RAVENLOFT IS BACK.

Discussing all things Ravenloft
Post Reply
User avatar
HuManBing
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 3748
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:13 am
Contact:

Post by HuManBing »

Joël of the FoS wrote:Yes, that means at WotC too. Let's not presume what they have in mind, as we are not there :)
This is curious. Wizards is a corporate entity and they put out a product, the critique and discussion of which provides the founding reason for this very site.

Wizards is not an individual registered user at these forums. Granted, I'm not an insider to their decisionmaking but then again, neither are the people here speaking in its defense. Does one side get to make their points simply because they support Wizards?

Finally, isn't the Fraternity intentionally separate and independent from Wizards? I can understand the reticence about allowing negative views being expressed on a board that Wizards itself pays for, but Fraternity is supposed to be unaffiliated.

I understand if my message is unwelcome on purely personal grounds. I don't pretend to any First Amendment right to using these boards (which, after all, are a service provided by a private group of people and they can make the rules they want). As I said, if the Fraternity decides not to extend me the privilege of posting, then I respect their decision. But there seems to be a certain degree of vagueness here.
User avatar
Nathan of the FoS
Fiendish Enforcer
Fiendish Enforcer
Posts: 5246
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: San Francisco CA

Post by Nathan of the FoS »

Joël of the FoS wrote:Yes, that means at WotC too. Let's not presume what they have in mind, as we are not there :)
I think there are two pertinent meanings here:

First, let's not get in a lather about hating "4e Ravenloft" until we get the actual Dragon article in front of us.

Second, let's not presume that WotC's motives are purely mercenary; we don't know the people involved, and presumably at least some of them are motivated by the desire to produce a quality RPG. (Definitions of "quality RPG" may vary quite a bit, of course.)

What we want to avoid are serial slanging matches over whether or not 4e is D&D, whether WotC is the Great Gaming Satan, etc. etc. Some of this community will certainly move on to 4e, others won't, and neither is "the right decision".
[b]FEAR JUSTICE.[/b] :elena:
User avatar
Lord Soth
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: Nedragaard Keep, Sithicus

Post by Lord Soth »

First, let's not get in a lather about hating "4e Ravenloft" until we get the actual Dragon article in front of us.


Heh, good advice. Sorry.

Serenity now, serenity now. :)
Man lives in the sunlit world
Of what he believes to be reality.
But, there is, unseen by most, an underworld,
A place that is just as real,
But not as brightly lit.....
A DARKSIDE.
User avatar
Pamela
Sorority Shadow
Sorority Shadow
Posts: 931
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 3:48 am
Location: Have gun, will travel
Contact:

Post by Pamela »

Thank you, Nathan.
His only real danger is if stupidity is contagious and lethal. In which case, we’re all dead…-Gertrude
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

Not stomping on others' feelings is a big reason we discourage disparaging remarks on the boards, but it's not the only one. We don't want to see the forums degenerate into unending arguments or bash-fests, which tends to happen on websites where insults are thrown freely. It doesn't take much to provoke a flaming-frenzy on the Internet, once tempers are stirred, and we want to avoid that.

It's not that you can't offer criticism: if you dislike something, you're more than welcome to explain what you dislike and why! But please, let's keep it civil ... and that means all of us.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
Creepy Old Woman
Conspirator
Conspirator
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:24 am

Post by Creepy Old Woman »

They changed much, but the past was still the past and everything that did happen still happened, just additional things occurred very long ago and recently.

:shock:

Just to give a few examples of massive retcons in FR - they changed the fact that the elves' triple goddesses have been Sune, Akadi, and Selune all along, which is a massive retcon considering the fact that these goddesses as well as the original elven goddesses have their separate avatars during the Avatar Crisis. Then there is Talos having always been Gruumsh in 4ed.

There are big retcon changes in FR. I'm not saying that they are bad changes - I think some of those changes make the FR interesting - it's just that there are retcons, big ones, and I can see why purists are mad. The same way things are happening to Ravenloft.
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

Folks, I've listened to the podcast now, and I can certainly see why some people got worked up about it. OTOH, I don't think we need to panic, or regard it as a betrayal, or anything of that sort ... yes, even if they do take Ravenloft to pieces to stock these Shadowfell IoTs.

Looting ideas from other sources is a tradition in gaming, and this time it may simply be Ravenloft's turn to get looted from. Greyhawk spells got looted to stock the 1E PHB's spell lists. Monsters once unique to Mystara or the Realms turned up in the 3E MM as core. Dragonlance looted the two toughest MM dragons and turned them into gods. Hell, most of the D&D game was looted from IRL mythology and/or old fantasy fiction, in the first place! Yes, it'll hurt to see aspects of our beloved Land of Mists recycled in this way, but let's not lose perspective here: after all, Ravenloft was quite literally built out of looted bits of other D&D settings. We can dish it out, so we certainly ought to be able to take it.

