Café de Nuit

Mr Miller, I don't like the book you're working on right now.
No, not this one. The other one! Yes, that one brewing deep in your mind as you work on something else. It will be a bad book.

Now seriously: While I respect you and I like your work very much, I have to say that I don't like the ToUD. In "I don't like" I don't mean "I dislike or hate", I just mean that a vague prophesy of doom doesn't sound much appealing to me. It doesn't bother me and it doesn't intrigue me.

FWIW, I kind of agree with alhoon about the ToUD. World-shattering prophecies can be useful DM tools, but building yet another metaplot around one seems redundant -- didn't the GC give us enough of that, for the present century at least? -- and setting a specific date was, IMHO, a mistake. I'd be more prone to use the idea of an (ambiguous) end-of-the-world prophecy as a trigger for mortal-concocted scenarios, such as confronting an apocalyptic cult that's trying to kick off the devastation(a la some IRL cults' extreme responses to the Book of Revelation), than as an actual save-the-world campaign arc. :-/

Alhoon & Rophitir,

Your problems are easily solved... the whole concept can be ignored. I didn't create any metaplots that were published around the the GC OR the ToUD concept.

Both are elements that can be used or ignored as GMs see fit. Just because the toy in the room doesn't mean you have to play with it.

If I ever run a campaign in Darkon, Il Aluk will be intact. If I ever run a campaign in Sithicus again, Soth will still be the darklord. If the Weathermay Twins appear, any hardships they suffer will be related to the PCs adventures. Why? Because I ignore ideas I find stupid, lame, denying the PCs the opportunity to be heroic or horrofied, or uninteresting.

When I'm running my game, I'm smarter than any other writer out there. And when you're running your games, YOU'RE smarter than any other writer out there.

Steve Miller wrote:Alhoon & Rophitir,

Your problems are easily solved... the whole concept can be ignored. I didn't create any metaplots that were published around the the GC OR the ToUD concept.

Both are elements that can be used or ignored as GMs see fit. Just because the toy in the room doesn't mean you have to play with it.

If I ever run a campaign in Darkon, Il Aluk will be intact. If I ever run a campaign in Sithicus again, Soth will still be the darklord. If the Weathermay Twins appear, any hardships they suffer will be related to the PCs adventures. Why? Because I ignore ideas I find stupid, lame, denying the PCs the opportunity to be heroic or horrofied, or uninteresting.

When I'm running my game, I'm smarter than any other writer out there. And when you're running your games, YOU'RE smarter than any other writer out there.

Exactly...

I was going to follow up on that, but there's little to say.

That's just how I feel. (Though I understand that we somtimes like to bemoan that the official canon material is not OUR material... )

Steve Miller wrote:Alhoon & Rophitir,

Your problems are easily solved... the whole concept can be ignored. I didn't create any metaplots that were published around the the GC OR the ToUD concept.

Both are elements that can be used or ignored as GMs see fit. Just because the toy in the room doesn't mean you have to play with it.

If I ever run a campaign in Darkon, Il Aluk will be intact. If I ever run a campaign in Sithicus again, Soth will still be the darklord. If the Weathermay Twins appear, any hardships they suffer will be related to the PCs adventures. Why? Because I ignore ideas I find stupid, lame, denying the PCs the opportunity to be heroic or horrofied, or uninteresting.

When I'm running my game, I'm smarter than any other writer out there. And when you're running your games, YOU'RE smarter than any other writer out there.

I respectfuly agree and disagree Mr. Miller.

I agree that, we DM's, are in complete control of our campaign world, and we can take whatever material we see fit for our campaign, ignoring other stuff. It's what makes our role playing experience so special.
However when some element is introduced in the "cannon plot", in my personal oppinion, it has to be developed (to a certain extent) so we can get the most of it when we want to use it.

It's true that the TouD is there and I can use it or not, but what happens if I use it? Is there enough information for me to use it correctly? No. All I am doing is using the name of the event, and the rest is up to me. In this case, I shouldn't even use the TouD as the name of the event and go and create my own plot. This is simpler, involves the same ammount of work and most probably I will save some money.

