RLR: Which Ruleset?

[WolfKook]

Even though the RLR project has been in development for months, there's still an issue that must be addressed before it goes on any further. That is, which ruleset should it be based upon?

Some people have said that RLR should be compatible with D&D 4E, to keep the setting up-to-date the mainstream. That would probably be interesting if we want to open the gates to the next generation of D&D gamers and "ride the wave" of the current support to the 4th Ed. We would be able to use some ideas from this ruleset, like the Shadowfell, the Feywild and such, but we would also have to think how to accomodate some other elements specific to it, like the Dragonborn, the Epic Tier, etc.

Others have argued that RLR should stay compatible with the 3.0E/3.5E ruleset, to make it compatible with such new developments as PathFinder RPG or True20. In this case, the amount of available material would be comparatively greater, and the work to be done would be less (As the base rules of the setting have already been established), but it would probably have less long-term continuity, or appeal.

Finally, some have said that RLR should be system-independent, probably presented in a wiki where all the "fluff" would be presented, with different options for "crunch" (4E, 3E, GURPS, WoD, Savage Worlds, Fuzion, Basic, etc.). That would open the doors for many people, but would also represent a greater amount of work, as there would have to be alternate rules for each element within each ruleset supported. Moreso, cosmological elements belonging to a particular ruleset (The Shadowfell, the WoD cosmology, etc.) should be avoided to favor elements specific to the setting.

So, what do you think? Which one should be the best option?

[Ornum]

While I see votes, I see no responses. So here goes.

As much as I hate it, I voted for 4e on this one. Why would I do this even though I'm generally against 4e? Well, we already have 3e Ravenloft. It's hard to get your hands on it right now, but the stuff is out there. And like what was said, the multiple rule angle may just be too much work (especially if the writer and editing pools are small). If this project is meant to both streamline Ravenloft and also is to act as something to draw in new players to the setting, then obviously, the 4e ruleset is the way to go.

Even if multiple rules get the majority of the vote, I would still suggest concentrating on 4e first and making sure a workable and usable Ravenloft gets out first. Then the time could be spent with adding in alternate rulesets.

[order99]

AD&D 2nd Edition, as the Dark Powers intended...



Nah, i'm not holding my breath. I've played Ravenloft and Masque with a variety of rules systems in the past though(MS&PE, MERP, WFRPG, Amazing Engine, BRP etc etc) so i'm going with the System-optional option. More work for the plug-ins, but highly flexible!

[Igor the Henchman]

4E. Easier to design for. Order99's point is actually valid. Some people still play 2E. If you design for both most recent editions, why is 2E left out?

[DasSoviet]

I think that this should be as system-neutral as possible... Ravenloft is more about the stories than the systems used to run these stories, right? So we should focus on making the setting first, then work on making the rules fit, rather than trying to build a setting to fit those rules.

I agree with Ornum that 4E should be a priority to bring in new blood and to clear up the setting/make it easier for new players to understand, but I don't think we should write off those of us still playing 3.5/Pathfinder/2E/ other systems, particularly considering the amount of resources available to provide ideas and concepts to RLR.

[tec-goblin]

I think that this should be as system-neutral as possible... Ravenloft is more about the stories than the systems used to run these stories, right? So we should focus on making the setting first, then work on making the rules fit, rather than trying to build a setting to fit those rules.

Ravenloft is more a game than a story, and as thus, it is reasonable to optimize it for a particular system, in order to maximize playability. Having played Eberron in 3.5, I am very confident on the fact that a world optimized for a particular system creates for memorable games, even if it doesn't always read as world-class literature (it should still read better than Bruce Cordell's stories, though ). That said, I agree that some separation in the presentation of fluff and rules would help keep the content relevant to all players and DMs, regardless of system.

I also have to add that, from my experience, 1 in 2 persons still playing old editions do it out of a "purist" mentality, and those persons will not be exactly thrilled with a project that changes so many domains in so many ways, anyway. This makes the non-4e target group of the project smaller.

[WolfKook]

Playing as a devil's advocate on this one, I remember a Dragonlance campaign released for the 20th (Or was it 25th?) anniversary of the setting, and based on the old "Dragons of ..." series of books. By then, the setting was being played using the SAGA rules (Remember the SAGA rules, with the cards?), but the entire campaign was written in a rule-independent fashion, with stats provided for both SAGA rules and D&D 2nd Ed. rules to be used as the DM saw fit. I always thought that was a very interesting idea: Having the setting and the ground rules as separate entities, and using them as needed.

Even if multiple rules get the majority of the vote, I would still suggest concentrating on 4e first and making sure a workable and usable Ravenloft gets out first. Then the time could be spent with adding in alternate rulesets.

I'm of the same opinion here. Right now, the "multiple rulesets" approach is winning, but something should be done first, and I guess it would have to be 4E.

