D&D General Reading Ravenloft the setting

[Bedrockgames]

Part of the problem is that you can't dismiss canonical sources simply because you don't like them when discussing elements of the setting. For example, I can draw a hard line between the Star Wars Original Trilogy (which I adore), the Prequels (which my opinion is more nuanced on) and the Sequels (which I have grown to loathe) but when discussing Star Wars lore, I have to begrudgingly accept that all Nine films are cannon. I don't simply dismiss Luke's characterization in The Last Jedi didn't happen, even if I desperately wished it hadn't.

I think this is wrong. This isn't religion. This is media and entertainment. You absolutely can dismiss luke's characterization in Last Jedi. You don't have to accept canon just because Disney or the fan community says so. Especially when those characterizations are so different. You have to acknowledge last Jedi existed, but you can have a conversation where you are not defending a later characterization of the character, while defending an earlier one. I mean people talk about the original trilogy in isolation all the time. It is really common for IP to get ruined over time by sprawling canon. I think you can take something that is almost perfect, like the original trilogy, and ruin it by putting out tons of novels, a prequel trilogy, sequels, etc. From very early on in this thread I was clear the only thing I was defending was the early books in the Ravenloft line, because those are the only ones I am willing to defend. The quality dipped tremendously. Even in the presentation the books started to look terrible. I remember getting the sense at a certain point that the line had started to chase after WW fans, and it was around that point, and around the point that you lost the classic ravenloft presentation, that I grew increasingly disappointed with the content. I was especially disappointed with how WW handled it during the d20 era of Ravenloft (and the less said about Expedition to Castle Ravenloft for 3E the better). I don't see why I should have to embrace all of the Ravenloft line, when I am defending the part of it I think was worthy of defending. Here is how I break it down:

The original module is a classic and important, but also different from what Ravenloft ultimately became: it is a significant and great module in its own right, regardless of what one things of later Ravenloft books.

The Black Boxed set was exceptional. I don't think any setting book or boxed set has had the impact on me this had. I've started the reasons but to reiterate some of them: the tone, the guiding vision, the engaging way it is written, the setting content, the fact that I can add to this setting because it leaves enough open spaces for it. This to me is about as perfect as a setting book can get

The supplements and modules: there are some standouts, some hits and misses, but the line declines over time. The major standouts are certain Van Richten books: Guide to Lycanthropes, Created, Ancient Dead, etc. And some of the key modules. For me the big one is Feast of Goblyns, but there were others like Castles Forlorn. Once you start getting into things like Grim Harvest, I really wasn't in sync with the material.

DoD: This is classic. It isn't my cup of tea, but like RoT it had a clear vision of what it wanted to do, that resonated with many gamers. I appreciate having all the information there at my finger tips, but ultimately I find I prefer working off the black box.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In your own game, you can use Ravenloft however you wish and if you want to only use pre-95 sources, that is valid and you are perfectly within your rights to. You can also decide you want to use one of the two noncanonical origins of Tristan Hiregaard instead and nobody will care. However, when discussing the setting in an open forum, you have to at least accept that the parts of the setting that you don't like are still part of it. You can dislike that additional elements were added to the setting like the overt Hitler elements of Drakov or the changes to Gabrielle Adierre, but its kinda disingenuous to say "Well, I don't have a problem with it because I don't accept those parts as real." If that's the criteria, the only true Star Wars movies are the six that begin with the 20th Century Fox Fanfare.

This isn't what I am saying. I know that these meta plots happened. I was there when they happened. I bought the books and followed them in real time, and thought to myself "what a terrible way for this character to go'. What this is about is what aspects of the ravenloft line I think are good and worth defending. And I think you do have to understand there is a different vision at work in the black boxed set than in later incarnations of ravenloft. That isn't meaningless in this discussion. If we are talking about whether Ravenloft was bad because of the tropes it had, or if the characters were poorly written, pointing out they were one way in black box, and that I think that was was better, and that later versions missed the point of the black box, matters. And I can talk about how I run Ravenloft. This happens with lots of games. Some people never got passed AD&D 1E (or white box even). Those people when they discuss what is good about D&D, are not even considering later versions of it.