WotC's design-philosophy pendulum has swung in a direction we don't all care for, and they may well wind up producing something that appears 100% incompatible with the Ravenloft we know. Big deal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't even hear the word "Ravenloft" mentioned in the podcast! What I heard was that the 4E Shadowfell will be copying a trick from the Dark Powers' repertoire, and giving the local BBEGs a few traits and OOC titles analogous to those of Ravenloft darklords. That, if considered separately from our own worries, sounds to me more like they're looting a clever (Ravenloft-based) idea to spice up a new game-setting, rather than dismantling the original one.

Is it necessarily insulting to us, or detrimental to the Land of Mists, that they'd think darklords are too cool of a concept to limit their use to just one world? Shouldn't we wait and see whether a spooky region of 4E is becoming more Ravenloft-like, rather than Ravenloft growing more like 4E? Like Nathan said, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about what the article will be like.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
User avatar
Joël of the FoS
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6665
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:24 pm
Gender: Male
Location: St-Damien, Québec

Post by Joël of the FoS »

Nathan of the FoS wrote:
Joël of the FoS wrote:Yes, that means at WotC too. Let's not presume what they have in mind, as we are not there :)
I think there are two pertinent meanings here:

First, let's not get in a lather about hating "4e Ravenloft" until we get the actual Dragon article in front of us.

Second, let's not presume that WotC's motives are purely mercenary; we don't know the people involved, and presumably at least some of them are motivated by the desire to produce a quality RPG. (Definitions of "quality RPG" may vary quite a bit, of course.)

What we want to avoid are serial slanging matches over whether or not 4e is D&D, whether WotC is the Great Gaming Satan, etc. etc. Some of this community will certainly move on to 4e, others won't, and neither is "the right decision".
Nathan wrote it better then me, thank you, this is what I meant. Also, as Roti said, critics of the product output is OK, and encouraged. That is one of the founding point of this board, to be able to procure ideas and criticize them.

But WotC bashing isn't, even if I sometimes share some of your point of view and I think they deserve it once in a while. I did often criticize some of their decisions.

But I do not think the "evil money machine" point of view will get us somewhere :) So let's get over this (mostly because it's useless IMHO) and stick to the product criticism, not the warehouse criticism, as we are not inside it so it's only hypothesis anyway :)

Joël
"A full set of (game) rules is so massively complicated that the only time they were all bound together in a single volume, they underwent gravitational collapse and became a black hole" (Adams)
User avatar
HuManBing
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 3748
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:13 am
Contact:

Post by HuManBing »

Nathan of the FoS wrote:
Joël of the FoS wrote:Yes, that means at WotC too. Let's not presume what they have in mind, as we are not there :)
I think there are two pertinent meanings here:

First, let's not get in a lather about hating "4e Ravenloft" until we get the actual Dragon article in front of us.

Second, let's not presume that WotC's motives are purely mercenary; we don't know the people involved, and presumably at least some of them are motivated by the desire to produce a quality RPG. (Definitions of "quality RPG" may vary quite a bit, of course.)

What we want to avoid are serial slanging matches over whether or not 4e is D&D, whether WotC is the Great Gaming Satan, etc. etc. Some of this community will certainly move on to 4e, others won't, and neither is "the right decision".
Well put. I'll observe these, and I'll more judiciously keep my dimmer opinions about WotC's inner workings to myself.

This reminds me of a Peanuts strip. Lucy van Pelt says "I'm entitled to my opinion... and YOU'RE entitled to my opinion!"

I'll keep it close to my mind that the first part of Lucy's statement does not automatically lead to the second part.

(As a clarification, I'll state here that I didn't mean any insult to members of this board, either because they like 4E, or because they like FR or Eberron. My main beef was with people who genuinely don't think critically about what they buy, and I'm fully willing to include myself as the leader of that demographic, when I was buying up 3E stuff left right and center a year ago... shortly before the 4E announcement suddenly put things more into perspective. Internally, this was as much an invective against my own evident dumbassery as anything else, but I didn't make that clear and there was no way a reader could have known that.)
User avatar
Isabella
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 1859
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 12:54 am

Post by Isabella »

I actually ran a "Ravenloft" game like this once. The players bounced between the "real world" and it's shadow twin, running adventures that seemed unrelated on the surface but often connected in surprising ways. (For example, the evil priestess a PC met in the shadow world turned out to look just like the head of his order in the real world. She was a perfectly nice, person, he just got a little weirded out whenever he saw her, especially whenever she had neck trouble; he'd chopped off her head in the shadow world).

Anyway, the game dissolved, so I guess it was a bad idea.

