mere shadow of its former glory

Discussing all things Ravenloft
User avatar
Jester of the FoS
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Posts: 4536
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
Location: A Canadian from Canadia

Post by Jester of the FoS »

* I prefer the 3E version of Masque because the second edition, while cool, was little but rules and almost no setting or world information. The 3E version at least tried to add some history and world to the book.

* Don't forget Forged of Darkness, Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts and Children of the Night: Werebeasts to the list of poor products. While not all bad they're not great either and could have been sooOOOooo much better.
Meanwhile, for a better and fuller list of the good/bad of the 3E products check out the Fraternity's review section:
http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/Main_Page.html
I really should get back to writing reviews, there are some glaring omissions in my reports...

* Anyone else remember the initial reviews for the 3E Ravenloft Campaign Setting? The book was torn apart. The first 'Loft book in a year plus and everyone did nothing but bitch about it.
"There are no darklord names or stats", "it it's a player's book, why is there monster information in the back?", "where are the magic items and prestige classes?", etc, etc. Now most of that ire gets directed at the RL: PHB and people laud the original forgetting how they once roasted it. Despite it being superiour to the Black and possibly the Red Box and closely behind Domains of Dread.
User avatar
Jasper
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:10 pm
Location: A cultural wasteland known as WV.

Post by Jasper »

One thing I can say to add another log on the 3rd edition Ravenloft is better then 2nd fire is one of the biggest-

3rd edition authors were in contact with the fans almost constantly. Between this message board, the White wolf board and the one at WOTC I think just about every 3rd edition author has been there to pitch ideas, take critisizum and to read our wish lists of what we -as the fans- wanted.

In 2nd edition the contact was allmost nil. You could send a snail mail letter to TSR to ask for Tracy Hickmans home adress, wait two week for reply, send another to Mr. Hickman and wait another two weeks for a reply just to tell him you did't like the inclusion of monster X.
"Love never dies a natural death. It dies because we don't know how to replenish it's source. It dies of blindness and errors and betrayals. It dies of illness and wounds; it dies of weariness, of witherings, of tarnishings."
Anais Nin
User avatar
Ivana_Boritsi
Arch-villain
Arch-villain
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:48 pm

Post by Ivana_Boritsi »

eldritch wrote: which leads me naturally to ask in this thread have the advocates of the 3e system been championing the new system or the ravenloft product line that has come out under it? (or both)
Eldritch, you seem to be going through what everyone else went through when D&D 3rd edition first came out. I remember at that time that there were numerous naysayers of 3rd Edition. Most of the people who didn't like it, didn't care for it because it was such a change from the old system. Change tends to turn off alot people.

I, for one, like 3rd edition. And now that it's been out for a while, I can tell you that most people prefer it by an large. The d20 system has bulldozed the market, so that most systems out there use a d20 system or some iteration of it.

I like 3rd ed. D&D, for alot of reasons. It offers alot more options to the players. While it is complex, it is also simple: My DM has no need for a screen. You can roll the dice and understand what the result is without looking it up on a chart. The skill system is just pure genius. Not it pays to be a Fighter with a decent intelligence. And finally, they solved the theif problem in 2nd edition.

I like 3rd edition Ravenloft, too. I find it interesting that so many here look at the latest edition with fondness. I think that basically, at the time it was coming out, there were people who were really picky about their favorite setting. But with the distance of time, people have reflected and decided that it wasn't so bad after all.

The main thing that you have to get your hands on, though, is the Gazeteers. The Gazeteers! Why wouldn't you want these? They massively expand upon each of the domains ten fold! They're exactly what the game world needed in a big way.
Now I know, now I can divine. The reign of man is over, and He has come....

-Guy De Maupassant
User avatar
Don Fernando
Champion of the Maiden
Champion of the Maiden
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Don Fernando »

I must say I understand Eldritch’s position as I share his opinions about third edition. I don’t consider third edition to be the best of the best and their products to be perfect and exquisitely done. On the contrary, there are so many flaws on 3rd edition that for a seasoned player like me it was hard to decide if buying the next product in the line was worth the effort and money.

As a hardcore fan of everything Ravenloft I had high hopes for 3rd Ed. I got the CS book and SotDR, and soon after they launched the Player’s handbook and DM’s guide. Same wolf, different skin. Strike one. I decided to wait a while when the Gaz’s came out, in case there was going to be another “Gaz’s 3.5 revised”. Then they did the same with Denizens of Darkness and of Dread. Strike two. After that, HoL and CoD came out as well as MotRD. Strike three. Needless to say I stopped buying.

Among things I don’t like in the Third edition Line are, recycled art. This one is a real robbery if you ask me. From magnified maps of the Gaz’s to non-existent maps at all, from the recycled page design from DoD to the portraits of Darklords copied from DoD in SotDR. In my opinion these things make a product loose a lot of quality.

Editing issues, and layout. For twenty bucks a book, you really would expect that the editors made a real good job, but the errors are still there. Highlight: MotRD.

