Dragonlance Dragonlance "Reimagined".

[Faolyn]

That's our Morality and even then children have been caught in the crossfire's by the right side winning. Think 1939-45. That was total war, Dragonlance is total war on a cosmic scale

But the Allied Forces in WWII weren't Gods of Goodness. You can't compare the actions of mortals with limited technology to the actions of literal gods. Compared to godly abilities, even an atom bomb is very limited.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are inferring that, but that is usually not what is being implied. People may enjoy the new things more (tastes are, of course, subjective), but that's not the same as saying it's objectively better.


OK. What was so great about the old Ravenloft that the new version destroyed to the point that you can never use it again?

Nothing. The old Ravenloft is still there, and still has its die-hard fans. What they destroyed is the idea of what Ravenloft is in the minds of anyone who might be exposed to it. Now, this new version is what they see. Every time a franchise is changed in a way that is incompatible with the original, you are forcing a choice from old fans, and completely supplanting the original ideas for the new fans, who have no reason to look elsewhere when the shiny heavily-marketed version is thrust in their faces. Add to that my sincere anticipation for VRG until I actually got to see it, and that's where I stand.

 

[Azzy]

You: Critics are snobs so their low rating of 1978 BSG doesn't count

I said nothing about critics or about the original series. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else.

Seriously, dude. You're allowed to like something, even think it's a masterpiece. But other people are allowed to not like it, even think it's bad emo trash. You appealing to popularity won't change the opinions of others. Be like Elsa and let it go.

 

[Haplo781]

I said nothing about critics or about the original series. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else.

Seriously, dude. You're allowed to like something, even think it's a masterpiece. But other people are allowed to not like it, even think it's bad emo trash. You appealing to popularity won't change the opinions of others. Be like Elsa and let it go.

I'll do you one better. Bye.

 

[Fifth Element]

Every time a franchise is changed in a way that is incompatible with the original, you are forcing a choice from old fans

Of course not. Most people are easily able to maintain two or more different versions of the same thing in their minds at the same time. Ask any comic book fan.

and completely supplanting the original ideas for the new fans, who have no reason to look elsewhere when the shiny heavily-marketed version is thrust in their faces.

Just as you had no reason to look elsewhere when the original version was "thrust in your face."

 

[Faolyn]

Nothing. The old Ravenloft is still there, and still has its die-hard fans. What they destroyed is the idea of what Ravenloft is in the minds of anyone who might be exposed to it. Now, this new version is what they see.

You're going to need some evidence for this...

Every time a franchise is changed in a way that is incompatible with the original, you are forcing a choice from old fans, and completely supplanting the original ideas for the new fans, who have no reason to look elsewhere when the shiny heavily-marketed version is thrust in their faces. Add to that my sincere anticipation for VRG until I actually got to see it, and that's where I stand.

...because this is blatantly wrong, for several reasons.

First, people are not just looking at the book and that's it. This isn't like the old days when you were lucky to get an article for Ravenloft in Dragon Mag and were otherwise stuck. People are going on forums and saying things like "hey, where can I find more information on [domain]. It seems kinda cool but I want more details." And then everyone else on the forum is going to tell them what's in the original material. I just googled "Ravenloft Mordent" and got many links to old and new sites, articles, and blogs, several youtube posts. R/ravenloft has over 6,000 members (the Forgotten Realms sub has only about three times that number). One of the most recent posts there is someone who wants to do a combined and updated version of Van Richten's Guide to Ghosts and Children of the Night: Ghosts. Another person is wondering why Nathan Timothy was fired from being a darklord, and neither Verbrek nor Arkandale were mentioned in VGR. A third person who says they are still learning about the setting is asking what the best RL adventures are. Another person wants to know about Rokushiima Taiyou, and specifically what the Fraternity of Shadows fansite had to say about it.

The old information is there and is still accessed. Even if they aren't buying the old books, people are still reading, using, and adapting the old information.

Secondly, nobody is forcing a choice, and they're most especially not forcing a binary choice. It's not "old books" or "new books." It's old and new, in whatever combination you want, both at the same time. Maybe you prefer Darkon to be a single country ruled by Azalin and his secret police rather than a country that's been broken up and ruled by a few pretenders to the throne, but at the same time prefer zombie apocalypse Falkovnia to Naziland Falkovnia. Easy-peasy. I myself will probably use a slightly modified Dread Metrol instead of either version of Falkovnia. From what I've seen on r/ravenloft, I think most people are going for this hybrid approach--or are taking the separated domains as permission to make their own domains.

