Ravenloft Campaigns: What’s the meta-point?

[Remathilis]

Now we're drifting from "the problem with Ravenloft is you can't win" to "the problem with Ravenloft is it's an artificial world." Different argument, but I'll still take it on. IMHO, Ravenloft's artificiality is one of its strengths and adds to its uniqueness as a game world, and it's usability by DMs.

I had two points. Hopelessness/DP and Artificiality.

Just because there's a new darklord in the domain doens't mean they are instantly in charge. Mordent, Lamordia, and Nova Vaasa, for example, all have political leaders that are not the darklord. In all three cases, the darklord lurks at the fringes of power, and in the case of the first two, the political leaders are even relatively benevolent. There's nothing stopping the PCs from crafting such a society in Strahd-less Barovia. Heck, if they can defeat Strahd, they can probably do so even without killing him, just deposing him. There ARE (relatively) safe havens in Ravenloft, Mordentshire being the foremost.

Mordentshire is my favorite domain for that reason. While a few "Evil Political Lord" domains are fun, I much prefer the domains where the monster is subtle or not in power to the ones where the Darklord rule it with full power. Though the latter has its merits for storytelling too.

The one time we ran a long-term RL game, we spent a large amount of the time in Mordent as home base.

In any case, unless the DM goes with the "Barovia and everything in it dissolves" possibility, killing Strahd is always a change for the better. No matter how many darklords may take his place, no matter if Strahd Rises from the Grave, there's one less bloodsucker for a while, and THAT'S A VICTORY.

A concrete, canon example: The people of Gundarak may not appreciate being second-class citizens in Barovia, but they are far better off than when Duke Gundar was alive. (er... undead... er... the first time around... let's just say "when Duke Gundar was darklord of Gundarak".) At least they don't have to worry about their daughters being seized by their ruler. (Unless she's the latest Tatyana reincarnation, I guess, but for the most part, no.). They are utterly unaware of the metaphysical underpinings that changed in their land. Just that one tyrant was slain, and a neighboring, less brutal one took his land. The ones on the Invidia side of the border were even better off, at least until Malocchio took over. But that's situational. If someone killed Von Kharkov, for example, and his domain was absorbed by Mordent, the Valachani would be way better off. And it can happen. Gundarak is the proof.

Still, Gundarak is proof of going from bad to worse. Sure, the heroes slew Gundarak and did something good (One less bloodsucker) but in the end they did something far worse (making it part of Barovia).

1) The realms don't shift on a daily basis. There was one major reshuffling during the Grand Conjunction, a single catclysmic event that hasn't been repeated. Cataclysms are supposed to change the world in fantasy settings. Just ask the people of Krynn, or Atlantis, or Dominaria, or Alderaan. Other than that one time, there have been the addition of new lands, including new seas, but except in the infancy of the demiplane, these have occurred simply by the Mists rolling back and revealing new land, whose inhabitants claim it was "always there."

Sure, the stability of the core is there (Even Azalin's ascension only splintered Darkon, not removed it) but supposedly any evil person COULD (and evil PCs often do) create there own domain. Oh, and the idea of Mists so thick they magically hid an ocean is still hard to swallow.

2) Nitpick: Drakov can't close his borders. But if another DL were to do so, disrupting trade, how is that different than a dragon preying on trade routes or magic ritual gone awry making a road impassible? These things happen rarely, but this is a fantasy world.

Bad choice then. (My RL is a bit rusty). I typically disliked border-crossing because some of them are very restrictive (Strahd's choking fog) and the primary use of Border Crossing is to railroad PCs so that they cannot escape. Sure, isolation is important to Gothic, but a lot of old RL modules used them as a kludge to "finish the module or else".

3) The really weird stuff like the moons has been smoothed over in recent editions of the setting. Nova Vaasa's five moons were debunked in Gazetteer V, and Sithicus, which used to have only Nuitari, the black moon only evil people can see, gained a normal moon as well as of Spectre of the Black Rose.

Good. Its a start.

5) Much work has been done in the 3e line to bind the world together as a cohesive whole. Just because the domains started separately doesn't mean they have to remain that way. The Ezran religion has spread across the Core, diplomacy between the domains has become important.

That's what I'm going on about. I'd like to see more common binding. More inter-domain religions, for example. Something to make it feel like if you walked the core, you'd get some sense this world has a common bond.

