Ultimate Ravenloft: Should we?

[Jester of the FoS]

It might be intesting to reboot the world making it younger and larger with new and different lands and cohesive trade and maybe tying the Islands to the single world.
But is that different from Masque of the Red Death?

I like the Mist-covered artificial world but a set geography might be interesting with new lords stealing power or land. Flexible borders and such.
And it might be neat to add a touch of mystery back to Ravenloft.

Rules-wise I'd lean to Pathfinder. We'd eventually have to have some rules...

[Creepy Old Woman]

I like the Mist-covered artificial world but a set geography might be interesting with new lords stealing power or land.

This is what I did in my homebrew Ravenloft campaigns. Most of my friends disliked Ravenloft because of the many opportunities of abuse of players by sadistic DMs - even a simple travel through the mists to the next village across a border can land you right into the waters of Saragoss, for example. I decided to set down some certainties, removed the unreliable travel method, and got rid off most of the unnecessary mathematics. A little less unpredictability makes my friends more happy to play in Ravenloft.

[Isabella]

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj19 ... ppymap.jpg

Not To Scale
Missing Some Things
Looks Like It Was Drawn In Crayon

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj19 ... ppymap.jpg

Not To Scale
Missing Some Things
Looks Like It Was Drawn In Crayon

No shadow rift? I understand why... I didn't like it at first either, but since the book of the same name, I came to terms with it, and eventually grew to like it as a unique geographic feature, not found anywhere else in the multiverse... would actually be sad to see it go now...

[Isabella]

Feel free to alter it as you like. I was just sharing.

[WolfKook]

Well, I opened the thread on the design goals here. If anybody's interested, I proposed a set of goals for discussion, and ScS asked the question: What areas did the latest version fell short in?

As for the rules, I also love Pathfinder, but I also think 4e to be more "mainstream". There has also been discussion on adapting RL to GURPS, to the Storytelling System, etc. What do you think?

Hey! Why don't we use the Castle Falkenstein card-based system? We may even use our tarokka decks instead of normal cards!!!!

[Strahdsbuddy]

After months of hearing the name, i finally discovered what Pathfinder is, and i am very excited about it. Since all my material is 3.5 and i find the 4E announcement...disappointing, a "3.6" as Pathfinder has been called seems like a very comforting spot.

I don't currently have a gaming group, though we're talking about reconvening in October. In the meantime i'd really like to contribute to this project. Please consider again some of my theories from this thread: http://www.fraternityofshadows.com/foru ... highlight= Where i had large chunks of land existing from relatively early era's in the Demiplane's formation; most of which could easily solve logistic issues that pop up from the nature of Ravenloft and it's method of "expanding creation."

[The Arcanist]

I would say a good guideline would be not to trash anything, lame and/or unusable darklord? reinvent them, trying to keep as much as possible from the original idea...

Easan for example has been mentioned a few times in this thread, how about this:

he still has multiple personalities and his realm still changes everytime he changes personality... but so do the inhabitants and the name and location of the domain, so when he is himself Vechor is in the nocturnal sea as written with some important npc's lets say a friendly innkeeper, the corrupt town guard and a lonely and eccentric wizard, dont have my books with me for the details of the other personalities so i'll be vague.

When Easan changes personality Vechor appears in the sea of sorrows (perhaps in the southwest), and the before friendly innkeeper is now the scheming leader of an assassin's guild (posing as an innkeeper), the once corrupt town guard is now a regimented and honorable army (I think there was a warrior personality), and the once lonely and eccentric wizard is now a maddened alienist with a whole cult at his disposal.

On another personality Vechor appears in the verdurous lands accross the sea to the wildlands and near saragoss, the friendly inkeeper is now an anchorite his inn being a small temple of Ezra, the corrupt town guard is a band of brigands terrorizing the (now) mostly defenseless town, and the eccentric wizard is now a lich pretending to be alive and "protects" the town from the brigands for his own vile purposes (perhaps he's experimenting on the townsfolk or the mercenaries he hires to guard the town are undead monsters he's perfecting to pass as living beings)

Finally the last personality could take the domain to the shadowborn cluster (im assuming there's a personality that would fit with this), this time the inkeeper is still an inkeeper, but also a spy for elena faithhold who wants to invade the heretic country, the townsguard are now the cluster atmosphere fitting knights, and the eccentric wizard is an illithid posing as a human.

So this gives you several possibilities...

If you want to send your party across the world without using the mists once again take them to Vechor (or whatever it's called at the moment) and have them experience a shift.

Also, you could run 2 or three adventures at the same time shifting the escenario on the players at your whims! Muhahaha!

To consider and perhaps up to every DM, does time transcur between the times a particular version of Vechor vanishes and reappears? or perhaps it's replaced by false memories of what happened while it didnt exist for the natives?

Finally, to prevent abuse, if a version of an NPC dies by anything other than natural causes, his other versions are still alive, this avoids clever players murdering the assassin master when he was an ordinary innkeeper, and granting them a powers check for their trouble.

So what do you think?

[DasSoviet]

As for the rules, I also love Pathfinder, but I also think 4e to be more "mainstream". There has also been discussion on adapting RL to GURPS, to the Storytelling System, etc. What do you think?

In my much biased opinion, we should use 3.5/Pathfinder as a baseline, because that's the most developed setting as of this point in time and space. However, fluff can be easily adapted, and so long as the project remains more biased towards providing lore, stories, facts and ideas instead of hard rules, the exact system shouldn't matter.

[The Arcanist]

Well, leaving it for the moment "system free" seems better to me. We are not a group as large as we would like and alienating those who play 2E, 3.5, GURPS, Pathfinder, 4E or anything would only reduce our size, while fluff is for all, when a wiki is set up links can be placed for NPC stats for each edition or system.