And thirdly, how did they destroy what Ravenloft is? It's a land where beings of unforgivable evil are locked in a prison of their own making--one that they could escape if they could truly look into themselves, understand why what they are doing is wrong, and then change, but they never will be able to because of their own hubris. It's exactly the same as what it always was. The horror is still there. Only a few details are different, to be more inclusive and to remove old, bigoted content. The end.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I will never subscribe to the oft-repeated principle that new takes are always better takes. Nothing is a direct incline, and I'm very tired of hearing the opposite position being treated as some kind of axiom.

And, while I'm sure its important to many, marketing and what will appeal to the most people and bring in the most money does not matter to me.

No one said that. Absolutely no one here has said that. What @Hussar said was that new ideas are good. New takes on a concept are a good thing. They're healthy for writing. They keep away cliches and refresh the source material. If new ideas weren't good/healthy, everyone would have forgotten Shakespeare a long time ago. The Lion King and West Side Story would never have been made. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? Never happens under your strict position of "no more remakes/reboots".

No one is saying that reboots/remakes are inherently better than the source material or that new ideas are automatically good. No one is saying that or has said that. You're attacking a strawman.

It is being implicitly suggested by all the people who flock to new versions of old properties, and by content creators who insist on remakes instead of risking themselves a bit on original work.

I like some new things. About half of nu-Trek is good, even great in my opinion. Most if not all the TV offerings for Star Wars are excellent. I don't like everything about new Spelljammer (especially the format and the lack of content), but they nailed the feel of the original.

On the other hand, my distaste for new Ravenloft is well known. Mostly, I'm just tired of people telling me that things I really liked growing up actually suck, over and over again.

Change can be good or bad. But no change means no possiblity of improvement. Sure, some (if not most) remakes are bad. Sturgeon's Law applies, just like it always does. 90% of everything is crap. However, 10% will be good, if not better than the original. And you're against change because you're worried that it's going to be changed for the worse. That's always the gamble when content is made, whether or not it's original. There's no guarantee that completely new content would be better than a reboot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is being implicitly suggested by all the people who flock to new versions of old properties, and by content creators who insist on remakes instead of risking themselves a bit on original work.

No it isn't. The only person I know of who flocked to NuFilmTrek because they thought it was explicitly better than the original was Jar-Jar Abrams. People gravitate to new versions of old properties because they think there is something of worth and think there may be something to be said there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Mostly, I'm just tired of people telling me that things I really liked growing up actually suck, over and over again.

And mostly I'm just tired of gatekeepers who insist over and over again that if we don't enjoy things exactly the way they do that we're doing it wrong. And that old things should therefore be consigned to the dustbin of history rather than an honest and sincere attempt be made to take the good parts and share them with a new audience while trying to improve on the parts that have not aged well.

There is no flawless property - and parts of Dragonlance have not aged well. To be published in the 21st Century those need to be changed unless you want to see WotC buried under deserved criticism.

You, @Micah Sweet are so far as I can tell the only one who is saying that Dragonlance is so abjectly sucky and the suck to Dragonlance is so core that it can't be fixed. I'm therefore getting far more of a message that Dragonlance sucks as a whole (rather than that specific non-core elements like Gully Dwarves, the implementation of kender, and the fetishisation of balance) from you than I am from anyone else on this entire thread.

And me, when I love something, I want to share it as widely as possible. If that involves tweaking it so what I actually love is foregrounded and we drop the sucky background element then so be it. (Oh, and discovering that things I liked growing up weren't everything I thought is a part of growing up).

 

[Hussar]

I will never subscribe to the oft-repeated principle that new takes are always better takes. Nothing is a direct incline, and I'm very tired of hearing the opposite position being treated as some kind of axiom.

And, while I'm sure its important to many, marketing and what will appeal to the most people and bring in the most money does not matter to me.

Never said they were better. Lots of new takes aren’t better. Of course.

But “new takes are better” is not what I said.