Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joël of the FoS" data-source="post: 2519354" data-attributes="member: 17665">That’s obviously a question of taste, as most RL fans do like the b&w art and presentation of the books <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No question there, I agree. It was written by many authors, but the final editing to smooth it all was absent. So you end up with a book with many flaws that could have been prevented from serious editing. I strongly suggest you do not take a look at the 3.5 update of this book, Denizens of Dread, as it contains much more weird errors easy to spot.Question of taste too, I guess, since most RL fans I know loved VRArsenal. Which PRC did you find odd? I have to say that if these are from Heroes of Light and Champions of Darkness, these were books with many flaws, and many PRC in these are not really used by us.To clarify something, do not think we consider most Ravenloft books have flaws, as reading my answer so far could suggest. Only a few (out of 19 books) have been considered bad (and even uncanon for the CoD book) by the fans: Champions of Darkness and the rehashed 3.5 Ravenloft players book (with incoherent new rules, to say the least) mainly, and in a lesser degree: Heroes of Light, the monster books (texts are OK, stats too, but many odd errors), and MotRD.Back then, I was running the Undead Sea Scrolls netbook, some kind of spinoff of the Kargatane’s netbook. I then said some of the content of CoDarkness would have been refused in my fan netbook <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This is perhaps a monolithic approach, as everything isn’t evil in Ravenloft <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. It’s a low magic setting, and using magical powers is just more dangerous or risky. You have to know what you do or you could end up in trouble by using wrong powers.No question there too. As I often said, WW did promote RL very poorly. Ever saw an ad for RL in the last three years? Ever saw anything interesting about RL on the WW web site? Free downloadable goodies to attract new players? What importance did Ravenloft get in the WW Quarterly PDF magazine?Agreed. I’m not in the know about the Ravenloft licence from WotC to WW, but it was said by the developers that WW had to redo his 3.0 books to 3.5 edition because of this licence’s terms.But it was very badly done. The people who “updated” it made a very strange job out of it: the monster book stats were not really converted to 3.5, and the players book contained new rules that make absolutely no sense. Funnily, these rules were said to be optional afterward, when the fans yelled. We still recommend the 3.5 Ravenloft players book, as it is the only thing out there for newbies, but we also strongly urge to read the reviews on our fan site to get rid of those nonsense new rules.Agreed for HoLight. I don’t know what is the “book of evil” you mention. If you are talking about Champions of Dorkness, stay away from it!So the way I see it your main grip is about WW’s work with the line (promotion and editing), not the author’s work (or perhaps some of the PRC). If you liked the feel of VRA, you should pick any Ravenloft Gazetteer, you’ll be amazed at the quality of these books. Joël</blockquote>

Verification