The climate issue is, admittedly, a little weird, but much like the Misty Borders themselves, and the "new lands" being revealed, the people of Ravenloft have no reason to think this is unusual. This is the only world they know; the science of even the most advanced domains doesn't go much further than Earth's 1800's. If it's the way it's always been, it would seem perfectly normal. The "ends of the earth" is a real tangible place in Ravenloft and the demiplane is a world that's just a little closer in time to its creation "myth" than most. And if you're a Barovian farmer for whom a long trip is to the marketplace in town, who cares? PCs are a different breed, of course, and in the course of their adventures may naturally start to figure out something weird is going on. But does that make it less worthwhile to save the day?

Sure, you average potato-farmer doesn't know or care much about his village, but that's not true across the board. You can't tell me the more enlightened domains like Lamordia doesn't have a bit more scientific curiosity?

---

As you said, we'll never agree on exact details. Despite my arguments, I DO like Ravenloft, but I have a hard time using it for long term because of my points.

 

[gonzoron]

1.) Either accept demi-humans across the core or remove them utterly. ...I can't believe anyone living in a "fantasy" world (even a gothic fantasy) would really fear elves, dwarves and halflings.

I can't believe anyone living in this world would really fear black people or Jews or homosexuals, but it happens.

2.) Standardize technology. Either you have fire-arms or you don't. Either armor is ok (Falkovia) or its not (Mordent).

I'm not going to get into a huge historical weapons technology debate, but just based on rules alone, the early firearms depicted in Ravenloft are in no way inherently superior to traditional weapons. It makes perfect sense to see those traditional weapons and armor hanging on.

3.) Create a common or trade tongue. Barovians can't talk with their neighboring lands, making trade impossible.

The Barovian language of Balok is spoken as a primary language in Borca, and Invidia, and as a secondary in Kartakass, NV, and Hazlan, (which share Vaasi as a primary), and also secondary in Sithicus, where Sithican is primary. Forlorn is "uninhabited," and the Shadow Rift is "a big pit." Looks like Barovian merchants will do fine. Seriously, Vaasi, Mordentish, and Balok will get you the vast majority of the core. You only need a 14 Int or a few skill points in 3e to know all 3 at 1st level. And to look back at the real world or gothic earth, do you find it equally silly that Europe doesn't have a common tongue?

4.) Similarly, there should be a bit more variety for "deities". Ravenloft doesn't have many good faiths (Ezra is neutral, Morninglord is Barovian, any others?)

Hala and Belenus are both good. (regardless of how Belenus worship has been twisted in Nidala and Tepest). Ezra herself is LN, but since worshippers can drift by one step from her, there is an LG branch of the church. Most of the source material for the genre is based in a heavily Christian part of the real world, with other religions being hardly noticed. Having one major analogue of Christianity in Ezra, and some other religions at the fringes works really well for Ravenloft, I think.

5.) Lastly, (and this is something Arthaus started by necessity) remove as many other-world references as possible.

This is a personal taste issue. I and some others happen to like the other-world references, since they give a richer backstory to some PCs. (Reading up on Gondegal's past in Cormyr really helped me roleplay him when he showed up in my game.)

Blech. Pretty much everything in gonzoron's last post is a turn-off for me.

Really? I didn't think I put forth anything too upsetting there. What was it specifically that turned you off? The discussion of Barovia without Strahd, or the "natives don't know any better" arguement?

Artificiality sure is unique, but so is puke-flavored ice cream.

Well, I didn't really get into why the artificiality is good, in that post, more addressing why it's not obvious to the natives. I'll spare everyone another long-winded post on the matter, but summarize what I think is great about Ravenloft remaining an artificial demiplane:

* If a DM doesn't like a particular domain, throw it out. It's still Ravenloft.
* If a DM has a great idea for a new domain, throw it in. It's still Ravenloft.
* If the plot requires going from point A to point B, but the places in between are boring, use the Mists to whisk the PCs away and get on with the story. (Use sparingly of course)
* "Weekend in Hell" adventures are supported by allowing the Mists to grab people and places from non-Ravenloft campaigns for a while.
* The Misty Border surrounding every scrap of land in the world makes the world feel claustrophic. There are no vast oceans to be explored, simply an oppresive, scary nothingness, with a few scraps of something drifting in it. Mist travel, even via Mistway, is a scary and unique experience you can't get in a regular world.