Story. I only wish that the authors were a little more specific in some issues introduced in the stories. Ambiguity is a rule here and this leads to speculation, and the stories leave so much open that it is hard to even begin to understand what was happening in the books. Examples: S story, which by the way only one person correctly guessed the true story behind this woman. Bad news is, no one knows who this person is and if he hit the bulls eye by chance or because he really knew something. Other case: The twins story: in parts it’s so blurry that no one knows for sure what happened. As in VRGttM, which spawned another discussion here in the forums and ended up in nothing specific.

Price. This one’s personal. But when I pay 20 or more bucks for a soft bound, I expect it to be a good useable book and not something I have to work on my free time to get it working. These are: HoL and CoD among others.

New editions. Why in the world they had to publish two identical books with different names? In the era of Information, a downloadable file with the 3.5 updates will do. However they changed the name of the book, changed the color of he maps, and sold it as essential. Same thing as with the “Denizens of” series, which are more serious offenders.

About VRA and the VRG’s I have complaints, they are useful and they serve their purpose well. Highlight of this books are not the rules however, it is the story of the Twins that make this books good. In my opinion these are the best products of third edition.

Third edition Ravenloft has accomplished one thing it was meant to do, to expand the world and update the rules. It did this not with crushing success but it did. It has good products and bad products. I like it, but it’s not my favorite.

On the other hand, I love Second Ed. Ravenloft. It’s true it has its flaws and its inconsistencies but it was the first edition of Ravenloft and it delivered admirably. With each product the world expanded. It wasn’t too focused on story development as third edition is, it didn’t have so much detail as the Gazetteers but it was enough. Now that we have all those things, we look back and say, “oh, 2nd Ed. didn’t have this and that” but we ignore the fact that it is the base of everything third edition is in the first place.

Many people tend to compare new stuff with the old, the 3rd. Ed. Player’s Handbook with the Second Ed. Black Box for example, saying that the former is a far better product than the later. I think they are completely different products, which exist, in two different contexts. Back when the Black box came out it was the first product of the line. And it was brilliant, this product is the reason why we have this Web site, it is why so many people enjoy Ravenloft today. The PHB came after, and it was just another product, not THE product. So if you ask me, I certainly will put the Black Box on top of any third edition product, because of it’s value, significance, product quality and information.

So to answer your question Eldritch, for third edition, I think the Gazetteers are a good source of information; after that buy the VRA and the VRGs. These are good books.
"6 out of 10 Rakshasas eat Whiskas"
User avatar
Gonzoron of the FoS
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 7555
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Post by Gonzoron of the FoS »

Don Fernando wrote:New editions. Why in the world they had to publish two identical books with different names? In the era of Information, a downloadable file with the 3.5 updates will do.
Yes, it would have, but they weren't allowed to do so. Their contract with WotC specifically said they had to publish new editions of their 3 core books (players, DM's, and monsters) when WotC did. Stupid requirement, but I don't fault them for doing it. (I do fault them for the lame rules added in an attempt to make it worth buying again, and for the shoddy rules updates, but that's another story. They should've just updated the rules well and not changed the names, just tacked on a v3.5)
"We're realistic heroes. We're not here to save the world, just nudge the world into a better place."
User avatar
Jester of the FoS
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Posts: 4536
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
Location: A Canadian from Canadia

Post by Jester of the FoS »

Don Fernando wrote:As a hardcore fan of everything Ravenloft I had high hopes for 3rd Ed. I got the CS book and SotDR, and soon after they launched the Player’s handbook and DM’s guide. Same wolf, different skin. Strike one. I decided to wait a while when the Gaz’s came out, in case there was going to be another “Gaz’s 3.5 revised”. Then they did the same with Denizens of Darkness and of Dread. Strike two. After that, HoL and CoD came out as well as MotRD. Strike three. Needless to say I stopped buying.
Funny, I remember CoD and HoL coming out BEFORE the RL: PHB. And while HoL was pedestian and nothing special I'd hardly lump it in the same category as CoD.
And the RL: DMG had NO reprinted information in it and was a solely original work. It was what SotDR was supposed to be before the authors got the page-count back from the publishers.

I liked how S' story progressed. For something that was secondary and added to the guidebooks we learned alot about her. It was always mysterious and speculative from the very begining. The only problem was the line ended before it could go anywhere. The fact we got any story at all was a bonus. They could have added much more relevant information to the lands if they'd have done the books without the metaplot in a third person narrative.