I strongly believe that every Ravenloft fan needs and deserves good-developed "cannon" information. There should be some things that are true to everyone. Take a look at the Grand Conjunction for instance, is very well detailed, is there to use it, and I am sure that almost every RL DM, has included or is planning to include it in his/her campaign. If we do not have these kind of "cannon events" detailed, then all we are doing is creating another setting, and this we can do very well, without the help of books or supplements which by the way may contain information we find of poor quality, lame, etc.

If you need to wait for someone to tell you how to run your campaign, then I imagine that very little of what I've worked on over the years has met your needs.

I don't think I've written ANYTHING that didn't have some adventure- and even campaign-nuggets tossed in that weren't spelled out in great detail. I consider that sort of stuff makes the difference between something that's worth buying and something that's not.

When I buy game products, I want something that I can build on. That's why I loved the old D&D X and C modules, and some of the DL adventures, from the 80s; plenty of adventure material to use on the spot, and even more half-developed ideas and situations that I could develope.

Did TSR do something with some of them later? Yeah, and it was very different than what I did. But I still didn't use anything incorrectly, because there's no such thing, and "canon" doesn't mean squat unless you're being paid to write books for a line.

Basically, I wrote products like the ones I thought I got MY money's worth out of when I was buying stuff.

Usually, I apologize when someone hasn't felt they've gotten value out of products I've worked on, but as far as ToUD goes, no apology is forthcoming. I think your claim that Ravenloft fans didn't get the canon material they deserved in products I worked on is inaccurate. (The ToUD was, and is, a throwaway element.)

And the Grand Conjunction pissed me off as a Ravenloft DM. Who the hell are TSR to change the map of my game world because of a series of loosely linked adventures?

Steve Miller wrote:Alhoon & Rophitir,

Your problems are easily solved...

Problems? I don't have problems with the ToUD mr Miller. I just said my opinion about it. I don't use it as you suggested.
I have changed canon heavily IMC.

PS. Also I agree with Soth and the twins, although I don't use darklords in my adventures. I also know that you said this as an example of how twinking Canon can work, but I wanted to say my opinion in these matters too.

alhoon wrote:

Steve Miller wrote:Alhoon & Rophitir,

Your problems are easily solved...

Problems? I don't have problems with the ToUD mr Miller. I just said my opinion about it. I don't use it as you suggested.
I have changed canon heavily IMC.

PS. Also I agree with Soth and the twins, although I don't use darklords in my adventures. I also know that you said this as an example of how twinking Canon can work, but I wanted to say my opinion in these matters too.

I overstated when I used the word "problem." I was trying to use it in the sense of "issue" or "situation."

You don't use ANY darklords in your adventures? Ivana Boritsi and Louise Renier (okay, not quite a darklord that last one) were both highly useful bit players in a campaign I ran. (Only my Sithicus campaign had the darklord as a major character.)

I may drop a letter from Azalin in their door asking a favor (aka an order), hints that Jaquile Renier is coming to town, that the counsil of Dementlieu is concerned about the problem (aka the adventure) so an advisor named Dominic may visit etc.
That way the Darklord may sometime be pictured in the background of the adventure or have a minor role (and I do this rarely). Still, it works to motivate the PCs.

I recently have only used Tristessa to mess with my players in any real way. I used her as Deux e machina (or how it is written).
To make a long story short: The PCs have been trapped in Mount Lament and Toben was hunting/haunting them. He had provided the baby for them (and they didn't know). However the baby died in Tristessa's hands turning to a Toben Zombie. Tristessa gets really angry and comes to the PCs aid ripping appart an army of Toben Zombies as they were closing in the PCs.
It seems lame but the full story was better. Also it worked (i.e. We had fun and that's what the game is about ).

PS. A reason it worked is that I very rarely use God from a machine types of rescue.