In brief, like we said before regarding the Dark Powers, making the world artificial gives the DM the excuse to tinker without feeling as shackled to canon as he might in another setting. DMs can of course change any setting as they see fit, but Ravenloft gives them the justification. In a MERP campaign, if your DM says there's no Shire to visit, you'd cry foul. But a Ravenloft DM can simply say Godefroy was killed long ago and the sea flooded Mordent Bay. (i.e. Mordent went back to the plane it came from).

You may choose not to use these tools in your ideal Ravenloft, but I like that they are there, and I like the flexibility they give the DM to tailor his Ravenloft to his liking without just saying "Rule 0".

I say replace both with Gothic Horror, as that is the essential theme of Ravenloft.

Discover Gothic Horror and oppose its plans?? That doesn't parse real well, does it?

 

[gonzoron]

Still, Gundarak is proof of going from bad to worse. Sure, the heroes slew Gundarak and did something good (One less bloodsucker) but in the end they did something far worse (making it part of Barovia).

As I mentioned, I would argue that being part of Barovia is better than being part of Gundarak. Strahd is at least protective of "his land" rather than being strictly predatory like Gundar.

Sure, the stability of the core is there (Even Azalin's ascension only splintered Darkon, not removed it) but supposedly any evil person COULD (and evil PCs often do) create there own domain.

Yup, and most likely that would be an island of terror no one noticed, or another "pimple" on the Core or a cluster created by the Mists pulling back. It's not going to spring up between Barovia and Borca.

Oh, and the idea of Mists so thick they magically hid an ocean is still hard to swallow.

Well, I can't move the line where your suspension of disbelief ends. But I personally find that more palatable than "it magically appeared." YMMV.

I typically disliked border-crossing because some of them are very restrictive (Strahd's choking fog) and the primary use of Border Crossing is to railroad PCs so that they cannot escape. Sure, isolation is important to Gothic, but a lot of old RL modules used them as a kludge to "finish the module or else".

100% agreed. That's precisely what they are for. Unsubtle, and I don't like using them, but I do like the option being there. I will say that of the changes you propose, losing the border closures is the one I'd be most likely to accept. It has somewhat outlived its usefulness as Ravenloft has knitted together into a world.

That's what I'm going on about. I'd like to see more common binding. More inter-domain religions, for example. Something to make it feel like if you walked the core, you'd get some sense this world has a common bond.

I suspect you'd like a lot of what's been done in 3e then, if you haven't read it. And they've done this without dumping the demiplane. Filing away the rough edges and making the world live as one has clearly been a goal of the recent products.

Sure, you average potato-farmer doesn't know or care much about his village, but that's not true across the board. You can't tell me the more enlightened domains like Lamordia doesn't have a bit more scientific curiosity?

Indeed, but even in Lamordia, they don't have weather satellites or computer weather modelling. Fledgling meteorologists are surely making measurements with rudimentary barometers and thermometers (Galileo made his near the turn of the 17th century, and Lamordia's tech isn't too much further along than that at CL9, ~1550-1700AD). Maybe they're just starting to wonder why their cold winters aren't completely explained by elevation. But it's a long way from there to "magical Dark Powers did it." And even then, the Lamordians accept the Mists as the source of all matter (see Gazetteer II). In a world where magic and science exist, science must view magic as another natural phenomenon that isn't yet fully explained.

As you said, we'll never agree on exact details. Despite my arguments, I DO like Ravenloft, but I have a hard time using it for long term because of my points.

Yup, and that's just fine. I'm only trying to point out how long-term campaigns in Ravenloft can and do work for some, despite those points.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Really? I didn't think I put forth anything too upsetting there. What was it specifically that turned you off?

Nothing "upsetting", but certainly not to my taste. Namely I object to the consequences of a Darklord's death being pure DM fiat. Is the Domain absorbed, disappeared, new Darklord appears? Whatever man, could be anything. Maybe you get spun off into the Abyss, huh?

It really drains the point of adventuring when it's up to the DM to make sure everything turns out better (rather than worse). Isn't that the Hero's job?

