That is a perfectly good reason for liking Dragonlance. The storyline is about a war involving dragons. You certainly can face dragons in other settings, but you can more reliably face them in Dragonlance. But beyond that I really don't get this whole attitude of "your reasons are not adequate". People get to like things for whatever reasons they want. I don't know what a super dragon expansion is, but I don't think you've made the case against the van richten books not being a reason in favor of Ravenloft: they were made for the setting and reflect setting content. I really can't continue to debate on that. We've reached a point where we simply disagree (and I don't find your points convincing at all)
I'm not trying to say you can't like Ravenloft for whatever reason you want. I don't care why you like it.
What I am trying to say is that if you want to sell someone on the setting of Ravenloft, saying, "Playing 2e in Ravenloft with the Van Richten Guides so you can customize the monsters" isn't selling Ravenloft. It is selling a very particular set of books and options.
Of course you can. But the point is geography matters. Bodies of water are boundaries that matter. They have an impact on international politics and shape them. If the domains are separate islands then their 'international politics" are going to be different than they were in the core book. Your argument for islands as a model seems to be: islands are really great and do all these different things in the areas I want, but all the different things they do suddenly don't exist when you point them out as potential downsides. i just don't get this argument, and I don't get the argument for why you need islands in Ravenloft rather than having both a core and islands.
I understand that geography matters. I understand that international politics involving islands in a sea are different than those involving land and different than those involving mountain ranges. That is blatantly obvious.
But, when I've asked "What about the previous geography was usefuly? What are you losing?" your answers have been:
1) The Freedom to Travel (not lost by making them islands, just a different form of travel. Unless you make them specifically like the old Islands of Terror and make the area impossible to navigate which I am not assuming)
2) Falkovia going to war (they redid that domain it seems, so in terms of the geography that is a non-issue)
3) You lose international politics (You don't)
So... really I think what it comes down to for you is the bolded section. It is different. And it is completely fair that you as a fan of the old 2e version love the version you have used for decades and you don't want to change it. I hope you continue to use what has worked for your for decades. But, as a new player getting introduced to this setting? "It is different than it used to be" isn't a convincing argument for me to want to go back to the old version. I have no connections to either version, so I am seeing them as baseline equal to begin with.
It is probably the most important feature of Ravenloft. Without powers checks, the setting wouldn't have clicked or made sense in my opinion. When you commit evil acts, there is a percentage chance of attracting the dark powers attention. This can lead to advancing through various stages of corruption (the number varies from black box, to domains of dread, etc). But essentially each stage gives a reward and a punishment as you progress towards a more monstrous end result. It an happen to PCs, but also is assumed to happen to NPCs in the setting. Many foes in Ravenllfot are simply those who have advanced through different steps of corruption. There are guidelines for which acts would produce what percentage chance of attracting the dark powers (these get quite codified in later books), and there are guidelines on how to handle rewards and punishments.
That does sound interesting, and exactly like the type of thing I would want to include in this style of game. I'll have to think about how I want to include it.
I don't keep insisting he is inspired by Hitler, that is another poster (I do think that comparison is there, but he is also easily compared to Stalin and similar figures). For me, him being based on historical monsters is perfectly in keeping in with a horror game though (perhaps for you it isn't, or it is a bridge too far, and that is fine). But I already expressed my reasons for why I thought that was compelling, why it didn't personally bother me. You can read that post, if you still think it is a problem, then that is fine. We can have different opinions.
In terms of sympathetic, I think the lords vary, in terms of how that is handled, and Drakov is hitting a particular note, so he isn't sympathetic in the same style as Strahd. whose pining for his youth and the lost love who represents that youth is something people can relate to and sympathize with: even if the remainder of his actions: killing his brother, driving her to suicide, still make him a monster. This combined with his charm, his musical and arcane talents, give us something to admire. It creates that combo of being compelling and being repugnant.
In Drakov's case, as I recall (and I am going by memory here) he is a military conquerer trapped in a place where he can never really conquer anymore. As for Drakov, here is the section from the book that I think makes him a bit relatable:
Here is the part of his background that I think places him pretty firmly into horror (note this is his entry, not the domain's, and this is just part of his entry):
Obviously few can sympathize with his horrendous actions, but I can totally sympathize with being looked down upon and that fueling some kind of deep resentment. I think that is a near universal experience.
With Ravenloft it varied for sure, but it was a pretty firm guideline that these villains were meant to be tragic and sympathetic. There is camp too, and fun. Ivan Dilisnya is an example of that. But they all tend to have some basic human need or desire thwarted that you can at least understand. Again, they are compelling but also repugnant
Okay, I can see that angle of sympathy, and that does work to an extent. Though I find it to be a thin thread combined with every other aspect of him.
I also think that reading those really does highlight the Vlad Tepes comparison, in a lot of ways that I'm not sure I like. So there is a lot of give and take there. I think, all in all, it is a well-written character from an older time. I can see how he is compelling, but I can also see where I would never use him as written.
A couple of things here, the domains don't reset like a video game or anything like that (unless you have a land with a groundhog day premise or something). With Strahd Tatyana is reborn like every generation or so (can't recall the precise timing).
With domains, they are like real places. So once the land forms, whether it is drawn from another place, a copy of another place, or created whole cloth by the dark powers (and this as others have pointed out is a bit inconsistent and isn't always clear how it is handled: which I think is fine because I prefer to lean into one explanation as I need when I am making my own domains, rather than have a concrete way it needs be done), it is inhabited by people who are real, and that domain goes on to exist like a real place within Ravenloft (and this is one reason why I think having the core works). Mordent is formed in like 579, the calendar in the black box I think had present day as 735 (could be wrong on that). Dementlieu was formed in 707. So there is ample time for someone to be born within Ravenloft and to go on to do evil and have a new domain form around them.
On the prison thing. Ravenloft's best theory is that it is a prison for its dark lords. But the dark powers are deliberately left mysterious, it isn't really known why they are doing what they are doing. For all we know it is an evil terrarium and the eventual production of guys like Dominic d'Honaire is actually the final purpose of Ravenloft. It is left vague so it can be left to the imagination and so different GMs can lean into different explanations.
You know what? I was not sold on this concept until you made the comparison to an evil terrarium. THAT makes sense and I think makes a great concept for this setting, for me.
www.enworld.org
