WE for EtCR

[Le Noir Faineant]

I am not at all *despaired* or *unhappy*. RL has already been covered to an extend that few settings were, and with all the OOP stuff out there to collect, I see no real need - for me at least - to depend on further releases. *Cheers to the Kargatane.*

Now, I certainly expected EtCR to be a better product in almost every sense.
But instead of fixing some of the plot holes and the dead ends of the scenario, the developers not only just kept them, but added a lot of rather useless/anticlimatic/random elements that only distract from the original, in the new installment rather undeveloped main story.
I am not arguing about the new encounter format or the lack of connections to the classic RL campaign;
I am just saying that it was a pretty bad adventure, lacking a coherent plot and atmosphere. - Not compared to the original, but all for itself.

It's simply that, if one is looking for decent adventure modules for a RL campaign based on d20, what should be the flagship book would be one of my last recommendations to buy...


--- Ah well, bought it, read it, had a fairly good time with it,
so I am not gonna disrespect it at all. Now, while I6 is arguably my favourite adventure, this one surely can't claim that title...

[Joël of the FoS]

I think we're all agreed that while I6 was a typical dungeon crawl with added atmosphere, EtCR added more dungeon and took away from the atmosphere.

Excellent summary of what I think of it too.

Joël

[doctor-evil]

The horror...! The horror...! Uh, where's the horror?!

Even as a standard adventure, or WOTC freebie, that WE is really poor

There are some adventures up on the WOTC site, that with tweaking could make a good gothic dungeon/adventure, but this one is really lame. I agree with the comment that this is just a gratuitous unhallowed showcase -made for pre-teens.

[order99]

So?

Much as i'd like WOTC to start supporting Ravenloft/Masque again, chances are they'd make it unrecognizable and/or loathesome to this boards sensiblitities...this new "Ravenloft" adventure pretty much proves the point.

So what? I've got my Ravenloft(2nd ed. system), my Masque Boxed Set(likewise) and no corporate memo is going to pry it out of my cold, Undead hands-come and try, my lands are ready for you...

I don't see how WOTC's little idiocies impact this forum at all-it's not worth our time. Now, if some dark miracle occurs and WOTC ever releases the Ravenloft or Masque licenses or even reprints old material, we can worry about standards then.

(leaves to play a Masque adventure with the Voices in his head)

[Rotipher of the FoS]

I agree. There comes a point when new material can only detract from a setting, not contribute to it, because the publishers' intentions for the product-line or concept have diverged too far from the original vision that fans hold dear. Like TV shows that eventually 'jump the shark', there's only so far some game-settings can be taken by the game-companies before commercial concerns start overriding what makes them great.

Plenty of Mystara-buffs refuse to accept that "Joshuan's Almanac" is canon or that the setting ever switched to 2E AD&D. Dark Sun's die-hard fans tend to throw fits if you suggest conditions on that world are getting more livable/civilized. Lots of Planescapers insist the factions never left Sigil. Why shouldn't we feel free to exclude EtCR from what the Ravenloft setting accepts as 'canon', and tell WotC never mind, we don't need their bland, hack-and-slashers' retrofit? The Land of Mists is ours to design and disseminate now, if it's anyone's.

[Igor the Henchman]

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Why shouldn't we feel free to exclude EtCR from what the Ravenloft setting accepts as 'canon', and tell WotC never mind, we don't need their bland, hack-and-slashers' retrofit?

Two reasons we shouldn't.

1) Because EtCR was never part of the setting 'canon', and, for that matter, wasn't made for the same audience.

2) Because angry fans telling writers what should or shouldn't go into the setting is about as wrong as arrogant writers telling fans what should or shouldn't go into their games.

The Land of Mists is ours to design and disseminate now, if it's anyone's.

As it has been from day one.

[Dupin]

errr... could anybody explain what the hell are you talking about?!!!; what is EtCR (expedition to castle Ravenloft) what is that "canon" thing; what do you mean with "WE", what's the sense in this life?!!! jaja, really I'm an outsider at this, you didn't think I knew what an outsider was did you haha, I only read the core rulebook

(I'm from Argentina, it's quite hard getting anything about role games)
Well, thank you, if you response, if you don't go hell haha, and congratulations for the page (as you can see it has international standars )

[Dion of the Fraternity]

Okay, maybe it's just me, but no offense there's too much bitching going on now.