Fernando, you bitterly complain about the new Ravenloft line and how you share Eldritch’s position, but ALL of your complaints have nothing to do with Third Edition and everything to do with the line itself, editorial decisons and the writing. It could have been for GURPS for all the difference the rules would have made...
User avatar
Ail
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:33 am
Location: Egham, UK

Post by Ail »

There are a couple of points I do not agree with you. The republishing in 3.5 has already been addressed by Gonzoron and it very debated at the time so I'll pass it over. But for the rest,
Don Fernando wrote: Among things I don’t like in the Third edition Line are, recycled art. This one is a real robbery if you ask me. From magnified maps of the Gaz’s to non-existent maps at all, from the recycled page design from DoD to the portraits of Darklords copied from DoD in SotDR. In my opinion these things make a product loose a lot of quality.
I don't quite agree with you. I have seen recycled art elsewhere and I don't complain if the art is good. I did dislike some of the art in the 3E CS, especially the author that only uses black and white without shades and a lot of jagged lines. I simply detest it. But I've overcome disliking these books because of the art. There are good art pieces in them. I really don't think SotDR is worth it, so let's just discount the fact that there are bad books in the line as there have always been in any line.
Don Fernando wrote: Editing issues, and layout. For twenty bucks a book, you really would expect that the editors made a real good job, but the errors are still there. Highlight: MotRD.
Unfortunately, I agree with you in this. On the coincidences page, I've just read a list of similar editing faults in the newest version of King Arthur Pendragon which now is published by Arthaus, and the note (in Pendragon's forum) by another user that this seemed to be recurring in the whole RPG industry nowadays. So, it's not actually a fault of the setting, but of the industry. Cost control and all that. Unfortunately, it is one of the things that also puts me off greatly.
[/quote]
Don Fernando wrote: Story. I only wish that the authors were a little more specific in some issues introduced in the stories. Ambiguity is a rule here and this leads to speculation, and the stories leave so much open that it is hard to even begin to understand what was happening in the books. Examples: S story, which by the way only one person correctly guessed the true story behind this woman. Bad news is, no one knows who this person is and if he hit the bulls eye by chance or because he really knew something. Other case: The twins story: in parts it’s so blurry that no one knows for sure what happened. As in VRGttM, which spawned another discussion here in the forums and ended up in nothing specific.
Here I do not agree. Ambiguity is there specifically to make you guess and use whatever you want. Everybody knows the classic examples from 2nd Ed: the Gentleman Caller and the Time of Unparalleled Darkness. They're pretty much in the same boat.
"S"'s story is to be revealed only in the end, just like in a good policiary novel you only know the murderer at the end, right? As for the Guide to Mists and the story of the twins, I don't know what you're talking about. Still, another classic flaw of 2nd Ed is precisely inconsistencies in the stories and timelines, so this is nothing new. If anything, many points have been fixed and adjusted to fit back story, I believe.
Don Fernando wrote: About VRA and the VRG’s I have complaints, they are useful and they serve their purpose well. Highlight of this books are not the rules however, it is the story of the Twins that make this books good. In my opinion these are the best products of third edition.
It seems that's the general consensus around. People recognize there are bad books as there were in 2nd Ed and have repeatedly advised others here to stay away from them.
Don Fernando wrote: On the other hand, I love Second Ed. Ravenloft. It’s true it has its flaws and its inconsistencies but it was the first edition of Ravenloft and it delivered admirably. With each product the world expanded. It wasn’t too focused on story development as third edition is, it didn’t have so much detail as the Gazetteers but it was enough. Now that we have all those things, we look back and say, “oh, 2nd Ed. didn’t have this and that” but we ignore the fact that it is the base of everything third edition is in the first place.
Why not take the same approach towards 3E? Neither is perfect, it's easy to agree on that.
Don Fernando wrote: Many people tend to compare new stuff with the old, the 3rd. Ed. Player’s Handbook with the Second Ed. Black Box for example, saying that the former is a far better product than the later. I think they are completely different products, which exist, in two different contexts. Back when the Black box came out it was the first product of the line. And it was brilliant, this product is the reason why we have this Web site, it is why so many people enjoy Ravenloft today. The PHB came after, and it was just another product, not THE product. So if you ask me, I certainly will put the Black Box on top of any third edition product, because of it’s value, significance, product quality and information.
It seems you are attaching value to a book as a collector and not as a player, or rather, for nostalgia sake. I understand that. I still own a ZX Spectrum and I still say one of the best games ever published for PC is an adventure from 1992, but I have to recognize that meanwhile hundreds of games have been made which are technically better as they had to. Nostalgia is not a very objective measuring standard, so it's more like personal taste. That can not directly compare the merit of different editions.

All in all, what people often contest is the ruleset of 3E and not the content of quality of books that have been published for it. When 3E came out, many people protested that they would have to buy 3 core books again (and it was even worse when 3.5 came out) but if you study the rules for 3E and AD&D 2nd Ed, I think you have to agree the 3E are much much easier to use, to learn and have more internal logic. Ruleset per ruleset, which I think was the initial argument, I think 3E wins hands down.

Just my opinion. I hope not to have offended anyone.