In the meantime reimagining the setting seems enough of a task.

[WolfKook]

Well, leaving it for the moment "system free" seems better to me. We are not a group as large as we would like and alienating those who play 2E, 3.5, GURPS, Pathfinder, 4E or anything would only reduce our size, while fluff is for all, when a wiki is set up links can be placed for NPC stats for each edition or system.

In the meantime reimagining the setting seems enough of a task.

I agree with the Arcanist here. We could concentrate on the fluff until the crunch is really needed, so we can have a mostly system-independent realm that could be easily adapted by to GURPS by HumanBing, to the Storyteller system by Dion, or to any other system by that system's supporters.

I already saw something like that in an anniversary adaptation of the DragonLance classics, which could be played either with the older AD&D 2Ed rules, or with the newer SAGA rules, and I think the Wiki format could help us do it seamlessly, so anyone could use the rule system they want.

Speaking of which, the Arcanist also proposed that we created this Wiki in wikispot.org. If you agree, I (Or any other member of this forum who has more experience with this than me) could create the account to let us start creating the world collaboratively (sp?).

[WolfKook]

Well, it would seem that we have a preliminar set of design goals:

• 1. Keep the Setting's Original Staples

• 2. Increase Attractiveness and Playability

• 3. Strive for Consistency

• 4. Keep a Unified Timeline

• 5. Include Fan-Created Material

These goals are further explained here, and are still open for discussion in that same thread.

Global world mechanics are being discussed here.

The next step would be even bigger, as we'll have to define which domains belong into the Ultimate Core. Then I guess that the real discussion will begin.

Till then

[Jester of the FoS]

It might be interesting to see what WotC does in October and feed off of that (ie make Ultimate Ravenloft similar or the opposite).

[DoctorMoreau]

I'll probably be burned at the stake (in a very Ravenloft fashion) for my heresey but I think some things need to be "reevaulated" pretty heavily. I think domain borders and closing of them needs to reconsidered (though I know many people feel that way) I also think some of the qoute "Darklords" need to be demoted to NPCs that are empowered by the dark powers.

I think that Ravenloft is about gothic horror blended with sword and sorcery fantasy and I don't think anyone can argue that, by that point the darklords should be threatening to PCs, if not by themselves then through some level of martial control and minions.

In my humble opinion Darklord should refer to lords of the domain that rule (overtly or covertly) but actual rulers, and those rulers should have some justification for being in charge besides just "she's the darklord" there should be a more realistic angle and at the same degree a greater degree of power and challenge for the PC (which being the actual ruler can provider).

I also am of the opinion that Ravenloft itself, not the individual domain should be the prison. By making darklords rulers of the their own domain you give them motivation to not travel much, but you don't restrict them, just adding to the horror.

If you piss off Strahd, he can hunt you down, though he is more likely to send minions as he has things to do and won't be bothered (nor does he see a need to risk himself). But I guess it depends on how much you've burned him.

Thoughts ideas, things that I think would mesh with 4e as well, being more open and handled by the DM.

[WolfKook]

I'll probably be burned at the stake (in a very Ravenloft fashion) for my heresey but I think some things need to be "reevaulated" pretty heavily. I think domain borders and closing of them needs to reconsidered (though I know many people feel that way) I also think some of the qoute "Darklords" need to be demoted to NPCs that are empowered by the dark powers...

I think just the same, and I guess several people here think similarly. That's exactly what this project is about. I agree with most of your other poins as well. Check the global mechanics thread to follow that discussion. Any ideas are welcome.

in the interest of moving this forward a bit, I think we need to decide what we are going to focus on first. I think remaking the map would be our first priority. Kind of start large then get smaller.

You're right. I was thinking on starting on the Core, deciding which domains we should put in it (Which should disappear, which should merge, etc.). Once we get those domains, we could determine their size by measuring the power of the DL (As the discussion in theDesign Goals thread suggests, DL power and domain size should be related), and establish relationships among them to make the first outline of the Ultimate Core. Once we have this, we could go on fleshing out each domain, along the lines traced by A G Thing in the same thread.

I was preparing to open a thread with that goal in the Community Projects forum, but Jester's suggestion (More on that below) made me think that I should put that on hold for a while.

Also are we going to use a whoever wants to input can and someone eventually compiles it all, or should we start developing a team? I think that allowing board members to give input is very important but I also know that if we get too many people in the project very little will get done.

Again, you're right, and I guess the team option would be the best answer (Keeping in mind AntiFascist's suggestions to prevent abuse by the developing team) to keep things going on, and compile the decisions discussed here on the Wiki (Which has already been created by the Arcanist, but I leave it to him to socialize it).

For that team, I would postulate the Arcanist and impworks (If they agree), and myself (If someone else agrees ). Perhaps with a member of the FoS who has some (any?) spare time and shares our interest in the project (Roti? Nathan? Deepshadow?), as they could contribute with their experience in these kind of projects. Antifascist, DasSoviet, Isabella, Strahdsbuddy, you have also contributed a lot in the discussion, would any of you be interested in such a responsibility? I guess a team of 4-6 with fixed responsibilities would be alright. If anyone else is interested, or wants to postulate someone else I'm missing, please say so (Or send me a PM).

It might be interesting to see what WotC does in October and feed off of that (ie make Ultimate Ravenloft similar or the opposite).

Well, I guess that's fair. Perhaps the concept WotC has got in its hands is great, or goes alongside the lines we are establishing. In either case, if would be a waste of our time to start a project that would be condemned to failure from the very beginning because it would be reinventing the wheel, or would fail to meet enough interest (Unless we shift the focus, maybe). So, perhaps the best decision would be to put the project on hold for a while, to see what they have come up with (And get organized in the meantime). Hope that isn't a problem for those who have shown their enthusiasm.