It seems almost everybody's going "Oooo, it's not too Gothic enough." Ultimately even if Ravenloft's crowning glory is Gothic horror, the entire campaign world still hinges on fantasy horror which I guess is the whole premise of I6 in the first place.

If you don't like the enhancement, you don't have to use it.

If you didn't like how Expedition to Castle Ravenloft ties with storyline the Ravenloft world, no one's stopping you from not buying the product.

[order99]

My point exactly Dion-as usual however, you put much more eloquantly than I...

[alhoon]

Canon=canonical. I.e things that are considered "official" for the campaign world, like that Strahd killed his brother. I could very well decide to use a different plot in my campaign, deciding that in my version, Strahd sacrificed his brother to a demon instead, but that wouldn't be "canon".

WE= Web enhancement.

[HuManBing]

There seems to be a fair bit of apologism for Wizards of the Coast and what they've done to the Ravenloft setting. It looks like there are two main arguments:

1. At least they're doing something. Imagine if they did nothing - it could be far worse.

2. How good something is, is purely subjective. If you don't like it, don't use it.

To which I offer the following rebuttals:

1. They used to be doing much more than just something. They used to be supporting a living, breathing (well, maybe shambling and lurching) campaign setting with their full weight. Yes, it could be worse. But also it used to be better. We have Wizards and their policy to blame for that.

2. I would agree that there is an argument to be made for subjective quality. But I disagree with anything being "purely" subjective. People can get together and generally agree, for example, that the original Ravenloft adventure was far superior than most 1st edition D&D adventures out there. Likewise, the stamp of canonicity from the publisher carries a lot of weight behind it, and Wizards is now turning out adventures that are a pale reflection of the rich campaign world that they used wholeheartedly support. No matter how subjective a person's interpretation is, there's definitely a valid argument on objective grounds that what Wizards has done here is highly objectionable and amounts to cutting off its own nose to spite its face.

So while I agree that FoS is now the standard-bearer for Ravenloft, and that great things lie ahead for its high-quality publications, I am not ready to roll over and forgive Wizards for their abandonment of Ravenloft as a campaign setting, nor for their half-hearted resurrection of it as an adventure locus. Having shown that White Wolf is competent in producing good Ravenloft material, it strikes me as entirely illogical that Wizards failed to renew an agreement with them... and then went on to push out a lukewarm adventure on their own.

The nature of the deal with White Wolf also means that we won't be seeing any sort of "Living Ravenloft RPGA" deal, as that company has already made it clear that such a deal would require players to buy campaign books from a direct competitor.

[steveflam]

The best modules,setting, anything 2nd Edition by far is Ravenloft. Nothing else comes close to it. I do like FR like some amongst us do. Don't get me wrong, FR is a good setting but RL is better by a longshot, especioally when played right and DMed right(Atmosphere, music, etc).....
Steve

[Dupin]

Dude! too much argueing about one story, that seems anybody agrees is not very good or at least "very Ravenloft", made by WotC, who are kind of lazy this days about Ravenloft (damn new campaign settings! hehe); it's just a campaign made, very posible, to make RL some advertising, which I hope 'cuz nobody seems to remember us hahaha
Oh what the hell, Ravenloft speaks itself about the way it is, no WotC can now change the essence of the mist.

Well, I'm seeing some zealot-behaving on me... and I haven't read anytinh yet... hehehHEHEHEHE

[Joël of the FoS]

Well, Dion hate too much spicy salsa again

While I agree with you the thread is often on the bitching side, I wonder why. This product wasn't made with the RL setting in mind. That's it.

The way I see it, arguing on the canon-ness for the RL setting is somewhat pointless, as if I was arguing if Expedition to the Demonweb Pits is canon for Ravenloft.

No, it's not, because it wasn't made for Ravenloft, the setting.

---

A better and more constructive point IMHO would be to try to salvage EtCR from what we can keep or adapt for Ravenloft, the setting, as Chris once proposed me when it came out.

It could be interesting to make a "RL setting" list of things to keep as side trecks in RL, the setting.

Any taker, or do we make it a collective?

Joël

[WolfKook]

* spits on EtCR and its WE *

Spiteful Crow just got "Spitful"