And that fact has consequences. If the PCs want to guarantee a "Strahdless Barovia" they can't kill him, because "What do you mean we're now part of Invidia?"; out of the pot, into the fire, you know? Maybe just boarding up all the doors and windows of Castle Ravenloft with garlic and crosses is the best way forward; keep him alive, but contained.

I don't like how that constricts PCs options. Trapping Strahd in some eternal prison should be just one of the many but equally beneficial means of relieving Barovia of his control. Stakes through the heart being another.

Also:

The "patchwork vs. real world" argument is one that has raged among Ravenloft fans for years, and if an artificial world isn't your cup of tea, ...

It's not. Just a difference of subjective preference, I guess.

But I do have reasons for that. Getting my players to learn and accept a campaign world and all its myriad detail is hard. All those details like days in the week, general geography, etc. don't come quickly or easily to the ones that don't read the novels and campaign setting. I consider it a major achievement once they start really "being in the world", seeing it as a native of that world would. If I made them start over on that stuff every time they walked into a new Domain they'd glare at me and say "What are you doing, man? What's the point of all this?". It'd really mess with my game.

* If a DM doesn't like a particular domain, throw it out. It's still Ravenloft.

* If a DM has a great idea for a new domain, throw it in. It's still Ravenloft.

I can do either of those in any campaign setting. I've replaced, rewritten and inserted whole kingdoms and races into Greyhawk without needing the demiplane excuse. But I did that before play, while the whole Demiplane thing creates problems during play.

* If the plot requires going from point A to point B, but the places in between are boring, use the Mists to whisk the PCs away and get on with the story. (Use sparingly of course)

Don't you see that the Mists are the reason you need to do stuff like this? In any other setting you'd just find a convenient portal, hitch a ride from a passing Djinn on a carpet, make an overland travel check and say "Two weeks later ....", etc. The Mists just restrict your options; it doesn't increase them. And for no real gain that I see.

* "Weekend in Hell" adventures are supported by allowing the Mists to grab people and places from non-Ravenloft campaigns for a while.

But I don't run those and it messes up my ongoing, natives-only RL campaign. Hardly a good trade for me.

In brief, like we said before regarding the Dark Powers, making the world artificial gives the DM the excuse to tinker without feeling as shackled to canon as he might in another setting.

I guess since I've never felt the least need to "stick to canon" in any setting I just don't see the benefit here. If I want to play a 2E Greyhawk/Arcana Unearthed/Core 4E mash-up I just do it.

Which may make you wonder why I'm bothered by how Ravenloft is authored, since I so frequently change things anyway. Mainly it's because I'm lazy and I'd prefer if the designers just wrote it "the right way" the first time so I don't have to.

You may choose not to use these tools in your ideal Ravenloft, but I like that they are there, and I like the flexibility they give the DM to tailor his Ravenloft to his liking without just saying "Rule 0".

I'd much rather prefer that it was just an explicit rule in D&D that any player who uses the word "canon" at the D&D table (other than in the artillery sense) earns an instant -100 XP demerit. There are plenty of good ways of deciding what what is or is not in a campaign world, but arguments from authorial authority as final arbiter is not one of them. Talk about a ball and chain, you know?

 

[Imaro]

Nothing "upsetting", but certainly not to my taste. Namely I object to the consequences of a Darklord's death being pure DM fiat. Is the Domain absorbed, disappeared, new Darklord appears? Whatever man, could be anything. Maybe you get spun off into the Abyss, huh?

It really drains the point of adventuring when it's up to the DM to make sure everything turns out better (rather than worse). Isn't that the Hero's job?

And that fact has consequences. If the PCs want to guarantee a "Strahdless Barovia" they can't kill him, because "What do you mean we're now part of Invidia?"; out of the pot, into the fire, you know? Maybe just boarding up all the doors and windows of Castle Ravenloft with garlic and crosses is the best way forward; keep him alive, but contained.

I don't know about this, isn't a tragic ending part of gothic horror? I mean the point is sometimes you do make things worse, even when your intentions are good. I guess I feel like this is one of the things that seperates gothic horror from other horror sub-genres.

I don't like how that constricts PCs options. Trapping Strahd in some eternal prison should be just one of the many but equally beneficial means of relieving Barovia of his control. Stakes through the heart being another.

