I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one. But why even set it up as an island in the first place, if just having it connect to adjacent domains effectively is the same? Trade and communication by water or by mists, ought to be different from trade by land, no? I mean, if you like the island premise, that is what you like. But what you are describing just seems like something I wouldn't be interested in. I liked having the core as a solid landmass of connected domains. I honestly don't understand why I even need to defend that preference.
I guess because you seemed to attack the idea of islands as a bad idea, but you haven't really given me any solid reason to understand why. Sure, trade and communication by water is different than trade or communication by land, but different isn't impossible. If the point is that you want Trade and Communication.. then you still have that with this new idea.
I don't think my responses have been confusing. I've responded to posts as I have seen them, and tried to address every criticism and point you've made. In one case I believe I responded out of order because of how I was cutting up the quotes (not particularly skilled at the quote feature here).
I'm sorry that you are struggling with the quoting feature, but that doesn't make this any less difficult to follow and respond to.
Look, if you don't find it horrifying you don't. I found Falkovnia plenty horrifying for the reasons I stated and others stated, and for the ways it was presented in the setting. One thing that was refreshing about it, was it was more about human horror and many of the other domains had more emphasis on monsters (which is fine, I like monsters). But with Falkovnia you could explore the horror and dread of being in an oppressive militarized domain. And like I have said several time, read the old descriptions for yourself. You will either find it works for horror or you won't. I can't really decide that for you.
Really, whether I do or do not does not change where this started. What was described in the second wave of these posts was far more horrifying than what was initially described. But, I think you all just included those details subconciously, while not realizing that simply stating "oppressive military zone" is so broad and doesn't cover a lot of horror territory. Those details you didn't add until later paint a far far different picture than the one I was initially given.
I don't think it was, and I was trying to answer your posts to the best of my ability. If you are unclear you can ask me for more information. But please don't make insulting posts like this towards me. It doesn't make me want to answer you with a measured and honest response (and I prefer to have cordial discussions not hostile ones). If we disagree, that's fine. But we don't have to insult one another. Calling my posts a 'useless vague description' is insulting.
I asked you what I said that was so offensive, because you responded with "don't put words in my mouth". Clearly indicating that I had no idea what part of my statement was "putting words in your mouth". I even gave broad examples of what I might have said that could have been the cause.
You responded by saying that... I put words in your mouth by saying you said things you didn't say. That is... vague, and tells me nothing about what I actually said. Since it can't lead to me understanding what was wrong, it is fairly useless. You might as well have said that you hated the dinner I made, then when I asked for more details just said you didn't like the dinner I made. I got that part, but in terms of me understanding what went wrong, I have no clue.
From posts far later, I'm guessing it was over the description of Falkovia, but that came much later in the discussion, so that is as much a guess as it is anything else.
This argument doesn't really make sense to me. I mean the Van Richten books, as I said, are part of the Ravenloft line. They are designed with the Ravenloft setting in mind. Can you use them in other settings? Sure, but in Ravenloft the mechanics and the setting material in the Van Richten books are a more perfect fit. Also, and this point keeps getting overlooked, the van richten books is an elaboration of tools and concepts presented in the black boxed set. Part of what makes Ravenloft work as a setting is that mechanically it does things differently than other settings. Spells work differently. Monsters work differently. Curses work differently. There are dark powers, and powers checks, which warp characters. These concepts are all carried into the van richten books. Now you can export those into other settings, but that isn't a sound argument against Ravenloft working as a horor setting because of its tools. I mean this discussion is very strange because people are asking me to defend why Ravenloft is good at horror. I say the setting and tools/mechanics. The responses are basically "the setting sucks" and "you can just export the tools" so your answer is wrong. I really don't know what to say to this particular argument. Its rhetorically interesting, but not persuasive at all.
Maybe it is because you are talking about the "Ravenloft Line" like it was all one piece of information? I mean, if I offer the point that Ravenloft is in large part defined by the gothic stories of the Dark Lords and their Domains, you counter by saying that Van Richten gave you the tools to make unique and powerful monsters and that those are the real draw of Ravenloft. But... Ravenloft =/= Van Richten Guides. Those are two separate things. If I was buying the Black Box, I don't get the Van Richten Guides, if I buy the Van Richten Guides, I don't get the Black Box.
