VRG to the Mists

[alhoon]

- I'm playing a Forgotten Realms campaign!
- I appreciate the work the DDuo did, if it wasn't as good as the previous work. They didn't kill the setting, and they were not in a conspiracy to bring it down. They did what they could. I liked some of their work! The RMR idea was cool! I use it all the time.
- I like dungeon crawls! As a player and as a DM too.
- One of my players is a powergamer. We deal with him normally. We enjoy playing along with him. You know listening to someone actually making equations like "Two levels of that, then this feat, along with this item" is funny.

- All people I know in my games are enjoying themselves. As I do when I play in their games. So see? It is not that bad.

PS. I'm totally serious.

[DeepShadow of FoS]

Likewise, my participation has been limited for a lot of reasons, and the treatment Jester talks about is a big part of it. When I became a writer for MotJH, I was basically told that I shouldn't be here if I was going to defend my work. Likewise, the Duo were chased off the board, and then criticized for their "total lack of a web presence" by the very people who chased them off.

[Joël of the FoS]

Likewise, my participation has been limited for a lot of reasons, and the treatment Jester talks about is a big part of it. When I became a writer for MotJH, I was basically told that I shouldn't be here if I was going to defend my work.

I'm not a player of MotRD (until very recently), and not a DM of this setting, so I've followed the MotRD threads from a distance. So I do not know what you are refering to about MotJD. It's sad indeed, as every writer should get the chance to prove himself with his work, and not get stoned before it is published.

---

I've never felt before these boards as closed to new ideas*, and frankly I think they aren't. But still I'll keep an eye with this new lense from now on.

* unless a very poor idea that is undefendable (aka el Sheriff). As I wrote on this thread, I do not mind canon changing / evolving, but that was way off.

Joël

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I think this boils down to a difference in DMing and Writing.

Yes, a DM can vary wildly from canon, in his home campaign. But when published books start varying wildly from canon (like CoD and VRGttM) players have a right to criticise because it's their money (in the case of CoD) that they are spending and what they want is a continuous, living setting, not something that wildy varies from established products. Not, as one of the authors of CoD did, try and make your campaign canon.

You may love the new information in VRGttM, but at the end of the day, it DOES completely contradict canon in some parts, and as a book that was intended for publication, you have to argue whether you want something that has never been defined (for a reason) to be defined.

[Jester of the FoS]

(…) and what they want is a continuous, living setting, not something that wildy varies from established products. Not, as one of the authors of CoD did, try and make your campaign canon.

How can something be continuous and living if it doesn't do anything new?

And it's just speculation that the authors of CoD tried to bring in anything from their home games. We don't even know if they played D&D before, let alone had home games.

You may love the new information in VRGttM, but at the end of the day, it DOES completely contradict canon in some parts, and as a book that was intended for publication, you have to argue whether you want something that has never been defined (for a reason) to be defined.

How does it contradict canon?
(Other than Sal which, as pointed out, would have been corrected before the book saw print.)

All it does -at worst- is break away from the traditional tenants of the setting. But nothing is set in stone and sometimes things change! Things changed between 2nd Edition and 3rd, when the setting shifted from weeknds in hell and outlanders to natives and other tales. I can imagine the original authors wincing at some of the modern products.

I can understand people not liking what is a different approach to the world, but this is tearing apart a book to the same extent as CoD!

This is a very interesting thread, especially give how everyone loved VRGtMists when it was first released. There was some debate on whether or not power checks were failed but nary a negative word. And people raved about Oubliettes and the Fugued. Now they're jumping at the chance to sink teeth into it.

Personally I think the authors did the best they could. They were assigned the book and had to write it. Then an author dropped out and someone new had to come in.
This book could have very easily turned into a tome on Mist Horrors and Mist Ferrymen. Instead we get a book on powers that can be used to modify a variety of creatures -add spice to many a beast- and an explanation for Richten Haus (a domain without a lord that has been around for years!)

It’s not great, but it’s a testament to the writer’s that it’s as bearable as it is.