I don't know about this, isn't a tragic ending part of gothic horror? I mean the point is sometimes (not always but sometimes) you do make things worse, even when your intentions are good. I guess I feel like this is one of the things that's built into the setting to allow a good DM to make some victories tragic. The fact that you feel this is short changing "heroes" might be telling that you don't like the tropes of gothic horror.

Also:

It's not. Just a difference of subjective preference, I guess.

But I do have reasons for that. Getting my players to learn and accept a campaign world and all its myriad detail is hard. All those details like days in the week, general geography, etc. don't come quickly or easily to the ones that don't read the novels and campaign setting. I consider it a major achievement once they start really "being in the world", seeing it as a native of that world would. If I made them start over on that stuff every time they walked into a new Domain they'd glare at me and say "What are you doing, man? What's the point of all this?". It'd really mess with my game.?

Actually it is suppose to create a feeling of unfamiliarity, surrealness and uncertainty in the players, which again are tropes of the heroes in gothic horror. Things are alien and weird, and your players... unless it is their home domain (and even then it shouldn't be comfortable) should feel like weird and unexplicable things are going on all around them.

I can do either of those in any campaign setting. I've replaced, rewritten and inserted whole kingdoms and races into Greyhawk without needing the demiplane excuse. But I did that before play, while the whole Demiplane thing creates problems during play.



Don't you see that the Mists are the reason you need to do stuff like this? In any other setting you'd just find a convenient portal, hitch a ride from a passing Djinn on a carpet, make an overland travel check and say "Two weeks later ....", etc. The Mists just restrict your options; it doesn't increase them. And for no real gain that I see.

Huh? The mists are used in the same way a portal would be, except the inherent fact that the PC cannot control them and they can just as easily take youu somewhere horrible makes them more suited than a flying carpet to Ravenloft's genre. It is the fear of the unknown personified in the gameworld.

But I don't run those and it messes up my ongoing, natives-only RL campaign. Hardly a good trade for me.

How does it mess it up in anyway?

I guess since I've never felt the least need to "stick to canon" in any setting I just don't see the benefit here. If I want to play a 2E Greyhawk/Arcana Unearthed/Core 4E mash-up I just do it.

Which may make you wonder why I'm bothered by how Ravenloft is authored, since I so frequently change things anyway. Mainly it's because I'm lazy and I'd prefer if the designers just wrote it "the right way" the first time so I don't have to.

Well I think most of your changes acively work against a gothic horror setting and many work against a more generalistic horror setting. I'm confused by what tropes you feel actually define Ravenloft as opposed to a more general "horror" game, as well as what defines horror as opposed to action adventure as genres. I get the impression yo want the latter with vampires and bats as dressing as opposed to an actual horror, or even better yet a gothic horror, setting.

I'd much rather prefer that it was just an explicit rule in D&D that any player who uses the word "canon" at the D&D table (other than in the artillery sense) earns an instant -100 XP demerit. There are plenty of good ways of deciding what what is or is not in a campaign world, but arguments from authorial authority as final arbiter is not one of them. Talk about a ball and chain, you know?[/quote]

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know about this, isn't a tragic ending part of gothic horror?

That's a bit of an overstatement.

Surely, tragic endings occur in many of the classic "gothic" literature, such as Dr. Victor Frankenstein's death at the end of the classic novel, but happy endings are there as well.

Take Bram Stoker's Dracula. Surely, there are tragic elements (Lucy Westera's death and vampirism being the most obvious) but in the end of the original novel, the hunters are victorious in destroying Dracula with but a single death (Quincy Morris). The epilogue of the novel features a gathering of the hunters Dr. Stewart, Dr. Van Helsing, Lord Godalming, and John and Mina Harker, (the latter cured of her impending vampirism and having given birth to a son, named Quincy after Mr. Morris). As close to a happy ending as you can get.

So in the cannon of gothic lit, there IS room for happy endings.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm confused by what tropes you feel actually define Ravenloft as opposed to a more general "horror" game, as well as what defines horror as opposed to action adventure as genres. I get the impression yo want the latter with vampires and bats as dressing as opposed to an actual horror, or even better yet a gothic horror, setting.

And I'm getting the impression that you somehow think that changing the number of moons in the sky, or suddenly switching the order of the seasons, is somehow supposed to instill a feeling of gothic horror in the PCs. The only thing I see it instilling is nonplussed confusion. 98% of the time it's nothing more than a distraction from whatever the "real" plot of the adventure is.