Ail
Zumba d'Oxossi (A Stitch in Souragne)
Brother Eustace (The Devil's Dreams)
Robert de Moureaux (A New Barovia)
User avatar
DeepShadow of FoS
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 2916
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:43 pm
Location: Heinfroth's Asylum

Post by DeepShadow of FoS »

Don Fernando wrote:Among things I don’t like in the Third edition Line are, recycled art.
Agreed. There was ten times as much in 2E. (Go ahead and disagree, please. I'm dying to make a full list, but in the mean time, check out the image pac for the GC downloads. Funny how they were able to save space by assigning the same picture to five different locations in four modules.)
On the other hand, I love Second Ed. Ravenloft. It’s true it has its flaws and its inconsistencies but it was the first edition of Ravenloft and it delivered admirably. With each product the world expanded. It wasn’t too focused on story development as third edition is, it didn’t have so much detail as the Gazetteers but it was enough. Now that we have all those things, we look back and say, “oh, 2nd Ed. didn’t have this and that” but we ignore the fact that it is the base of everything third edition is in the first place.
I never ignored that, but you could say the same thing about the model T Ford! I admire the model T for being the basis for every other car today, but how can you not say that the newer stuff is superior?
Many people tend to compare new stuff with the old, the 3rd. Ed. Player’s Handbook with the Second Ed. Black Box for example, saying that the former is a far better product than the later. I think they are completely different products, which exist, in two different contexts.
I agree. That's one comparison I'd never make. Has anyone else here made it?

As other have said, it appears you are speaking as a collector rather than a player. Sure, the black box started it all; it was innovative, powerful, inspiring. It was far from perfect, however; I like my car to have safety belts, thanks.
So to answer your question Eldritch, for third edition, I think the Gazetteers are a good source of information; after that buy the VRA and the VRGs. These are good books.
And again, I agree.
The Avariel has borrowed wings,
The Puppeteer must cut the strings
The Orphan Queen must take the throne
The Queen of Orphans calls them home
User avatar
Jester of the FoS
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Jester of the Dark Comedy
Posts: 4536
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:19 am
Location: A Canadian from Canadia

Post by Jester of the FoS »

Don't forget there were pieces of recyled art in all the Core books as well, not just adventures. And the Red Box recycled art from the Black Box, Forbidden Lore, VRGtV, and the adventrues. The only new piece of art was the box cover itself. Ravenloft was built on a foundation of re-used art.

And personally, I find the Black Box to be ass. Even for the time. There were pleny (and I mean plenty) of other campaign setting boxed sets at the time and most of them didn't make the mistakes the Black Box made (or at least to the same extent).
Half explained rules, massively undetailed lands, missing NPCs, etc. We needed a second boxed set simply to explain everything that didn't make it through the first time. And two expansion accessories to fill in other huge blanks (Darklords and [/i]Islands of Terror[/i]).

And while EVERYONE complains about the legally required reprinting of the 3.X books two years after how come no one complains about the unnecassary reprinting of the boxed set four years later? Followed by a HC (Domains of Dread) three years after that? The Red Box was only required because of the massive changes to the land (aka collecting all the rules and information in a single box and rearranging the lands, removing the ones that shouldn't have been there in the first place).
User avatar
The Giamarga
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:11 pm
Location: wandering

Post by The Giamarga »

Don Fernando wrote:Price. This one’s personal. But when I pay 20 or more bucks for a soft bound, I expect it to be a good useable book and not something I have to work on my free time to get it working. These are: HoL and CoD among others.
Since no one else answered this one, I'll do. One of the big pros in my decision to buy the whole 3rd Edition Ravenloft material (which is in fact pretty much the only 3rd Edition material I own besides a 3.0 PHB, DMG and MM) was the low prices. After a while you could get the Gazetteers, HoL, CoD, VRA and some of the others for around $ 10 in new condition from the shops ! Add to that the market on ebay and I think i havn't paid more than $ 11 or $ 12 per book! This is an awesome price in the days where WotC products, tend to cost $ 30 plus. Yes they have more color and artwork and glossy pages, but i personally like the black & white dark look for RL. It fits with the gothic flavour. And I prefer recycled and/or b/w illustration by Talon et. al. over the flashy anime-like big-feet-and-bigger-swords artwork in current Wotc products any day.

Oh and some products we forgot to mention in this discussion:
The Tarrokka Deck - i like these very much.
RLCS limited edition - if you can get it cheaper than the normal RLCS get it.
Van Richten's Guide to the Mists - a free pdf download! Free!

Check out this thread for tips on where to get the 3E RL material cheap.
User avatar
Don Fernando
Champion of the Maiden
Champion of the Maiden
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Don Fernando »