I think the complaints about the "Weekend in Hell" are a good point. I think it can work, if only if the players know they're going there, kind of like the FR adventures when you journey to the Plane of Shadows. I'm not saying that it won't be abused or that WotC won't encourage the Weekend in Hell, but I think it could be run well and unobtrusively; as in "you are approaching the area that you have been told leads to somewhere very dark, strange, and dangerous, and people who go there sometimes never come back" as opposed to "the mists grab you and plop you down somewhere. Have fun!"
"No, but evil is still being — Is having reason — Being reasonable! Mousie understands? Is always being reason. Is punishing world for not being... Like in head. Is always reason. World should be different, is reason."
User avatar
Lord Soth
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: Nedragaard Keep, Sithicus

Post by Lord Soth »

Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Like Nathan said, we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions about what the article will be like.


Good points all around, Rotipher. Thank you for helping sooth the raging nerdbeast beating within my breast. :) I remember reading a hilarious quote a while back, and it's something I usually try to live by.
ONLINE FANDOM RULE #1: Assume whatever it would take to drive you into a blind rage.


Or rather, it's a trap that I try not to fall into. ;) But sadly, NERDRAGE got the best of me in this case. :D But yeah, best not to take what little information is known, and then fill in the blanks with the absolute worst possible assumptions.

I wonder how the novels fit into all of this, though? At least two were cancelled, so I'm wondering what the reasons were? Apparently both were completed, or nearly, so I suspect the reason might be because they decided to go in a different direction with Ravenloft. Heaven's Bones was published, so one can assume that it represents the direction that they decided to go with Ravenloft. So my question to those who read the novel is, how different does Ravenloft, as portrayed in the novel, seem to what we all know?

For instance, we know that Riverbend is new. But I heard that there was a sidetrek to Kartakass. Can anyone offer up a more detailed description of how Kartakass plays into things (with spoiler tags, of course)? Thanks.
Man lives in the sunlit world
Of what he believes to be reality.
But, there is, unseen by most, an underworld,
A place that is just as real,
But not as brightly lit.....
A DARKSIDE.
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

*(not much of a) spoiler*


It's not so much a side trek as a flashback. The novel is non-linear, and has bits of past events -- some in Gothic Earth, some in Riverbend, some in Kartakass -- interwoven throughout. One character starts out in the latter.

Kartakass, itself, isn't at all essential to the plot, although Harkon Lukas' name did rate a mention. The same events could've easily taken place in some other domain, without changing the storyline.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
User avatar
alhoon
Invisible Menace
Invisible Menace
Posts: 8853
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
Location: Chania or Athens // Greece

Post by alhoon »

So... Ravenloft will be in Shadowfell? As long as there are mists around and the evil pixies aren't the predominant race I'll wait to see it before condemning it.
I'm not opportunistic though.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
User avatar
Rotipher of the FoS
Thieving Crow
Thieving Crow
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:18 pm

Post by Rotipher of the FoS »

Hmmmm.... I've been thinking about this, and how we might minimize the continuity-problems if they do recycle Ravenloft's domains as Shadowfell "domains of dread". Certainly we don't want the game-setting shattered permanently, but OTOH, it'd be prudent to accomodate future gamers who might discover they like spooky adventures, based on a successful 4E Weekend-In-Hell scenario.

Granted, I don't know much about the Shadowfell. I have yet to buy any 4E materials, and haven't even kept up on the online information since the Big Three 4E books hit the shelves. (I'm not rejecting it out-of-hand or for lack of funds; I just don't want to have to edit 3.5-based material for the sea monster book, and learn the 4E rules at the same time.) So it's possible that this idea is incompatible with the 4E end of things.

But, looking at the problem -- the unpleasant possibility that they'll be presenting each of the old domains as an isolated, dark enclave within the Shadowfell, good for a one-shot escape scenario -- it occurs to me that the canon Ravenloft products already describe a pivitol event that could, with a little tweaking, reconcile that exact situation with our own version of Ravenloft's history and metaphysics.

No, I'm not talking about the Time of Unparalleled Darkness. I mean the Grand Conjunction.

Looking back at the final GC module -- the one in which the Land of Mists was temporarily disrupted -- we can see what happens to several of the darklords: they slip out of Ravenloft to Prime Material Barovia, appear on a few wandering-monster tables, then are drawn back into their old prisons when the Conjunction fails. But what was actually happening to their domains, while they were gone? Survivors of the Upheaval tell of seismic activity, realms vanishing or moving, and the Mists spreading over whole regions. That's what it was like in-character, but what was the OOC effect of a domain's darklord taking a powder?