[Jasper]

Its biggest sin in my mind is that it took one of ravenlofts biggest mysteries and reduced it to stats and rules. The mists were akin to Planescapes Lady of Pain, a powerfull DMs tool but nothing for the PCs to ever fight or completely know.

Now the books itself does what it does well. Its creatures and ideas are decently thought out but it dosn't mesh with what has come before.

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

(…) and what they want is a continuous, living setting, not something that wildy varies from established products. Not, as one of the authors of CoD did, try and make your campaign canon.

How can something be continuous and living if it doesn't do anything new?

And it's just speculation that the authors of CoD tried to bring in anything from their home games. We don't even know if they played D&D before, let alone had home games.

I was told by one of the authors that Sheriff Von Zarovich and the Cold War scenario came directly from his home campaign.

[alhoon]

This is a very interesting thread, especially give how everyone loved VRGtMists when it was first released. There was some debate on whether or not power checks were failed but nary a negative word. And people raved about Oubliettes and the Fugued. Now they're jumping at the chance to sink teeth into it.

I still believe it is a very good book Jester. And I don't think everyone is jumping at the chance to sink teeth in. Someone said a bad opinion and that's all.

And about the mists:
1. I don't think the VRGttM clarifies what they are and if they are evil or not.
2. It just helps us be more creative.
3. I believe the Lady of Pain's stats should be written down, like the rest of the deities. I Don't believe Stats (or even a fixed number) for the DPowers should ever be published though.

[ChrisNichols]

As long as you hold to the idea that dungeon crawls are bad, long story-based campaigns are good, munchkins and powergamers are pure evil and that role-playing is the only true way to salvation then, maybe, no one will criticize you for your non-canon ideas and suggestions.

Nice straw man, Jester. No one said any of that.

Chris Nichols

[ChrisNichols]

I've never felt before these boards as closed to new ideas*, and frankly I think they aren't. But still I'll keep an eye with this new lense from now on.

Actually, I find quite the opposite - people are too interested in new ideas, personal campaigns, alternate universes, breaking rules and different-for-different's-sake. There's no core values agreed on, no design tenets adhered to, no real respect for RLAW (Ravenloft-As-Written).

Very supportive, very individualistic, very accepting. Not very discriminating, not very coherent, not very permanance-focused.

The un-critical acceptance of VRGttMists reflects this. Instead of thinking long-term, big-picture - does this mesh with past Ravenloft material, what does this mean at a design level, how will this affect future Ravenloft material, the response is just - can I do something cool with this now, in my game. Fine, if that's all you want (even if every major element had been done before and done better), but not helpful if you want a more sustainable setting over the long-run.

Chris Nichols

[ChrisNichols]

I think this boils down to a difference in DMing and Writing.

Yes, a DM can vary wildly from canon, in his home campaign. But when published books start varying wildly from canon (like CoD and VRGttM) players have a right to criticise because it's their money (in the case of CoD) that they are spending and what they want is a continuous, living setting, not something that wildy varies from established products. Not, as one of the authors of CoD did, try and make your campaign canon.

You may love the new information in VRGttM, but at the end of the day, it DOES completely contradict canon in some parts, and as a book that was intended for publication, you have to argue whether you want something that has never been defined (for a reason) to be defined.

Thank you, Drinnik. That's my point exactly.

Chris Nichols

PS: Sorry about the block of replies. I was down with the stomach flu for much of last week. Having to go to the hospital for re-hydration because of vomitting is not fun.

[Nathan of the FoS]

Very supportive, very individualistic, very accepting. Not very discriminating, not very coherent, not very permanance-focused.

Chris Nichols

Are you referring specifically to the message boards, or to the Fraternity site in general?

If the former, then coherence and permanence are neither possible nor really desirable. It's supposed to be an opportunity for RL DMs to throw their ideas into the mix; why limit it, even if we could?