A lot of disagreement about my statements, but for the sake of a good discussion let me disagree to your disagreements.
David of the FoS wrote:I liked how S' story progressed. For something that was secondary and added to the guidebooks we learned alot about her. It was always mysterious and speculative from the very begining. The only problem was the line ended before it could go anywhere. The fact we got any story at all was a bonus. They could have added much more relevant information to the lands if they'd have done the books without the metaplot in a third person narrative.
You said it yourself, the line ended before it could get somewhere. I think that in almost five years of published material, they should have gone somewhere with the story of S and every other story, for that matter. But we are still guessing.
David of the FoS wrote:Fernando, you bitterly complain about the new Ravenloft line and how you share Eldritch’s position, but ALL of your complaints have nothing to do with Third Edition and everything to do with the line itself, editorial decisons and the writing. It could have been for GURPS for all the difference the rules would have made...
I don’t see me complaining bitterly about RL third edition. Bitterly would mean attacking every angle and thing they ever did, and I am sure I could go that way for some products of the line, but this is only a sharing of opinions and discussion and not a complaint order for someone to take. I specifically wrote, “Things I don’t like about 3rd Edition”. Of course if I ever say that Third Edition is completely bad and worthless (something I never said) I will be very wrong. I find some of the products to be very good ones. But third edition is not entirely of my liking. These are my opinions on this matter and they should be taken, as they are, opinions. You seem to take it very personal when someone criticizes Third edition. You see it as a complaint, and I see it as a constructive discussion and sharing of points of view.
Ail wrote:It seems you are attaching value to a book as a collector and not as a player, or rather, for nostalgia sake. I understand that. I still own a ZX Spectrum and I still say one of the best games ever published for PC is an adventure from 1992, but I have to recognize that meanwhile hundreds of games have been made which are technically better as they had to. Nostalgia is not a very objective measuring standard, so it's more like personal taste. That can not directly compare the merit of different editions.
As for Nostalgia issues, I think I am a bit nostalgic yes, but that doesn’t cloud my judgment when referring to other products. I play D&D 3.5 and AD&D, I like them both and enjoy them too. But if I prefer AD&D, it doesn’t mean I consider 3.5 to be (I will borrow David’s words here) “ass”. Considering old products to be better than new products do not make me a collector and not a player.
DeepShadow wrote:
Don Fernando wrote:Among things I don’t like in the Third edition Line are, recycled art.
Agreed. There was ten times as much in 2E. (Go ahead and disagree, please. I'm dying to make a full list, but in the mean time, check out the image pac for the GC downloads. Funny how they were able to save space by assigning the same picture to five different locations in four modules.)
David of the FoS wrote:Don't forget there were pieces of recyled art in all the Core books as well, not just adventures. And the Red Box recycled art from the Black Box, Forbidden Lore, VRGtV, and the adventrues. The only new piece of art was the box cover itself. Ravenloft was built on a foundation of re-used art.

And personally, I find the Black Box to be ass. Even for the time. There were pleny (and I mean plenty) of other campaign setting boxed sets at the time and most of them didn't make the mistakes the Black Box made (or at least to the same extent).
Half explained rules, massively undetailed lands, missing NPCs, etc. We needed a second boxed set simply to explain everything that didn't make it through the first time. And two expansion accessories to fill in other huge blanks (Darklords and [/i]Islands of Terror[/i]).

And while EVERYONE complains about the legally required reprinting of the 3.X books two years after how come no one complains about the unnecassary reprinting of the boxed set four years later? Followed by a HC (Domains of Dread) three years after that? The Red Box was only required because of the massive changes to the land (aka collecting all the rules and information in a single box and rearranging the lands, removing the ones that shouldn't have been there in the first place).
You seem to defend third edition by pointing out the errors of Second Edition. Are you saying that because Second Edition did a lot of mistakes, third edition is allowed to the same? I think it shouldn’t be like that. Improvement, in every single aspect of the product should be the rule when a new edition is published (think AD&D and D&D 3.5). Third edition Ravenloft improved the CS in many aspects, but failed in others. I think it is good but could have been better, and should have been better. However, think that with the faulty, recycled, incomplete and quality-inferior Second Edition Ravenloft, TSR never cancelled the line. (I am not aware of the back-stories here, maybe the thought of canceling it many times. Bottom line is they never did).

I value all your opinions and points of view in this matter. I think third edition is OK, but could have been better. There is great stuff there and bad stuff also. But I will still be a fan of second edition, I will still play D&D 3.5, I will still use VRA in my campaign and still read CoD and HoL and wonder why didn’t I buy some other product.
"6 out of 10 Rakshasas eat Whiskas"
User avatar
Ail
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:33 am
Location: Egham, UK

Post by Ail »

Don Fernando wrote:However, think that with the faulty, recycled, incomplete and quality-inferior Second Edition Ravenloft, TSR never cancelled the line. (I am not aware of the back-stories here, maybe the thought of canceling it many times. Bottom line is they never did).
Ah, but they went broke in the process :twisted:

Perhaps if they had cancelled it and the lines that were not profittable, they would have survived :-)
Don Fernando wrote: I value all your opinions and points of view in this matter. I think third edition is OK, but could have been better. There is great stuff there and bad stuff also. But I will still be a fan of second edition, I will still play D&D 3.5, I will still use VRA in my campaign and still read CoD and HoL and wonder why didn’t I buy some other product.