What if the Grand Conjunction actually expelled the domains whose lords had departed entirely from the Land, and those chunks of orphaned terrain punched through the boundaries between the 2E/3E and 4E cosmologies? (We know that the Mists can cross between cosmos as well as planes, because they stole Odaire from Gothic Earth and Meredoth from Mystara, neither of which necessarily conform to the Great Wheel.) As the 4E version of reality doesn't include an Ethereal Plane, these dispersed pieces of land would've settled in the Shadowfell, as the Ether's nearest 4E counterpart. Distracted by the Upheaval's chaos, few residents of the domains would have had a clue what was happening, let alone where they'd gone. To the creatures of the Shadowfell, the domains would have come and then gone again -- sucked back into Ravenloft as soon as their darklords were recaptured -- too quickly for the natives to infiltrate these new realms.

Ah, but what are the odds that WotC's versions would leave out the lords of these recycled "domains of dread"? Of course, they wouldn't pass up the chance to re-use such interesting villains, if they're re-using the lands they reign over ... but who says those 4E darklords have to be the real ones? As I understand it, the Shadowfell is a place filled with the dark reflections of the material world's realms -- their terrain, their cities, their landmarks -- which embody everything ominous and creepy about the features they correspond to. It's a bit like how ethereal resonance works in 3.5 Ravenloft, when you think about it.

And in the case of a Ravenloft domain, the land is, itself, a reflection of the darkness within its lord. So what do you get if a reflection casts a reflection...? If the Shadowfell spontaneously births an embodiment of everything that's darkest within the newly-arrived domain?

You get a pseudo-lord. Not the same being as the original darklord, but a duplicate with a roughly-similar demeanor and history, that can take over as lord of the Shadowfell-trapped domain until it's drawn back by the Grand Conjunction's failure. Their powers might be a little different, their backstories simpler and their villainy more one-dimensional, just as sites' reflections within the Shadowfell aren't perfect copies of the originals. They might, in fact, turn out a lot like, oh, say ... a brief online Dragon article's simplified and 4E-converted versions of our own beloved BBEGs. :wink:

So when the Conjunction hit, and some of the darklords fled, the domains they'd abandoned were scattered through the Shadowfell of the cosmos next door, where pseudolords sprang into being. They linger there, scattered in space and perhaps even in time, for as long as it takes the Conjunction to short-circuit and the DPs to track them down. Long enough, in fact, for a lot of one-off adventures to take place, as 4E PCs stumble upon them! The resident "lords" aren't genuine, so can be slain by 4E heroes with no lasting consequences for the Ravenloft setting; indeed, the death of a pseudolord might well be the very thing that attracts the Dark Powers' attention to their misplaced hunk of real estate. "Kill the lord, the realm disappears", right? The very cliche that haunted the old WiH era can be the thing that keeps our own Land of Mists intact, under this interpretation.

Of course, there'd have been hitches in the post-Conjunction repair process. Gwydion's attempt to bust loose interfered with reassembly of overlying regions, so Markovia and G'Henna couldn't be put back in the same spots. Nathan Timothy wasn't recaptured until after Arkandale, and by the time he was found, his domain had already passed into his son's hands. The domain of Zherisia plunked down in a part of the Shadowfell so hostile and aggressive, its countryside had already been invaded by the time the Conjunction ended; rather than import a horde of Shadowfell trespassers to their pet demiplane, the DPs retrieved the city of Paridon and left the rest of Sodo's realm behind.

In the aftermath of the Upheaval, the recaptured darklords questioned their minions about events in their absence, only to be told that their underlings didn't recall their masters having gone away. In the weeks to follow, the DPs judiciously edited peoples' recollections of the Upheaval, to ensure their great experiment (or whatever) wouldn't be contaminated by memories of their lands' brief sojourns in the Shadowfell ... or of the arrival of troublemaking outlanders with flashy 4E abilities. :wink:


Sound workable? Again, I don't know how well it'll fly, in light of my own ignorance about the Shadowfell and the 4E system ... and it might never be necessary, if 4E's "domains of dread" aren't a recycling/looting of classic Ravenloft domains. But hopefully it'll get more people dreaming up ways to reconcile the upcoming article-series with our setting, rather than freaking out about the damage it might do.
"Who [u]cares[/u] what the Dark Powers are? They're [i]bastards![/i] That's all I need to know of them." -- Crow
User avatar
Nathan of the FoS
Fiendish Enforcer
Fiendish Enforcer
Posts: 5246
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:39 pm
Location: San Francisco CA

Post by Nathan of the FoS »

Of course, the Fraternity's own planned transition adventure also explains nicely how and why Ravenloft might end up in the "Plane of Shadow"/Shadowfell--and even the stronger connection to Gothic Earth described in Heaven's Bones. :lucas:

So, one way or another, we'll have options to link Ravenloft proper with the "Domains of Dread" of 4e.
[b]FEAR JUSTICE.[/b] :elena:
Post Reply