Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7971061" data-attributes="member: 7635">I mean, I get that as the meta-setting explanation, it's just that it's a bad one. Ravenloft has been pulled in two directions over the years; the weekend-in-hell module that early Ravenloft products used (and seems favored by WotC) were the domain and Darklord is the prominent feature, and the living campaign setting of late 2e and the 3e Arthaus eras that tried to force the domains to be more than backdrop for thier Darklords and fostered common elements like religion and trade across domains. The two approaches are at odds with one another, and it is that patchwork design that makes it hard to believe as a unified setting. Innistrad was designed to be a continuous world from the ground up, without domains or lords or closed borders or Mists to block your path. Most of it's evils are killable without the domain collapsing or death-is-just-a-setback mechanisms. It has a fairly cohesive culture, religion, and trade that feels like people live in it, rather than CoS's soulless husks there to both torment and be abused by there Lord. In short, it feels like a game setting rather than a series of modules each with it's own tropes and tone. Which is why my basic idea is that rather than have Ravenloft try to support the style it does weakly (unified setting), let Innistrad handle being a larger monster mash setting and then take Ravenloft's domains and have them be unconnected prisons free to play in their own tropes. Barovia, Mordent, Lamordia, Forlorn, etc would all be demiplanes floating in the shadowfell you visit when the Mists come for you and you leave when you have satisfied them. In essence, Ravenloft goes all in on weekend in Hell, Innistrad handles the living world setting. It creates a niche for both and caters to their unique strengths.</blockquote>

Verification