I also use 2nd Edition now and then for sources, but as rules goes, I only use 3.x with some inspiration to tweakings in 2nd Ed now and then. but that's it.

the point is that this thread has been about how 3E does not make justice to 2nd Ed (and the title of the thread is pretty clear in that) and that's what I, personally, and others have been contesting.

there are two things here: first, the rules per se: you know my opinion in this. second, the books published for each ruleset

To be honest, I can no longer say what point of view Eldritch was criticizing the most. But if we take now the second point, you'll see the several examples given suggest the 3E run has not been inferior, in material, to the 2nd Ed. In both, there have been great and bad moments, flawed and excellent products, so we should simply stay with the best ones and pick the ruleset we're most comfortable with.

But in the case you prefer to play by 2nd Ed rules and are shying away from trying the new 3.x set, I simply suggest you give 3E an honest try. After you see how cleanlier it is, odds are you'll stick with it. If on the other hand you've tested both and made your choice, well, it's not our business at all :-) Play by 2nd Ed and be happy :D

Ail
Zumba d'Oxossi (A Stitch in Souragne)
Brother Eustace (The Devil's Dreams)
Robert de Moureaux (A New Barovia)
User avatar
eldritch
Agent of the Fraternity
Agent of the Fraternity
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: United States of America

Post by eldritch »

It would appear that Don Fernando and I share a similar opinion and its just that: opinion; and therefore inarguable (Because an opinion is a individual position based on the point of view, experience and facts and merits that the individual holds to.) however the facts and merits that an opinion are based on can be argued, and have been exceedingly well on this thread. I have enjoyed reading the posts.

It would seem from the consensus of those who have voiced their opinions on the matter that these are the valid points:

*3.X rules are preferred by most who have weighed in on the matter

*The gazetteers are the finest products of the "new" line.

*The VRG's and VRA are good books to own.

*Champs of dark, and Heroes of Light were not well done.

*the "new" line had many "near-duplicate" books that recycled material from a recent previous publication (mainly due to the rules change) with little new material included to justify them.

Specifically the Ravenloft players handbook and Ravenloft 3rd edtion (setting rulebook), and the Denizens of D. books.
I would consider 4 out of 20 many. that is 20% of the products!

in contrast, if you consider the black and red boxes, a major event (the grand Conjunction) happened and much new information added and some was corrected. Domains of Dread was not at all a replacement product rather an updated timeline and more new information, and again corrected some faults. It is considered by many to be the best of the three products. (rather than a nearly identical reprint.)

The reprinting of the Monstrous Compendiums 1&2 was necessary because of the long run of the Ravenloft line and a valuable (nearly essential) product had gone out of print, and the reprinting of Van Richten's guides was hardly superfluous in my opinion because they too had gone out of print and were valuable resources to the DM and they included new information such as commentary by the Weathermay-Foxgrove Twins and a new guide to witches!


Most individuals didn't champion the RL books from the "new" line per se (with exception of the Gazeteers and Van Richten books), rather staunchly defended the 3.x rules system.

So what I can take from that is that while some superior quality material was published (8 titles), the remainder of the line of 20 titles has many dissenters and a few advocates and is relegated to one's personal taste.
Ail wrote: the point is that this thread has been about how 3E does not make justice to 2nd Ed (and the title of the thread is pretty clear in that) and that's what I, personally, and others have been contesting.

there are two things here: first, the rules per se: you know my opinion in this. second, the books published for each ruleset To be honest, I can no longer say what point of view Eldritch was criticizing the most. But if we take now the second point, you'll see the several examples given suggest the 3E run has not been inferior, in material, to the 2nd Ed. In both, there have been great and bad moments, flawed and excellent products, so we should simply stay with the best ones and pick the ruleset we're most comfortable with.
Ail

Yes as a general statement I would have to agree that both runs have had excellent and shoddy material published, and I like the idea of picking which products and rules suit you and stay with that. Sound advice.
Ail[/quote]

indeed there are two distinct points of debate here, whether the 2nd ed. or 3rd ed rules are preferred, and whether the new product line was better than the old.

As far as the first point, actually I can't really criticize the 3E rules as I am mostly unfamiliar with them. It would seem that those who play Ravenloft prefer the 3E to the old 2E rules system (based on those who commented.)
But I did gripe that the change was made from something I was familiar with to something radically different that I was reluctant to learn.

As far as rules go it seems that the newer system has many superior qualities that players and DM's enjoy but is still not perfect as it seems that many more who play under this system have "house" rules to deal with undesired material than it seemed the 2nd edition rules had. It seems that the whole new product line in general is geared towards Dms really designing their own type of role playing than the formal structure of set rules that was mostly adhered to in the past. It seems to me that each and every gaming group is playing in a very customized "house"setup.
Incidently it would seem that "rules lawyers" and "strictly by the book DMs" are a thing of the past. (I'm not sure whether that is a positve factor or not, I would lean towards not, after all that's why they established rules in the first place.)
It seems that many prefer the new rules and deem it worthy to attempt the lengthy conversion of titles of the 2E products into 3E rules. That in itself is a strong merit for the newer rules.