If the latter, then please keep in mind that we (the Fraternity) are not in the position you (the Kargatane) once were, as official standard-bearers of the line. We work with the knowledge that everything we do could perfectly well disappear the next time that Ravenloft changes hands and takes on new management; we're therefore reluctant to set things in stone, or declare "the way we are developing this idea is the way it will be from now on". We don't have that authority, so our ability (and our incentive) to think long-term, big-picture is low.

[Jason of the Fraternity]

I believe the Lady of Pain's stats should be written down, like the rest of the deities. I don't believe Stats (or even a fixed number) for the DPowers should ever be published though.

Not to derail the major theme of this thread, but I am curious why exactly you feel this way, alhoon? I mean why would you want to give stats to the Lady of Pain but not the Dark Powers? While they are from different settings, they play very similar roles (none of which are specific deities). I am merely curious...

I was down with the stomach flu for much of last week. Having to go to the hospital for re-hydration because of vomitting is not fun.

Ugh! Having been both the recipient and provider for that type of therapy (during different occasions, mind you), you have my sincerest condolences, Chris. I hope that you are doing much better.

[Joël of the FoS]

By the way, in this thread we have people feeling they can't say what they want because they feel canon is all and the only thing, while you say the boards are too wilds, and not cohesive enough with canon. The thruth on this is perhaps somewhere in the middle, with a possible bias toward one end or the other depending on the poster and the thread?

---

I understand your point of view, Chris, but as Nathan wrote, this board, and the K boards before us (except the Ask Azalin board of course), is mainly a place to brainstorm, test ideas on each others and tailor them to our game.

I think many people here share the opinion that canon is surely a virtue, but in the end, a DM should do whatever he feels appropriate for his campaign (even moving Strahd to Colorado, as Brandi informed us ). I don't know for sure, but I think being too rigid isn't the way to bring new people to the mists.

Joël

[ChrisNichols]

How can something be continuous and living if it doesn't do anything new?

Given the number of domains that are still underdetailed, the material that never got updated between editions, the secret societies, artifacts, NPCs and other material hinted at in previous books, and meta-plot developments that had been set up, do you seriously think there was a lack of possible new material that could have and should have been addresed before VRGttMists?

Forgotten Realms is continous and living, and is always coming out with new stuff, but they don't hobble the setting every other book.

How does it contradict canon?
(Other than Sal which, as pointed out, would have been corrected before the book saw print.)

The garbled, impossible Mistways jump to mind.

All it does -at worst- is break away from the traditional tenants of the setting.

No, at best, it consciously breaks away from the traditional tenets (not tenants) of the setting - something I'd question in any case. At worst (or, in reality, rather), it ignores or never noticed these design concepts, damages the setting in the long-run, gets a number of things flatly wrong, provides nothing truly new, trampling previous work, and solidly defines setting elements that should remain mysterious.

I can understand people not liking what is a different approach to the world, but this is tearing apart a book to the same extent as CoD!

Good. The books are in the same league.

This is a very interesting thread, especially give how everyone loved VRGtMists when it was first released. There was some debate on whether or not power checks were failed but nary a negative word. And people raved about Oubliettes and the Fugued. Now they're jumping at the chance to sink teeth into it.

I agree that the initial reaction was overwhelmingly positive. I suspect that this was because, with the cancellation of the line, people were thrilled to eke out one last bit of Ravenloft material before the flow cut off. But, I read the PDF and was surprised no-one else saw any problems with it.

However, I think you overstate the amount of criticism in this thread. There's been just as much (if not more) continued support of VRGttMists as criticism.

Personally I think the authors did the best they could. They were assigned the book and had to write it. Then an author dropped out and someone new had to come in.
This book could have very easily turned into a tome on Mist Horrors and Mist Ferrymen. Instead we get a book on powers that can be used to modify a variety of creatures -add spice to many a beast- and an explanation for Richten Haus (a domain without a lord that has been around for years!)

It’s not great, but it’s a testament to the writer’s that it’s as bearable as it is.

Yes, it certainly does say something about the authors and editors involved that Van Richten's Guide to the Mists came out like it did. Just not something good.

Chris Nichols