Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9375359">I am not saying the modules always followed the advice of the black box, or that they didn't do bone headed thingsThis is just the standard way to enter Ravenloft. This I don't think is a problem as it is one of the core ideas of the setting. That isn't the only way to enter, but it makes sense that the modules would make heavy use of the mist. Some people might not like it. But I don't recall the party being drawn into Ravenloft by mistake s being a huge issue (it was pretty much how the dark powers operated). Again a GM didn't have to do this. It could be a product of player buy in in advance (though you would still likely arrive there by mist) Again, I am not defending every module's choice of detail or hook. I mentioned the whole headless rider cutting off the players heads so they can end up in jars at the start of From the Shadows for example (in my opinion this would have been a much better "contingency adventure hook". That should have just been a hook used in the event of a TPK in that initial encounter, and there should have been other hooks beyond that for a more standard approach to Castle Avernus. I will say though, I don't think this is strictly against the black boxed set advice (it leans heavily into heroes not being in control) but I think it is bone headed nonetheless. We can go over individual modules if you want. I think speaking broadly here isn't terribly useful. On the whole I found the modules to be good, despite some obvious flaws inherent in the time they were made A lot of them were. But that was pretty standard at the time. Like I said, I am normally a sandbox GM. When I went back and ran some of the modules again recently I did so by taking them on their own terms. My only point here is 1) if you take them on their own terms, they do they what they intend and they can be enjoyed that way, 2) For the time, this is largely what players expects. Doesn't mean those models make for good sandboxes or open adventures (the seeds are there in things like Feast of Goblyns where they talk about living adventure, but you have to do the work to realize that potential). These may well be adventure structures you don't like or adventure structures that are outdated, but that doesn't mean they were not written with the horror advice in mind. Usually most modules contained a nugget or two of horror advice that the module showcased. I often found these helpful. Altering magical effects isn't automatically bad though. For Ravenloft it worked great IMO. Again, this is subjective, you might not like it, others might not like it. But I recall this being not very controversial in the 90s. Again, I would disagree. But I think at the end of the day we just had very different experiences with this line and very different impressions of the reception to the line during that time (which is fine). And again, if you feel that way, fair, but understand there are lots of fans who don't think it was particularly broken or badly done. I think the setting was brilliant, very well executed, and of course it had its rough patches and was a product of the era it was made. But I had several long term campaigns in the 90s that were all a ton of fun. And I brought and ran pretty much everything until about 1997-98 or so. One thing I will say is during the run in the 90s, there was tension among the designers that you can see in the support material, where some envisioned it being used in different ways (and some who preferred the weekend in hell and some who didn't). I think the modules are inconistent around this quite a bit but I don't think that is necessarily bad, as it reflected the passions people working on the line had (and it also meant the products weren't uniform)</blockquote>

Verification