In response to the second point,
I think as a whole judging by the quantity and quality of both the 2E product run and the 3E product run, 2E is vastly better and withholds the title of this thread concept well. My main merits for this argument are:
*The majority of background information on Domains, NPCs, and gothic flavor has come from the 2E line.
*Nearly all of the published adventures and adventure hooks were from the 2E line.
*Sheer volume of products. (around 66 gaming products give or take for the 2nd edition, vs. 2 for original Avanced Dungeons & Dragons, and 20 titles for 3.X products.)
*Fold out color maps from 2E, there are none from the new product line.
*superior artwork (in my opinion.)
I'm sure that I could think of more to argue my point of view on this matter but I will let these suffice.

Would anyone actually prefer to own a complete 3E run over 2E if you could only choose one?

I think that 2E is better in many respects to the 3E line and therefore, superior. I am happy that there are any newer products out at all however, rather than a completely dead line. Much of what I have read so far in the 3E line is entertaining and interesting. I am not completely blasting the material and saying it is a waste of time rather on the contrary I am pleased to have a few well written treatises like the gazeteers. I merely stated for the record that I felt the new line is a mere shadow of the old and even after the discussion and many well thought out posts to the contrary, I will maintain that position. :wink:

Now my question is this: do you own (and use) more 2E or 3E Ravenloft products in your campaign?
User avatar
Jasper
Evil Genius
Evil Genius
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:10 pm
Location: A cultural wasteland known as WV.

Post by Jasper »

In response to the second point,
I think as a whole judging by the quantity and quality of both the 2E product run and the 3E product run, 2E is vastly better and withholds the title of this thread concept well. My main merits for this argument are:

*The majority of background information on Domains, NPCs, and gothic flavor has come from the 2E line.
Yes and no. The authors of the 3ed line had to write for people who have never and may never see a 2nd edition book in thier life. All the backgrounds had to A- Be written to omit any referance to any 2nd edition product and B- to omit any referance to any out side world by name (Ie: No soth and no Red wizard of Thay)

*Nearly all of the published adventures and adventure hooks were from the 2E line.
That is beacuse back in the 2nd line they didn't pull in a proffit. They were not "nessary" books like Domains of Dread or the Red/Black Boxes and they sold only about half the copys they thought they wood. Arthus looked at this and decided to stay clear of adventures and put instead the Dread possability seeds.

*Sheer volume of products. (around 66 gaming products give or take for the 2nd edition, vs. 2 for original Avanced Dungeons & Dragons, and 20 titles for 3.X products.)
Quanity vs quality. Out of the 66 2nd edition line 31 of those are adventures, Four are nearly direct reprints, three are not accutaly ravenloft, and two are deemed as nearly unusable (Forged of darkness and Requiem)

That leaves 30 (give or take) product for the 2nd edition line spanning over ten years.

Out of the 3rd edition line we get 20 directly Ravenloft products, two that are outragiously flawed, two reprints, and one book thats not realy needed anymore (SoDR).

Thats leaves 15 books as good or better then the 2nd edition books over a 5 year period.
Exactly on par with 2nd edition.

*Fold out color maps from 2E, there are none from the new product line.
Again a matter of price. The maps are expensive and Arthus is no where near the size of WOTC.

*superior artwork (in my opinion.)
I stand by my statement that Talons work was some of the best ever to grace a game book.
I'm sure that I could think of more to argue my point of view on this matter but I will let these suffice.
As will I.
"Love never dies a natural death. It dies because we don't know how to replenish it's source. It dies of blindness and errors and betrayals. It dies of illness and wounds; it dies of weariness, of witherings, of tarnishings."
Anais Nin
User avatar
midnightcat
Criminal Mastermind
Criminal Mastermind
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:21 pm
Location: Jackson

Post by midnightcat »

eldritch wrote:It would appear that Don Fernando and I share a similar opinion and its just that: opinion; and therefore inarguable (Because an opinion is a individual position based on the point of view, experience and facts and merits that the individual holds to.) however the facts and merits that an opinion are based on can be argued, and have been exceedingly well on this thread. I have enjoyed reading the posts.
Don Fernando seem more against the 3rd edition Ravenloft line then the 3rd editon rules. In the past he was always qouting that this 3rd edition product was better.

eldritch wrote:It would seem from the consensus of those who have voiced their opinions on the matter that these are the valid points:

*3.X rules are preferred by most who have weighed in on the matter

*The gazetteers are the finest products of the "new" line.

*The VRG's and VRA are good books to own.

*Champs of dark, and Heroes of Light were not well done.

*the "new" line had many "near-duplicate" books that recycled material from a recent previous publication (mainly due to the rules change) with little new material included to justify them.

Specifically the Ravenloft players handbook and Ravenloft 3rd edtion (setting rulebook), and the Denizens of D. books.
I would consider 4 out of 20 many. that is 20% of the products!
Well the Gazetteers are all GREAT books. VRA, VR guide to the walking dead, and VR guide to the Shadow Fey are excellent. Dark Tales and Disturbing legends, and legacey's of Blood are really good books. The DM Book is Fantastic, and the Tarokka cards are Better then the 2nd editon ones.