Here are the first three results from Google when searching for "elements of gothic horror." (One, Two, Three) I only quickly scanned them but "randomly confusing geography" and "Oops, we disintegrated the world" somehow doesn't make the list. Instead we have:

Prominent features of Gothic fiction include terror (both psychological and physical), mystery, the supernatural, ghosts, haunted houses and Gothic architecture, castles, darkness, death, decay, doubles, madness, secrets and hereditary curses.

Weird how "patchwork kingdoms stitched together at random" didn't make the list, huh?

I'm all for including those listed items that are actually of the "Gothic horror" tradition in my Ravenloft campaign, but I don't see any reason to hold on to legacy issues that are unique to whatever instructions Bruce Nesmith with Andria Hayday received from TSR back in 1990. I suspect it had more to do with cross-selling their campaign worlds and attracting the interest of DL, FR and GH players than out of any belief that it would make Ravenloft a better setting.

 

[Imaro]

That's a bit of an overstatement.

Surely, tragic endings occur in many of the classic "gothic" literature, such as Dr. Victor Frankenstein's death at the end of the classic novel, but happy endings are there as well.

Take Bram Stoker's Dracula. Surely, there are tragic elements (Lucy Westera's death and vampirism being the most obvious) but in the end of the original novel, the hunters are victorious in destroying Dracula with but a single death (Quincy Morris). The epilogue of the novel features a gathering of the hunters Dr. Stewart, Dr. Van Helsing, Lord Godalming, and John and Mina Harker, (the latter cured of her impending vampirism and having given birth to a son, named Quincy after Mr. Morris). As close to a happy ending as you can get.

So in the cannon of gothic lit, there IS room for happy endings.

I never said the only endings in gothic horror were tragic, but they are represented in the genre (unlike most heroic action fantasy which always ends happily), so I believe Ravenloft should make provisions for the heroes to not always ride into the sunset with everything right and safe... thus the ambiguity of what can happen when a darklord is killed.

 

[Imaro]

And I'm getting the impression that you somehow think that changing the number of moons in the sky, or suddenly switching the order of the seasons, is somehow supposed to instill a feeling of gothic horror in the PCs. The only thing I see it instilling is nonplussed confusion. 98% of the time it's nothing more than a distraction from whatever the "real" plot of the adventure is.

Here are the first three results from Google when searching for "elements of gothic horror." (One, Two, Three) I only quickly scanned them but "randomly confusing geography" and "Oops, we disintegrated the world" somehow doesn't make the list. Instead we have:


Weird how "patchwork kingdoms stitched together at random" didn't make the list, huh?

Uhm...
5. Supernatural or otherwise inexplicable events. Dramatic, amazing events occur, such as ghosts or giants walking, or inanimate objects (such as a suit of armor or painting) coming to life. In some works, the events are ultimately given a natural explanation, while in others the events are truly supernatural.

and

2. An atmosphere of mystery and suspense. The work is pervaded by a threatening feeling, a fear enhanced by the unknown. Often the plot itself is built around a mystery, such as unknown parentage, a disappearance, or some other inexplicable event. Elements 3, 4, and 5 below contribute to this atmosphere. (Again, in modern filmmaking, the inexplicable events are often murders.)

Emphasis mine...

I definitely think a change in the number of moons in the sky or startling changing of seasons definitely fits the above (unless one is actively working against the mood, and then you have bigger problems than the setting). In fact the very structure of Ravenloft stresses the above... and while were on "changing seasons" can't this also help a DM facilitate this, without it seeming artificially constructed...

9. The metonymy of gloom and horror. Metonymy is a subtype of metaphor, in which something (like rain) is used to stand for something else (like sorrow). For example, the film industry likes to use metonymy as a quick shorthand, so we often notice that it is raining in funeral scenes. Note that the following metonymies for "doom and gloom" all suggest some element of mystery, danger, or the supernatural.

The structure of Ravenloft as a world actually facilitates the use of weather as metonymy for the story a GM is trying to present.

I'm all for including those listed items that are actually of the "Gothic horror" tradition in my Ravenloft campaign, but I don't see any reason to hold on to legacy issues that are unique to whatever instructions Bruce Nesmith with Andria Hayday received from TSR back in 1990. I suspect it had more to do with cross-selling their campaign worlds and attracting the interest of DL, FR and GH players than out of any belief that it would make Ravenloft a better setting.

So even though they are tools one can use as gothic horror trappings, because you find them not to your tastes or hard to use they shouldn't be included for anyone to use? I disagree.

 

[Celebrim]

I think we have strayed a good deal from the original topic, which was, "Why do people play Ravenloft?", into various versions of "Why don't people play Ravenloft?" Whilie I'm perfectly fine with thread creep, I think its useful to look back on the original question from time to time to see how we got here.

I would like to discuss how to run a Ravenloft campaign using 4E rules and cosmology, but before we get to the actual rule proposals I would like to discuss why PCs play in a Ravenloft campaign (rather than Core D&D). What’s the story being told? What’s the basic, universal story to Ravenloft campaigns? We need to answer that before we know what rules we’ll need, and what they’re supposed to achieve. So what do Ravenloft PCs hope for? What’s the meta-goal everyone agrees on?

When we stray into, "What was wrong with Ravenloft as a setting for Gothic Horror?", we are both assuming the answer to the question and suggesting that you didn't like Ravenloft to begin with. If you are a Ravenloft dissident, either as a player or a DM, then I think you need to be careful how you contribute to a discussion with people who really liked the setting and want to recreate it - including perhaps features you didn't like.

One of the problems with assuming the motivation for playing Ravenloft was recreating Gothic horror stories is that if Ravenloft wasn't always a good vehical for that you first have to answer whether it was attractive to some people precisely because it wasn't just limited to Gothic horror. You also have just moved the starting question to, "What is Gothic horror and what are its essential features?"

From my perspective, I think that the Dark Powers, Domains, Darklords and so forth all fall collectively under 'DM Toolbag'. Things that are in the DM toolbag don't have to be manifestly evident features of a campaign. It certainly doesn't have to be true that average citizens of a given Domain know that they are in Ravenloft, or about the Dark Powers, or who the local Dark Lord is (at least in those terms), or even that they live in a Domain (at least in those terms). And its certainly not true that from a given Domain anyone would have knowledge of every other domain. So when you get to arguing about big cosmological issues like the nature of Domains, I feel like you are arguing about something that happens in a black box that the players don't have to be aware of and as such never need necessarily be the topic of in game conversation.

The Ravenloft campaign setting was designed in a hodge podge fashion I think rather deliberately to allow any sort of horror campaign to occur if the DM desired it, and, if the DM desired it, to allow easy transitions between settings with different tropes while still having the same unified underpinnings if the DM choose to emphasize these things. There is no particular reason why the PC's would manifest in character knowledge of Dark Lords, Domains, and Dark Powers. There is no particular reason why they wouldn't refer to Ravenloft as 'the world' and by and large believe that it followed rules that are quite ordinary. From inside the 'Dark City', it just looks like a city. You have to wake up to what lies beneath and behind and in the in between spaces. Traveling from domain to domain can involve either continuity or discontinuity as the DM feels is appropriate to the particular journey. Nothing is tying the DM's hands. He can get out of the DM's toolbag what he needs, and leave in what he doesn't.

To a certain extent I see complaining about the domains not as complaining about the setting, but as complaining about the job a DM is doing making the setting come alive. These are matters of DM skill, and not I think huge drawbacks in the setting. To the extent that the questions sometimes seem to revolve around trust in the DM because they involve fiat, I'm having a hard time finding sympathy for that. If the barbarous horde thunders off the stepes, this too involves DM fiat from how big the horde is, to the causes that led to the invasion, to the motivations and powers of the major NPCs. If the dragon cult launches an invasion of the known lands, once again this is DM fiat. Huge overarching campaigns themes are almost always simply dependent on DM fiat.

Most importantly, I don't think that a setting with domains and all the cosmology that entails or without domains fundamentally changes the core story of a Ravenloft game. Similarly, I don't think adopting a Gothic horror tone, or a slasher tone, or a psychological terror tone, or a disaster movie tone, or post-apocalyptic, or b-movie horror in the tone of Hammer film or George Romero zombie pic significantly changes the core story or necessarily the core motivation of the players. Sure, it might take a masterful DM to pull off all those changes in tone successfully, but I don't think anyone is required to have that as their amibition just because the setting could in theory support it.