Chaosmancer, we've gone back and forth over this point over and over. If you aren't convinced you aren't but I find your argument really strange. If I am telling someone that I think a line was good, of course I am going to include support for that line as reason for why it is worth exploring. And I have already given you reasons on why. But here is at least one more in terms of mechanics: all the mechanics in the van richten books are for 2E, so good luck using them in d20 or 5E, and some of the mechanics even fit to mechanics specific to ravenloft. At this point though, I am not trying to sell you on anything. If you don't think the van richten books are an attentive reason to go to 2E Ravenloft, then don't. It isn't my responsibility to give you a thorough sales pitch and secure the sale. I am telling you what I like about 2E Ravenloft and I feel like you are responding with incredibly pedantic quibbles to the things I say about. I will not respond to this point any further because this is not feeling like a conversation to me
It could also be because you keep referring to "the line" while I am trying to talk about "the setting" and I think those are two different things.
From the perspective of "the line" then you are talking about every single thing ever released that tied into Ravenloft, but from the perspective of "the setting" I am just trying to talk about the place and the story of that place.
It is like, to use a car analogy, I'm trying to talk about the new Ford Mach-E, and you are talking about every vehicle ever sold by Ford. Truck, Car, Van, ect. Yes, those are all sold by Ford, but since I'm talking about something much more specific than you, it gets frustrating for you to keep talking about the hauling power of a Ford Truck.
I have given plenty of reasons: it is super artificial feeling to have ravenloft be all a bunch of islands for gaming purposes. Gameability matters. But you don't want the setting to feel gamey. To me, making it all islands feels extremely gamey. it is also very inconvenient because it creates a nuisance anytime I want the players to travel and anytime I want to explore things like diplomacy (because every place is suddenly England for some reason). I think the onus is on the people who want them to be islands to explain why that is better. So far I haven't seen a good reason for that provided. In terms of the actual geography. It shifted over time. The specific layout of the core can vary. I prefer the layout in black box, but I think most people would say it started to feel more cohesive by the red box (because they removed domains that seemed more out of place (personally I like the out of place ones, but I get why people didn't). But the particular arrangement created nice connected areas for adventure. For example, I like the domains of Forlorn, Sithicus, Valachan and Kartakass, and it was easy to have players adventuring in those areas, often having adventures that spanned their borders because those were close to one another. So for example, you could have an adventure that started in Valachan where some resident had a family member who ventured into Forlorn to explore the mysterious castle there. And that allowed for an adventure that wasn't just an explorations of Castles Forlorn, but also about the road from Valachan to Forlorn. That is a useful skeleton to hang other adventure opportunities on and encounters. It also provides a nice sense of place for the players as they become familiar with these connected places. YMMV
It doesn't feel gamey at all to me. And yeah, it does feel a bit artificial, but it is a world created with a specific purpose, so it feeling artificial is a bonus to me. It shouldn't feel completely realistic.
I also don't see the nuisance in travel or diplomacy. Those will take different forms, but they aren't any more of a nuisance than any other way of dealing with travel and diplomacy.
And, I guess since I lack the details, I don't understand why the road from Valachan to Forlorn is different than say, the road from the Village of X to Forlorn. But, I think one thing I do like is tying all these realms together with a single interconnected piece. That works for me. Maybe it doesn't for you, but the islands being physically separated, visually separated and connected by a Dark Sea with its own mysterious properties just works as a whole for me.
He is still meant to be a villain, and as sympathetic villains go, he is the least sympathetic for a reason I think: he is the closest to a real world monster that you have in the book (at least in terms of recent political memory for people). Some of the other lords lean much more heavily into the tragedy and sympathy. One danger of going too far there though is it can overwhelm the horror so it is a balance. Like I said, they should be compelling, but they should be repugnant too.
I agree
Look in terms of drawing on real world history, that is up to you how you feel about that. I can't tell you that you should or should not feel a particular way about using Vlad Tepes. For me I think it works. I prefer that we exist in a creative environment where people can draw more freely off real world things and without fretting over it. I just find that produces more interesting material to me in the end. But if you feel different, you feel different.
I think the issue is that there is an obvious reference, and then they take one of the things that Tepes was most famously heroic for, and turn it into the villainous drive of this Falkovian version.
Vlad Tepes was a military man, he fought wars constantly. Mostly (if I am remembering my history)
defensive wars. The reason behind the staking of individuals was in part as a deterrent. He wanted to horrify his neighbors so they would stop attacking him and his people. And that tactic was necessary because he was smaller and weaker than his neighbors.
And so, seeing a version of him that is blatantly taking his inspiration (dining while surrounded by staked individuals was a tactic Vlad used to horrify diplomats) but then turning his desire to be powerful and respected by his neighbors into some twisted evil motivation, making it about personal glory when it was in part a desire to stop being bullied by neighbors far more powerful than him... it kind of grates. It takes the thing I can respect about the man and makes it something to be reviled.
It could entirely be a personal issue, but seeing it laid out like that really struck me with what was being said earlier, when you take a historical figure and make them a villain, you have to be careful. Some are easy to villify. No one is going to step up to defend Jim Jones after all, but sometimes you can accidentally take what makes them respected and turn that into a negative, which will rub people who respect them the wrong way.
www.enworld.org