Yes, Arthaus had to reprint, thier Ravenloft Players book and Densions of dread for 3.5, but WOTC made them do it. They had no choice.
eldritch wrote: in contrast, if you consider the black and red boxes, a major event (the grand Conjunction) happened and much new information added and some was corrected. Domains of Dread was not at all a replacement product rather an updated timeline and more new information, and again corrected some faults. It is considered by many to be the best of the three products. (rather than a nearly identical reprint.)

The reprinting of the Monstrous Compendiums 1&2 was necessary because of the long run of the Ravenloft line and a valuable (nearly essential) product had gone out of print, and the reprinting of Van Richten's guides was hardly superfluous in my opinion because they too had gone out of print and were valuable resources to the DM and they included new information such as commentary by the Weathermay-Foxgrove Twins and a new guide to witches!!
You seem to make excuses for 2nd editon. Arthuas had to recover things for newer player who had never seen a 2nd editon product. Why did TSR have to re-publish the Van richten's guides? They were avaliable, and so were the Ravenloft monster compenduim 1 and 2. as for that matter why reprint all the basic books again for 2nd editon? the the item like the reprinted fighters's handbook ect..were lesser quality. The Red Box set was Needed, but that was becuase the Black Box set, was missing sooo much information.

eldritch wrote:Most individuals didn't champion the RL books from the "new" line per se (with exception of the Gazeteers and Van Richten books), rather staunchly defended the 3.x rules system.
I say they have been champion the 3rd edition line. I LOVE the new Material, to the point. i even go and try to figure out how to make alot of the 3rd edition information work in 2nd editon Ravenloft.
eldritch wrote:As far as rules go it seems that the newer system has many superior qualities that players and DM's enjoy but is still not perfect as it seems that many more who play under this system have "house" rules to deal with undesired material than it seemed the 2nd edition rules had. It seems that the whole new product line in general is geared towards Dms really designing their own type of role playing than the formal structure of set rules that was mostly adhered to in the past. It seems to me that each and every gaming group is playing in a very customized "house"setup.
Incidently it would seem that "rules lawyers" and "strictly by the book DMs" are a thing of the past. (I'm not sure whether that is a positve factor or not, I would lean towards not, after all that's why they established rules in the first place.)


I actually have seen more home Brewed rules for 2nd editon then 3rd editon. I had to change the non-weapon proficiencies becuase it was so limiting in 2nd editon. All most of the player would do was fight. In Ravenloft I prefer people to try to use thier brains or use detective work. The non-weapon proficiencies in 3rd edition is a god-send, and easy. Also the one player I menitoned, she also Dm's. When i first played her game, i was confused, becuase she had so many hom rules, that it was hard to get used to. In every 3rd editin game i played in or ran, most people were fimiliar with the rules. Yes, thier are books on the market that have optional rules, but a dm can just say no.
I for one iam glad thier no "rule Lawyers", they ruin the game. they spend more time arguing trying to get what they want then role playing. How is that fun??



eldritch wrote:In response to the second point,
I think as a whole judging by the quantity and quality of both the 2E product run and the 3E product run, 2E is vastly better and withholds the title of this thread concept well. My main merits for this argument are:
*The majority of background information on Domains, NPCs, and gothic flavor has come from the 2E line.
*Nearly all of the published adventures and adventure hooks were from the 2E line.
*Sheer volume of products. (around 66 gaming products give or take for the 2nd edition, vs. 2 for original Avanced Dungeons & Dragons, and 20 titles for 3.X products.)
*Fold out color maps from 2E, there are none from the new product line.
*superior artwork (in my opinion.)
I'm sure that I could think of more to argue my point of view on this matter but I will let these suffice.


*The 3rd editon line had great Gothic flavor, and also developed the setting better then 2nd. We got alot of cuturasl level, and less generic fantasy. Yes many ideas started in 2nd editon, but that not 3rd edition's fault.
Also 3rd edition clleaned up alot of the mess that came from 2nd editon. Thier was alot of mistakes in 2nd editon an example, in Van richten Guide to the vampires, Van richten followed the gypsies to Richemulot, but later TSR changed the domain to Barovia later. alot of mistakes were corrected. I will say the authors who worked On the 3rd editon Ravenloft line had a passion for the setting, and it shows.
* no mps were cut to cut cost.
* I actually like the art in the 3rd edition products better. Heck all the 2nd editon line for raqvenloft was in Black and white too
eldritch wrote:Would anyone actually prefer to own a complete 3E run over 2E if you could only choose one?
I actually find both useful. Thier alot of info from 2nd edition, but now that I have all 5 Gazetteers I couldn't stand running a Ravenloft game without them. It also depends which rules you are using, but in general I find uses for both products lines for both rule sets.
Last edited by midnightcat on Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked