D&D General Reading Ravenloft the setting

[Faolyn]

* One of my last ideas about Ravenloft is some times Dark Powers lose dread domains, because the dark lord dies and the "heir" is too nobleheart, willing for self-sacrifice and even the martyrdom. Then the domain "escape", goes to other zone in the middle between Astral Sea and Shadowfell, and here the Dark Powers can taint and cause some troubles but direct controll is totally lost.

Should the DL die with no "heirs," the land itself would most likely just get absorbed into another domain with similar features (like how Gundarak got annexed into Barovia and Invidia), or simply disintegrate into the Mists.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe this will help me, because I am unaware of what actually constitutes what you call the classic horror subgenre. Is it just older stories and films? Far as my study and experience with horror stories, classic is not one of the typical subgenres. And to me classic could mean something different to a teenager.

What I mean is Ravenloft clearly laid out a framework of gothic+classic horror. And I think classic horror is somewhat malleable, but the important thing is it is not modern: it draws from silent horror movies, black and white, and hammer films. And generally older movies based on classic monsters (i.e. it is a vampire, mummy and werewolf setting, not an atomic bug or the Thing setting). It isn’t Interview with the vampire, it isn’t Hellraiser, it isn’t friday the 13th, etc. The way I would put it is that Ravenloft is more of a blank and white setting (in the sense that it is more inspired by classic black and white films, than it is by 80s or 90s films). If you read the black box it is constantly contrasting itself with modern horror. I would say it is generally not venturing much past the early 1970s, and when it dies it cleaves more to stuff in the classic mold (I.e. the howling rather than Halloween).

and again I do like all those other genres. But I think Ravenloft really shines more when it is more focused

 

[Bedrockgames]

You may not intend to insult people, but you are. Although I don't know how you could say "it's not real Ravenloft" and think you weren't insulting people who liked it.

Which is exactly why there needs to be a clean-up of some of the domains. Because things you might think are perfectly innocent are in fact quite rude to say.

Because I am saying ‘to me, this isn’t Ravenloft’. We can disagree on what makes Ravenloft, Ravenloft, without meaning to insult one another (I disagree with my friends all the time about stuff like this)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which is exactly why there needs to be a clean-up of some of the domains. Because things you might think are perfectly innocent are in fact quite rude to say.

We have covered this a lot do I don’t want to rehash, but this is something I have disagreed with throughout the threads. I think a lot of the criticisms are not sound and miss the purpose of why things were as they were. But again I think we have talked extensively about our respective points of view there

 

[Istbor]

What I mean is Ravenloft clearly laid out a framework of gothic+classic horror. And I think classic horror is somewhat malleable, but the important thing is it is not modern: it draws from silent horror movies, black and white, and hammer films. And generally older movies based on classic monsters (i.e. it is a vampire, mummy and werewolf setting, not an atomic bug or the Thing setting). It isn’t Interview with the vampire, it isn’t Hellraiser, it isn’t friday the 13th, etc. The way I would put it is that Ravenloft is more of a blank and white setting (in the sense that it is more inspired by classic black and white films, than it is by 80s or 90s films). If you read the black box it is constantly contrasting itself with modern horror. I would say it is generally not venturing much past the early 1979s, and when it dies it cleaves more to stuff in the classic mold (I.e. the howling rather than Halloween).

and again I do like all those other genres. But I think Ravenloft really shines more when it is more focused

Okay. I think I understand your use then. You do seem to use it to mean old or of a certain era. To me, some of the werewolf and such films fall under monster films as far as horror goes. I can be talked into classifying vampires into their own subgenre as well. Mummy for sure in broad strokes is a monster film to me whether or not it is old or a revision.

I certainly don't remember Ravenloft shining in the same manner in which you do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Mummy for sure in broad strokes is a monster film to me whether or not it is old or a revisi

A good contrast is Vampire the Masquerade, versus Vampires in Ravenloft. Both use a classic monster: the vampire. Both take a tragic view of the vampire, but Ravenloft is more rooted in the classic and gothic approach, while Vampire the Masquerade, at the time at least, was more fresh and ‘gothy’ (taking inspiration from stuff like Anne Rice more than Stoker). Both were good in their own right but different visions. At the time I remember how cutting edge and hip vampire was, whereas Ravenloft felt a lot more old fashioned in its horror sensibilities

 

[Bedrockgames]

I certainly don't remember Ravenloft shining in the same manner in which you do.

this is going to be subjective of course, for me it shined this way. And that style is visibly reflected in the art and tone

 

[Remathilis]

@Bedrockgames , I think it's one thing to be unenthusiastic about how the setting is changing and quite another to be a polemic about it. A lot of your arguments have boiled down to "that's not part of the black box, therefore it doesn't count." It's hard to discuss changes and weaknesses of the setting because in your heart you have determined that the original presentation is free of sin and only later material has corrupted it.

Unfortunately, it's not a uncommon belief. You see it with people who argue the 84 Greyhawk folio was Gygax's true vision before it was corrupted by the From the Ashes box. Or Dragonlance beyond the Dragons of Summer Flame. Outside of gaming, I've interacted with people who refuse to accept any Star Wars movies beyond 1983 as legitimate, including the 97 special editions. Or Doctor Who fans who don't accept anything beyond the original run that ended in 89. (The legitimacy of McGann's 8th and Ecccleston's 9th Doctors were rejected for years following the revivals).

At a certain point, it stops being worth it to try to defend the small, "pure" original vision. As you said, you become outnumbered. Feel free to discuss the setting and disagree, but I think the notion that Ravenloft should not change or that the changes are illegitimate or a betrayal is a losing one.

Nobody wants to end up being diaglo arguing that "OD&D (1974) is the only true version of D&D; all others editions are pale imitations of the original."

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames , I think it's one thing to be unenthusiastic about how the setting is changing and quite another to be a polemic about it. A lot of your arguments have boiled down to "that's not part of the black box, therefore it doesn't count." It's hard to discuss changes and weaknesses of the setting because in your heart you have determined that the original presentation is free of sin and only later material has corrupted it.

I am not saying the original is free from sin. I am saying TSR Ravenloft had a vision that made sense to me. The blending all horror together seems to go against what made it do great. People can disagree but trying paint me as sone kind of regressive stuck in 1974 because I prefer Ravenloft take the classic feel to what WOTC has decided, I think is just a way to dismiss a valid point of view. Not every I’ve I’d going to like what hasbro does with the line. I may be outnumbered on this thread. That doesn’t mean there aren’t people here and elsewhere who agree with me.

 

[Istbor]

@Bedrockgames
Unfortunately, it's not a uncommon belief. You see it with people who argue the 84 Greyhawk folio was Gygax's true vision before it was corrupted by the From the Ashes box. Or Dragonlance beyond the Dragons of Summer Flame. Outside of gaming, I've interacted with people who refuse to accept any Star Wars movies beyond 1983 as legitimate, including the 97 special editions. Or Doctor Who fans who don't accept anything beyond the original run that ended in 89. (The legitimacy of McGann's 8th and Ecccleston's 9th Doctors were rejected for years following the revivals).

I try my best to be open to change, especially in things that I love.

However, Han shot first!