Tobias Blackburn wrote:Champions of Darkness and Heroes of Light came in at the very beginning of the line. They were put together very quickly,
Out of curiosity, on what do you base this claim?
Tobias Blackburn wrote:And why did they add things to the Ravenloft Player's Handbook... Recieving the 3.5 rules months before they were contractually obligated to put out the updated books? Because no one was going to purchase a book with less than five pages of text that needed to be changed, especially if (as you suggested) they could get a free web enchancement that could have done the same thing? If you think that's a viable option for a company to try and stay solvent, perhaps they are right about the Gazetters.
Were that the alternative option at the time, you'd have a point. In reality, however, what the developers had to deal with was the authors of the original R3E literally
begging to be given the opportunity to update the book
properly. Offers which were consistently and repeatedly refused until it was far, far too late to do any good.
In Kargatane hands, the RL PHB would have been rather significantly more than the R3E with a few rules of incoherent rules tacked on -- which were, indeed, tacked on just to get the same people who'd already shelled out for the R3E to buy the same book again.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Now, let's look at the other books. Champions of Darkness came out over two years ago. Which book since then is that bad.
Are we counting things like
Denizens of Dread not containing a
single monster with correct 3.5 stats? And I do mean not
one. I've finally started going through DenDread line-by-line, and to that comment I can add with no qualifications: The developers have no idea how to create a monster template. Go on through the book and look at all the new sample monsters for template critters (those added since
Denizens of Darkness). Note that, as far as I can tell, for the most part these sample monsters
do not appear to have even been created using the applicable templates. The ancient dead entries (which don't actually use the base creatures they claim to) are perhaps the most blatant example, but they are far from unique.
(For that matter, let's take a look at one of the new templates N&J wrote themselves -- the mist horror. First, note that their version of the mist horror has, as presented, lost the ability to assume the shapes of monsters drawn from victim's deepest fears -- which was their big schtick in 2E. Why the change? The creature is now basically a shoddily constructed ghost.
The sample mist horror is listed as having "Balance" as a feat. Huh?
Type: Is a mist horror incorporeal? The sample horror says yes, the template says
nada. Does it have the mists subtype? Ditto.
Attacks: Mist horros gain natural weapons. Um, great.
What natural weapons? The template is completely mum.
Immunities: Mist horrors are immune to spells that normally "effect" [sic] undead. Great. Like
magic missile, you mean? Yes, it's possible to tell what they mean. But what they
mean isn't what the template
says. That difference is
important in technical writing.
Skills: Ah, maybe the mist horror
isn't incorporeal, because it gets a bonus on Move Silently, when incorporeal creatures actually
always move silently.
And those are just the obvious mistakes in one monster. And that monster is par for the course, not the exception.
Also keep in mind that, like the RL PHB, DenDread was a situation where the developers had part of their design team literally
begging to help update and improve this book, and again blew them off completely, settling on this slack effort instead.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Now, remember that Heroes of Light was written and developed at the same time, so it can't really count. They realized that the fans didn't want books like that and haven't done anything like that since.
You're reading quite a bit into the situation. There hasn't been a
Van Richten's Arsenal II either, and that was one of the critically best-received books.
As a note, I would place
Legacies of Blood in the same order of accessory as
Champions of Darkness and
Heroes of Light -- books of primarily player options, which are also used to flesh out the setting by adding NPCs and adventure hooks.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Yes, the optional rules in the Ravenloft Player's Handbook weren't the best, but they didn't have that much time to work on them.
Again, on what do you base this claim?
Tobias Blackburn wrote:As I recall, John Mangrum said that he agree with the way Van Richten's Arsenal was put together.
I assume there's a missing "didn't" here. Either way, you're incorrect. I was about 90% happy with the end result of VRA, which is nearly as good as it gets for me. What I said was that I thought VRA was a bad concept when it was first proposed, and was glad to later help prove myself wrong.
Also, as a reminder, since most of your post seems to be based on vague memories and wishful thinking -- VRA was put on the schedule and assigned to authors by N&J's predecessor, "Kelly Jester." The sum total N&J's contributions to VRA was to trim the text down for space.
VRA is also, to clarify an error made in a different post, where
I introduced the concept of Dread Possibilities -- and trust me, it was no stroke of genius. The reason I did it was simply this: I knew there were former Kargat at WotC who didn't like the idea of making Gennifer Weathermay-Foxgrove a werewolf. Thus was created the only-true-if-you-want "dread possibility" -- a way to hedge my bets.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Doesn't that imply the DarkDuo designing one of the communities favorite books?
It would, if you were correct.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Wouldn't it have been their decision to put out Van Richten's Guide to the Walking Dead?
I've said this before, but: Proposed by the Kargatane (and hinted at in VRA, a book already in the works when N&J came in the line) and half written by the Kargatane. And the half that wasn't written by the Kargatane used the wrong format. And despite that this mistake was caught during the design process, requests to fix it were shot down... by the developers.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:Well the Developers aren't part of the editing staff.
Which is an interesting concept, because their predecessor, "Kelly Jester," absolutely
was part of the editing staff. He would send us back redlines of our first drafts, which we would then revise. If Arthaus developers don't edit text in 3E Ravenloft books, then make no bones about it: that policy started on the day N&J took control of the line.
Tobias Blackburn wrote:If you even thought about it for two seconds, you'd realize that the Kargatane, or Mr. Miller, or any of the other authors would not get the setting, it would go to someone else who probably knows even less.
And you base this on...?
Tobias Blackburn wrote:As I said above, I'd like to see your proof. I haven't seen you back up any statements with anything but wild speculation, but you must have hard evidence to back up your claims.
While I think Drinnik was over the line, be aware that your claims stray as deep into la-la-land as his.