Café de Nuit

DocBeard wrote:Well, I think it is a safe bet that they're not going to use stuff that might be owned by Arthaus. But otherwise we really don't know yet.

A safe bet maybe, but not certain. They did include references to the Tergs in Strahd's Open Grave history. To my knowledge, that word was invented in Arthaus's Gaz I.

Well, I'm pretty sure that one of the condition of using the IP by Arthaus was they didn't have exclusive property over what they did.

So I don't think there is legal obstacles. I think it's more the thrill of reimagining the classics that the developper know that will be the obstacle. I am not even sure if the developper consider the Arthaus run as part of the "continuity" or rather as a parenthensis over a line.

DocBeard wrote:Well, I think it is a safe bet that they're not going to use stuff that might be owned by Arthaus. But otherwise we really don't know yet.

Not a problem, as Arthaus was exploiting WotC's copyright under contract (license). For a period of time (2001-2005), White Wolf had a license to create and distribute Ravenloft settings books in 3rd edition, then in 3.5 ed.

They gave back all RL rights to WotC when the contract ended.

So yes, in theory, WotC could use Arthaus's work (or the Sheriff Potato )

So unless they change everything 'round in this new version of RL setting, it would be a good idea to use some of the post Domains of Dread ideas for continuity.

Joël

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:They did include references to the Tergs in Strahd's Open Grave history. To my knowledge, that word was invented in Arthaus's Gaz I.

Mmm... Wasn't the Terg term first introduced in the "I, Strahd" novel?
Anyway, I'm hoping for a version like the one described by Jester. Although I don't have anything against ArtHaus continuity (for the most part, I appreciate it, like most around here), a DoDread-like setting wouldn't have to rely that much on previous plot lines, while still being Ravenloft-y enough.
And the fact that it will be a "stand alone" game is really tempting.

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:I'll just start my grumbling now.
Sadly, though, it makes sense. "Reimaginings" are all the rage nowadays.

Still reserving judgement, and cautiously hopeful, just now even more worried than before...

This was sort of where my original thoughts came from. I recall listening to a podcast a couple months ago concerning the new Dark Sun books. The developers were reminiscing about how the setting was created and it was very cool, and then the first thing that happened was a world-changing event that made all of the original books obsolete. I think it was tied into a series of novels, "Prism Pentad," though my memory isn't what it used to be, and I have to confess that I never drank the Dark Sun Kool-Aid.

It just seems to me that folks who felt cheated by a world-changing event in one setting might find a kindred spirit among the developers of the next setting up...and so no more Grand Conjunction. Also, considering the outcry over the Grim Harvest, I can easily imagine that one being erased.

Simply removing those events, though, may not work as cleanly as I first thought, considering the dispute over Sithicus. This leaves me very curious how the situation will be handled...

I have to say that I'm more curious than interested. I'll be in the line the day they're released, of course, and there has to be something that I can use in my ongoing campaign, but the news isn't filling me with the same level of excitement I had when I learned that the Kargatane were writing 3E Ravenloft...

Dimitri Mazieres wrote:

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:They did include references to the Tergs in Strahd's Open Grave history. To my knowledge, that word was invented in Arthaus's Gaz I.

Mmm... Wasn't the Terg term first introduced in the "I, Strahd" novel?

It was in Domains of Dread.

Joël of the FoS wrote:

Dimitri Mazieres wrote:

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:They did include references to the Tergs in Strahd's Open Grave history. To my knowledge, that word was invented in Arthaus's Gaz I.

Mmm... Wasn't the Terg term first introduced in the "I, Strahd" novel?

It was in Domains of Dread.

Actually it goes all the way back to "Vampire of the Mists." I checked.

I won't be buying the new books. It's definitely good that WOTC are supporting the setting, and I hope it draws more people to the setting who might not otherwise play it.

But I'm no longer a d20 player and so the 4E aspects of the books are irrelevant to me. Moreover, any fluff changes they make to the setting will be discussed on these boards, so I can access them for free. This mixture of completely uninteresting crunch and legally free fluff means there is no incentive for me to buy the books at all.

Plus, I've noticed that I'm still using much of the 2E books I had for Ravenloft. When you've got that much mileage out of the fluff of older editions, there's really not much incentive to buy new.

Much like the Castle Ravenloft board game, my feeling of 4E Ravenloft is "An excellent draw for new players, but of limited relevance for established Ravenlofters who already make their own tweaks".

i.e. Tergs

Dion of the Fraternity wrote:

Joël of the FoS wrote: It was in Domains of Dread.

Actually it goes all the way back to "Vampire of the Mists." I checked.

Oh, so that's even earlier!

But which part of the book is it? I'm asking because I did a scan of a text version of VotM and didn't find it (in fact, did a scan of my whole RL folder and this book didn't pop out).

Joël

re: The Tergs.... I stand corrected.... Drat.

ETA: Ah... not the Tergs... was it the "Strahd XI" charade that was from the Gaz? Or did that show up somewhere in 2e too?

As far as I can recall, the 2E stance was always "Barovians strangely don't question Strahd's longevity and believe him to be human".

This would imply no charade of descendants.

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:was it the "Strahd XI" charade that was from the Gaz? Or did that show up somewhere in 2e too?

HuManBing wrote:As far as I can recall, the 2E stance was always "Barovians strangely don't question Strahd's longevity and believe him to be human".

This would imply no charade of descendants.

Yup. As I remember, the "Strahd XI" thing was an ArtHaus' inception.

Dimitri Mazieres wrote:Yup. As I remember, the "Strahd XI" thing was an ArtHaus' inception.

OK, so I was sort of right, unless someone digs up a reference to Strahd XI in 2e (Domains of Dread, maybe?), it seems that somebody over in WotC-land has read at least one of the Arthaus books, and liked the idea enough to keep it.

I don't know... I've never really trusted 4e, falling into the Pathfinder setting myself. I will, however, reserve judgement until it comes out and I've read some reviews...

HuManBing wrote:As far as I can recall, the 2E stance was always "Barovians strangely don't question Strahd's longevity and believe him to be human".

This would imply no charade of descendants.

Or they just think he's a quasi-immortal wizard.