Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6852529" data-attributes="member: 37579">Which is fine, but isn't very Ravenloft. One of the big "things" of the setting was that the darklords each crossed a line. They had a singular moment of pure evil where they made a choice, and chose darkness. And they were damned for it, cursed as much as blessed. Now, if Curse of Strahd jettisoned all the setting content (like Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) and didn't give Strahd the trappings of a darklord or mention the rest of the demiplane, that's fine. It's just a different take on the story. I may not like it, but it's a reboot. Like the nu-Trek. But, CoS didn't go that route. They made Barovia a domain, evoked the Dark Powers, name-dropped "Darkon" and included vanRichten. By having Strahd already evil they changed one of the big rules of the setting, one of the hooks. It's like making a Dark Sun adventure and completely changing how defiling, sorcerer-kings, and the Dragon worked. Or a Dragonlance campaign story where the motives of the Kingpriest and cause of the Cataclysm are changed. You can play Curse of Strahd as part of a larger Ravenloft campaign, but you have to make changes. You have to work around revisions. Because the writers didn't do the work or put in the effort, every DM now has to.  And, generally, in the Ravenloft community, the opinion is that Curse of Strahd has joined Lord of the Necropolis, Enemy Within, and Desmond LaRouche from RLMC2 as non-canon parts of the campaign setting. I enjoy living narratives. I like seeing stories evolve and grow with layers and additions added over time, building and expanding on what has gone before. Additive changes that make things richer and more detailed rather than revisionary changes that just take away.</blockquote>

Verification