Steve Miller wrote:If you need to wait for someone to tell you how to run your campaign, then I imagine that very little of what I've worked on over the years has met your needs.

I don't think I've written ANYTHING that didn't have some adventure- and even campaign-nuggets tossed in that weren't spelled out in great detail. I consider that sort of stuff makes the difference between something that's worth buying and something that's not.

When I buy game products, I want something that I can build on. That's why I loved the old D&D X and C modules, and some of the DL adventures, from the 80s; plenty of adventure material to use on the spot, and even more half-developed ideas and situations that I could develope.

Did TSR do something with some of them later? Yeah, and it was very different than what I did. But I still didn't use anything incorrectly, because there's no such thing, and "canon" doesn't mean squat unless you're being paid to write books for a line.

Basically, I wrote products like the ones I thought I got MY money's worth out of when I was buying stuff.

Usually, I apologize when someone hasn't felt they've gotten value out of products I've worked on, but as far as ToUD goes, no apology is forthcoming. I think your claim that Ravenloft fans didn't get the canon material they deserved in products I worked on is inaccurate. (The ToUD was, and is, a throwaway element.)

And the Grand Conjunction pissed me off as a Ravenloft DM. Who the hell are TSR to change the map of my game world because of a series of loosely linked adventures?

In my oppinion, it's not a matter of someone telling me how to run my campaign, but it's a matter on what direction is going, generally speaking. If there is not a general direction (I would use cannon also) then what's the point of buying all those books?
It's a matter of oppinion really but, I consider to buy a book when I like what it can add to my game world. But this gameworld is Ravenloft and as such is bound to some things that are true to everyone. So basically we are beeing told by someone how to run our campaigns, Ravenloft campaigns in this case.

I will agree with you that, throwing "campaign-nuggets" into products is a great idea. I use them every chance I have. But we cannot call the ToUD a nugget, simply because now in third edition, it gained more relevance, with major plots and characters aiming to that story arc. So, it's true that this campaign hooks are welcomed and don't need too much detail. But when the thing gets more important then it has to be detailed.

It's not only me who's asking information or even ideas for this, everyone is curious about it and are trying to find the "real" story behind it.

I would like also to mention that I NEVER claimed your products are incomplete or that I never got my money worth when buying them. This topic is about the ToUD and not about some products, it's authors, and how good this products are. On a personal note, I greatly enjoyed all products you wrote for Ravenloft.

Respectfuly
Fernando

But we cannot call the ToUD a nugget, simply because now in third edition, it gained more relevance, with major plots and characters aiming to that story arc.

There are? I've missed something, I guess.

If that's where the GAZ series was headed, then whatever I might or might not have had in mind is completely irrelevant. I'm off any hook completely and totally...because the pitch I worked up for the revised direction had nothing whatsoever to do with the ToUD.

It could probably have been bent in that direction, but it wasn't "Ooooh! Let's shove another campaignworld-altering storyline down the gamers' throats... through accessories even!"

It's my understanding, from John Mangrum's posts in the Gazetteer Metaplot thread, that his idea of the ToUD was a series of unrelated (or at best loosely-related) events that occur close together and make the world a darker place, and that Azalin's plan in the Gazetteers was only *one* of the several events that would lead to the ToUD.

Bluebomber4evr wrote:It's my understanding, from John Mangrum's posts in the Gazetteer Metaplot thread, that his idea of the ToUD was a series of unrelated (or at best loosely-related) events that occur close together and make the world a darker place, and that Azalin's plan in the Gazetteers was only *one* of the several events that would lead to the ToUD.

And the fact of the matter is: Azalin's ALWAYS got a plan, so it's not like his having one is that noteworthy of an event.

I think you're correct in your assessement though. I think, at best the TouD was just a series of domino-like, largely unconnected events just falling over all at once. So, in the end, it looks like there might be some grant purpose to the whole thing, but I think, if anything, the chaos would come first, and then you'd have smart and canny people taking advantage of that chaos.

up