Order99's point is actually valid. Some people still play 2E. If you design for both most recent editions, why is 2E left out?

Well, the point is valid, indeed. I guess I left it out because no-one's giving support to the system right now, as some people are still giving to 3E (Pathfinder, Trailblazer, True20, Action20, etc.). If we set for multiple rulesets, though, someone could create a 2nd Ed. adaptation (Not too hard, because as order99 pointed out, most of the setting already exists in that incarnation).

I think that this should be as system-neutral as possible... Ravenloft is more about the stories than the systems used to run these stories, right?

This is also my opinion, but I guess tec's points are also pretty valid. So I'll quote him also...

Having played Eberron in 3.5, I am very confident on the fact that a world optimized for a particular system creates for memorable games, even if it doesn't always read as world-class literature

So, your opinion is to make it rules-independent, but optimized at first to work with 4E? That sounds great, and I guess would work perfectly. The effort needed to translate it to other rulesets will be higher, though...

I also have to add that, from my experience, 1 in 2 persons still playing old editions do it out of a "purist" mentality, and those persons will not be exactly thrilled with a project that changes so many domains in so many ways, anyway. This makes the non-4e target group of the project smaller.

You're also right on this one. Another reason for not using "just" 2nd. Ed.

[Lucien Doomdark]

Even if multiple rules get the majority of the vote, I would still suggest concentrating on 4e first and making sure a workable and usable Ravenloft gets out first. Then the time could be spent with adding in alternate rulesets.

Fourthed...or whatever. I voted for the fluff-first approach but I'd like to see this employed with a 4e rule-set to make it easier to bring in new players.

[WolfKook]

Nice! I guess this one is mostly settled: Rules-independent, with emphasis in 4E, and plugins for other rulesets. I know I could work on the Pathfinder version.

However, I'm mostly analphabet in 4E... And I know there are people capable of doing the other plugins. Dion has worked a lot in a WoD Ravenloft, and I guess it was HumanBing the one who'd worked the most in a GURPS version. It would also be interesting to see a Savage Worlds version of it... Which other systems would you like to see here?

[Twin Agate Dragons]

While I don't mind Rules Independent, I much prefer 3E/Pathfinder.
I am avidly against 4E.

[jaysin]

Nice! I guess this one is mostly settled: Rules-independent, with emphasis in 4E, and plugins for other rulesets. I know I could work on the Pathfinder version.

However, I'm mostly analphabet in 4E... And I know there are people capable of doing the other plugins. Dion has worked a lot in a WoD Ravenloft, and I guess it was HumanBing the one who'd worked the most in a GURPS version. It would also be interesting to see a Savage Worlds version of it... Which other systems would you like to see here?

Hello...I'm new around here. I've been gaming for 20+ years and just now discovered Ravenloft (yeah, I know...where've I been?). I think this project sounds INCREDIBLE!

It's been mentioned before, but I'm in total agreement that Pathfinder version would be great.

What about Castles & Crusades? They have an active web-board, a growing popularity that enjoys the more rules-lite but familiar d20 mechanic, and I don't believe they currently have anything approaching a Ravenloft theme . On top of that, their web-forum has easy conversions between C&C and AD&D 2e AND 3/3.5e.

Savage Worlds would be an important conversion. This one would be MUCH easier than one might think, since their Rippers plot point is very Ravenloft-like and many of the mechanics and monsters would be adjustments of existing features and creatures, rather than created from whole cloth.

Lastly, I think a True20 version of the statblocks might be pretty cool. They have a pretty active web presence, and converting from d20 (3/3.5e) is a snap. The core book (and a few of the expansions) cover many of the Ravenloft features (fear/sanity/curses) and the streamlined nature of their ruleset really makes the story elements come to the forefront. Nothing screams story more than Ravenloft....

Anyway, for my first post and suggestion, I'd say those four systems should be considered if the project is going to go beyond simply 4e. Myself, I could see myself running C&C, SW or True20 depending upon whether my group was more rules-lite (C&C), really likes to use minis (SW), or rules-medium/d20 (T20). What remains true is that Ravenloft can speak to all of those play styles - regardless of the game mechanic with which its being played.

I don't want to bad-mouth 4e as there's many folks that are being brought into the hobby using that system - and to them that IS roleplaying. It's simply not for me, so I'm hoping that your Ravenloft project also considers players of other rulesets.

Thanks for the board. This latecomer to the mists appreciates everything on this site!

[Lucien Doomdark]

Savage Worlds would be an important conversion. This one would be MUCH easier than one might think, since their Rippers plot point is very Ravenloft-like and many of the mechanics and monsters would be adjustments of existing features and creatures, rather than created from whole cloth.

Great idea! Especially given that The Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane has been out for awhile, and that Deadlands converted to it?