To give a different example. If I said "I love Dragonlance because I can fight Dragons." then that is not a good reason to like the setting. It is very true and obvious that you can fight Dragons in other settings. If someone then said, "but if you get the Super Dragon Expansion of the Dragonlance line, you get to make really cool and epic dragons to fight." Then, wouldn't it be a fair counter to say "okay, that isn't an endorsement of Dragonlance, that is an endorsement of the Super Dragon Expansion."?
I guess my point is that every time you try and defend the setting, you reference this single expansion of tools, which to me sounds less like the setting was awesome, and more like that set of tools was awesome. Which is great, and they were designed for the setting, which I understand, but since the setting is supposed to stand on its own, isn't it a bit worrying that it sounds like if you tried to run Ravenloft without Van Richten's guides, you weren't running Ravenloft? Because that is the impression you have been leaving me with.
This seems like a really big quibble over language to me. Ravenloft was a line that evolved. There were ideas expressed in the Black Box Set that were more fully explored in the Van Richten books (the idea of how you customize individual monsters like vampires for example). So those ideas were present going back to the black box set, but the van richten books really illustrate how to do that. And my point overall is, the full nature of this line becomes clear by the time you have the black box set, feast of goblins and the van richten books coming out. I do also think the van richten books improved upon the core ideas because you kind of needed that elaboration to fully explore it. They also just offered clear blueprints for the kinds of adventures that would work well in Ravenloft. I guess what I am saying is, it is essential for understanding both what the line became, and also helps illuminate ideas and builds off ideas in the core boxed set (the core boxed set is great on its own, but I don't think you quite have fully baked Ravenloft in all its magnificence till you get some of the Van Richten books).
And here you are saying exactly what I was struggling with, Ravenloft is incomplete without Van Richten, but people didn't get a copy of Van Richten's Guides when they bought Ravenloft. So, we have to assume that a lot of people played and experienced Ravenloft
without those books.
This could be why you have such a different view of the setting than other people I have talked to, because they didn't have those supplements, and you are treating the supplements as synonymous with the setting.
Ravenloft islands of terror are not like islands in the real world. The mists are a much more disruptive force to things like trade and cultural transmission. But also, even in the real world, being an island impacts trade, movement and communication. It still matters. If Europe were a big collection of islands, its history and cultures would be very, very different. You definitely want islands in a setting, but I think having a setting that is all islands is going to be jarring if you are striving for places that feel recognizable (it would be a pretty big thought experiment as worlds go, sort of like Earthsea I suppose. That might be interesting, but it isn't what Ravenloft was, and it isn't what I want from Ravenloft.
Of course it is different, but this new take on the setting might not be like the old Islands of Terror. And, maybe it won't be recognizable to you, but that doesn't mean it won't resonate with others.
I'm excited for this concept, it is unique beyond anything else I've seen and it is interesting. And it seems the major problem with it is that it isn't like it was 30 years ago.
Why doesn't it also make it harder if you want international politics? I am sorry but I am just not seeing this at all. And definitely still not a fan of the broken up core idea.
Because you can still have international politics between island nations, and we have done so on Earth for centuries?
I mean, if you want to make the "sea of mist" incredibly deadly and confusing and prevent its navigation, then go ahead, but if you don't I see zero reason that experienced captains couldn't navigate that sea and allow for the type of politics you want.
Dark Lords are also tragic and sympathetic villains. They do have redeeming qualities that might make us admire them. But when it comes to history, people draw on that in RPG settings for the resonance. I studied history in college as my major. Real history is very complicated and real world historical figures often much more nuanced, not easily reduced to black and white. Still there are stark examples we can point to and draw from when we want to make an impact. I don't think Drakov is commentary on the real world Vlad Tepes. It is just drawing off stuff that was floating around at the time. Despite interest in history and horror, I never got too into that history (I actually am more familiar with middle eastern history), so I leave the Vlad Tepes debate to others.
Nothing about that warlord from Falkovia seemed to indicate him as being sympathetic in anyway. And you kept insisting that he was inspired by Vlad and Hitler. That raises problems, and I think that was the only point being made.
Sure, we are going to draw from historical and mythological accounts, but I also think that claiming every vampire is somewhat based on Vlad is just... trying. Vampire lore predates Dracula by a bit. And even Dracula was so loosely based on Tepes as to be unconnected if you wanted it to be.
www.enworld.org
