game, I will just use that.

you just reminded me of something; it is actually quite a good idea to use D20 Modern to run a Masque game - all of the old Masque cabals are the property of Wotc. Many of them are actually described in the Menace Manual.

Also, if you wanted to practice you could always run a Masque game in the RPG forum down below.