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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8211420" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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'm sorry that you are struggling with the quoting feature, but that doesn't make this any less difficult to follow and respond to.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 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. 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.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification