News: Ravenloft back to WotC - and a FoS message

Darksun and ravenloft were settings that did not whore out the system to win players over, which Wotc has specialized in. The kid gloved Darksun article in dragon was proof of this. Ravenloft will never recieve justice while wotc holds it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

frankthedm said:
Darksun and ravenloft were settings that did not whore out the system to win players over, which Wotc has specialized in. The kid gloved Darksun article in dragon was proof of this.
Hmm. Many didn't like the fact they advanced the timeline a thousand years forward. For them, they felt that time stood still when TSR/WotC stopped publishing the line. The good thing about the setting is not the crunch but the fluff.

It can be done. They just got to rewind a thousand years, and stopped listening to the doof portion of the D&D fan community about wanting more crunch.

But to be brutally honest, I'd rather WotC not stretch their resources (both financial and human) to add yet another setting to their repertoire.
 


I think people often miss the essential elements of what Charles Ryan and other people have said about "not splitting the fanbase".

It's not "more than one setting is bad". It's "more than one iteration of a given kind of setting is bad".

The reason that Wizards isn't keen to publish Greyhawk - arguments about it being the core rules default and/or left for the RPGA to play with aside - is that it's just like the Forgotten Realms.

(pause for the howls of outrage to die down)

Now, obviously devoted fans of either setting can fill a whole day merely with listing of the ways in which this is not true, but to the market at large - and to the people who are responsible for marketing D&D - the overall similarities of scope, tone, and feel trump the specifics of the differences. They're both pseudo-medieval high fantasy settings; they both feature Tolkienesque races in Tolkienesque style; they're both saturated with late-Seventies early-Eighties fantasy sensibilities.

From a marketing point of view, it's death to support them both. Your average gamer in the store, who's not already a big fan of one or the other, doesn't see the difference between them: they're the same kind of setting, in large if not in fine.

Eberron, on the other hand, suffers none of the handicaps of Greyhawk in such a comparison with the Forgotten Realms. It's the same kind of heroic fantasy as any D&D game "out of the box", but where Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are heroic high fantasy, Eberron has been called by its fans "heroic wide fantasy". It's a world with all of the fantastic elements presented in the core rules, but at a more restrained scale - lots of "small" magic and very rare instances of "large" magic, for instance. It's a setting designed with the assumptions of Third Edition in mind, not massaged from earlier editions' principles to fit the new ruleset. It draws as much inspiration from fantasy cinema as from fantasy literature. It has a modern fantasy sensibility which says shapechangers and artificial life and psychic beings are as viable as characters as the hoary old Tolkienesque races, and turns the latter on the ears anyway. Even the political structure of the world draws more from modern nation-states than from medieval kingdoms.

To a certain extent, the point of Eberron is that you can't look at it, as someone new to the setting, and fail to see the differences from the Forgotten Realms.

Difference and distinction can go too far, though. Much as I like Planescape, or Spelljammer, or any of the other distinctive settings from earlier editions, they're disconnected from the premises of the core ruleset. Planescape proposes a setting completely divorced from an Earthlike planet with nations and normal geography; Spelljammer has magical ships flying through space. Much as I like weird fantasy of this kind, it's a whole different order of business.

Finally . . . Ghostwalk. To put it briefly:

  • I doubt it would be published today, at least not in that form.
  • People forget that it's not a Greyhawk or Planescape-scale setting; it's a city you can plug into your campaign world first, and a self-contained campaign world of its own very much second.
 

mhacdebhandia said:
Eberron, on the other hand, suffers none of the handicaps of Greyhawk in such a comparison with the Forgotten Realms. It's the same kind of heroic fantasy as any D&D game "out of the box",...
So, the purpose of choosing Eberron is to outdo Forgotten Realms?

Perhaps I defined "out of the box" differently but you need more than just the D&D core ruleset. In fact, the Eberron Campaign Sourcebook has additional rules you need to learn, like action points. Forgive my surface observation, but I don't see how you can run Eberron without action points.
 

It's as simple as not using the Extreme Explorer prestige class, innit? ;)

Besides which, action points are severely over-emphasized in discussion of Eberron. Spycraft's action dice (by contrast) were a major feature of the system; Eberron's action points are tacked-on to enhance the cinematic feel they're going for.

Action points are a small rule subsystem which barely make an impact on the actual play of the game, and they don't detract from my point. Every setting has its unique rules and quirks, and Eberron makes free use of them, just as the Forgotten Realms does with its multiple subraces, initiate feats, Shadow Weave . . .

The purpose of choosing Eberron is to play a different game from one set in the Forgotten Realms. Playing Greyhawk isn't different enough, from a marketing-to-Joe-Gamer point of view.

(It's a historical irony, at this point, that many gamers criticised Eberron for not being different enough from the extant D&D experience - they wanted something more like Oathbound.)
 

mhacdebhandia said:
Finally . . . Ghostwalk. To put it briefly:

  • I doubt it would be published today, at least not in that form.
  • People forget that it's not a Greyhawk or Planescape-scale setting; it's a city you can plug into your campaign world first, and a self-contained campaign world of its own very much second.

As I recall, Ghostwalk only got published because Wizards had a hole in their schedule just before 3.5e came out.

Cheers!
 

Yes. I remember that it had been written much earlier, but put on the backburner until just before the revision - Sean Reynolds was pretty forthright about this on his forums when the subject came up.

I'll expand on my point about Ghostwalk, because I was at work when I wrote that post, and pressed for time.

I think that Ghostwalk, along with Oriental Adventures, and even the Dragonlance hardback, represents a product strategy which doesn't exist at Wizards of the Coast anymore: to publish the first book in a series of third-party setting products so as to guarantee sales of your product to everyone who's playing in that setting without having to actually put effort into supporting the product yourself.

Using the Rokugan setting in Oriental Adventures, and requiring AEG's d20 Legend of the Five Rings line to require use of Oriental Adventures, makes for guaranteed sales to AEG's customers (even if AEG subsequently rewrote half of the book in Rokugan). Publishing the Dragonlance core setting book means everyone playing Third Edition Dragonlance buys your book.

These products, however, still split your fanbase. Dragonlance, and to a lesser extent Legend of the Five Rings, have a built-in constituency of fans who will play in the setting, and a number of those fans will choose to game in Krynn or Rokugan exclusively. The more people who are buying Way of the Samurai and not Complete Warrior, the worse off you are - and facilitating the production of Way of the Samurai by licensing out Rokugan is ultimately cutting into sales of D&D books like Complete Warrior.

Now this is one line of thinking, and one which assumes the people who will play d20 Rokugan to the exclusion of D&D would play D&D. You could write the license so as to prevent the production of direct competitors, but that's a major hassle and you can't always anticipate what might compete.

Now we come to Ghostwalk. First and foremost, it's an outlier product; a limited number of people are going to be all that interested in playing a campaign set around a setting where the dead appear as ghosts and adventure alongside the living in the first place. Second, its presentation as a campaign city further narrows down those who are interested in it to those who will run a game in its native setting or who will undertake the effort of placing it into an existing setting.

The combination of these factors leads me to believe that it was approved early enough in the Third Edition process that it predates the establishment of a firm policy against licensing out their settings and/or producing setting-specific products that don't reinforce existing setting lines like the Forgotten Realms. For this reason I lump it "chronologically" with Oriental Adventures and the Dragonlance license; I think the latter was the last license they sold, and I further think the only reason they sold it is because it has a novel-reading customer base of enormous proportions, who would presumably trust a company which is involving one of the setting's originators in the process. :)

In essence, Ghostwalk is an anomaly - it's the least Wizards of the Coast-like product they've ever actually published, except maybe the Hero Builder's Guidebook.

(I actually like it, but it strikes me as something which would work much better in the current market as an "event/subsystem" supplement like Magic of Incarnum appears to be - that is, an entirely new subsystem for the game with an easily-inserted campaign event akin to the demiplane the Wizards guys mentioned at GenCon is the "source" of incarnum. Something like the manifest zones of Eberron appearing in the campaign as the cause of this bizarre inversion of death, you know?)

The current Wizards of the Coast design paradigm seems pretty obvious, to me. Anything they publish now is either for one of their supported settings (the Forgotten Realms or Eberron) but written in a way which doesn't preclude its inclusion in other settings for DMs willing to do the work, or it's designed to be useful to any D&D game that uses the core rules. Heroes of Battle and, presumably, the rest of the genre series: this is material that can work in any campaign that features warfare. Magic of Incarnum with its "source" demiplane and, presumably, the Tome of Magic and any subsequent "magic series" supplements will come with an explanation for why these new subsystems are emerging in any campaign not including them from scratch.

Hell, the Eberron Expanded column Keith Baker is writing for the D&D website is all about adapting generic D&D products to one of their specific settings. Arguably, Power of Faerun will provide a specific treatment of its topic - the influence of high-level characters on the institutions of their setting - which can be generalised to any game, if you're willing to work at it. I bought Serpent Kingdoms for the serpentine goodness, even though I'll never run in the Forgotten Realms. :)
 

ForceUser said:
I have several of the S&S Ravenloft books
Likewise.



ForceUser said:
they nailed the mood and tone of the setting (no surprise),
I disagree, on both counts. In other words, I think it would've been a surprise, and I believe that they (unsurprisingly) failed, big time.



ForceUser said:
the mechanics, on the balance, blew. I was especially disappointed with the monster book for its lack of interesting critters. Caveat: the section of the core rulebook dealing with iconic horror monsters--vampire, werewolf, ghost, hag, mummy--was excellent.
Absolutely.



ForceUser said:
Still, I doubt WotC can do the setting justice. They're too focused on mechanics. I'd rather have crap crunch and great fluff that the other way around when it comes to Ravenloft.
Here's where my opinion differs again. While they might not be able to "do the setting justice", they would probably (in my view) do a better job than S&S have done. I don't think the 'fluff' in S&S's take on Ravenloft is great, or even stomachable in parts. Granted, WotC doesn't often come through with the brilliant writing, either. Still, at least the rules would be more readily usable, I think (or at least, a better base from which to tinker - as some prefer to do, myself included).


Regardless, I hope Ravenloft gets redone (again). I've still got a soft spot for it.
 


Remove ads

Top