Also I think the more an IP drifts from its original creator (s) the more valid it is to draw distinctions between eras. The black box era is a clear thing. It is an entirely different type of Ravenloft than the WW era. It is entirely possible to love one and hate the other because they are so different. And the black box is much, much closer, imo to the original intent of the Ravenloft module, while also introducing profound intentions of its own----which diminished in the line over time).

 

[Bedrockgames]

(and this is not to pick on you specifically, there were several comments through this tread that has dismissed criticisms with "oh, that was a later book")

I understand. To be clear, I am not feeling picked on by this. Ravenloft is probably the one thing in all of D&D I am passionate about, so my responses are more energetic in a thread like this. And to be very clear about why I keep saying that, I think a lot of what appeared in those later books wasn't good quality. I think the material early on in the line was very good quality. And I do think it matters if a character was presented one way in the black box, but something introduced in a later book changes that characterization or moves it in a different direction. That does matter because a given critique could be valid against one but not the other.

 

[Voadam]

There seems to be a difference between 3.0 and the 3.5 gazetteers for me. 3.0 seems fairly consistent with Domains of Dread, but taking just Hazlik's description in 3.0 Secrets of the Dread Realms it has no hints of the elements added in the 3.5 gazetteer series.

 

[Faolyn]

And no, I am not inserting things that are in my head. I have given plenty of examples when I have disagreed with you about an entry.

No, you actually haven't.

You showed the bit where it says she's manipulative, but not how she's manipulative. Until the books actually gives an example of how she manipulates people, it's just an informed trait.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, you actually haven't.

You showed the bit where it says she's manipulative, but not how she's manipulative. Until the books actually gives an example of how she manipulates people, it's just an informed trait.

I don't need to know how she is manipulative, unless it is relevant. For most NPCs just telling me this character is X, Y or Z is enough for me to run them.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't need to know how she is manipulative, unless it is relevant.

Since it is literally supposed to be her most important trait, it is relevant.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Since it is literally supposed to be her most important trait, it is relevant.

No, I am saying the trait can be broadly defined, unless it is relevant to have her manipulate in particular ways.

EDIT: Also I am not so sure this is meant to be her most important trait. You keep framing things as 'this character is about X' or this is the most important thing about the character. I'd say as a character she has more complexity than that. She is described as manipulative, domineering and mean, those are three traits, probably equally important.

 

[Istbor]

No, that isn't what I am saying. I don't know how you are getting 'a woman wrote it so that is why I think it is okay' form what I said. I really do not see how you get this conclusion. I have said over and over, it is relevant to reading the characters and it is an important historical detail about the development of the setting (that the original boxed set was co-written by a woman, that the original module was co-written by a woman, and that women wrote many of the supplements, books and adventures).

Because you repeated it several times, that there was a woman writer on this project. And when it was said way back in the past posts that this does really mean anything important to the topic of some of that project detailing a tendency toward certain tropes, it seemingly fell on deaf ears. As, not long after, again the female writer was mentioned.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, I am personally waiting for the OP to get back with the next domain, but I saw it.

Let's just take it as established that there was a female writer on your favorite product, and also that this doesn't mean there isn't potentially problematic content within it. It can still be your favorite! I doubt anyone would really think less of you for still enjoying your favorite product.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Let's just take it as established that there was a female writer on your favorite product, and also that this doesn't mean there isn't potentially problematic content within it. It can still be your favorite! I doubt anyone would really think less of you for still enjoying your favorite product.

It doesn't mean that there isn't problematic content, but it certainly should be weighed when reading the characters. And I am not so sure about your conclusions. The tone of the argument I am seeing seems to be not only is the book bad, but the people who made it were either bad or not good designers because they had women who had love as a motive (and that people who like it, or don't see it as bad in the way the critics here do, are bad themselves: and you can see that in language use in response to our posts). My argument is that stuff doesn't make it bad design. And I question the conclusions people are drawing about how problematic it is. I am trying to defend the works of writers who are just being affixed with a criticisim and narrative I think it is lazy. Not arguing these things are perfect or don't have problems. No work is free of problems. But I am arguing against the simplistic caricature of the work.