Talk:Ravenloft (module)

Neverwinter Nights module

A Neverwinter Nights version of module http://nwn.bioware.com/players/modprofile_spires.html. Have put this link here as a placeholder for latter incorporation into the article. - Waza 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Now above has been included in article - Waza 21:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Encounter format for Expedition

Possibly encounter format derived from "Delve format" as per http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a Need to look for a source to confirm this. - Waza 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have searched but not found a source confirming this. If someone finds one latter it can be added to the article. - Waza 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria

I have added this sectrion to make notes on how this article is going at meeting Good Article criteria. Please add to make comments about this here until it is ready for nomination - Waza 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two items remain on the to do list, while both will help improve the article I do not believe they would be required to meed good article status (but probably would be if the article is pushed to featured article nomination in the future).

• Expanding Expedition - expansion of this section would help make article comprehensive (a Featured article requirement) but even without an expansion coverage is still broad (Meeting requirement for Good Article)
• Find more images - article already has image appropriately used and labeled. Will more images of different versions would be helpful, a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

- Waza 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article has now reached the standard to be considered a good article and am planning to soon nominate it for Good article status. Please comment/edit if you agree disagree. The first criteria it is (1) It is well written. is my biggest concern as I have been so close to this article is hard to see its flaw, any feedback is very much appreciated. I do believe firmly it (2) is factually accurate and verifiable, (3) broad in its coverage, (4) follows the neutral point of view policy, (5) stable and (6) contains images, where appopriate, to illustrate the topic. - Waza 11:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now nominated as a good article. Please keep improving while we await nomination to be processed. - Waza 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GApassed

Some prose glitches and minor issues, but passable. No major issues with references. A criticism section may help, but overall fine. — Deckiller 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded images

As per the Requested Pictures request, I've uploaded Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG, and Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG‎. --Maelwys 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft

I've undone the article split for the following reasons:

• Splitting one of the sequel modules out into its own article without doing the same for the other modules could be considered, in this case, a form of recentism.
• Having information on all of the sequel articles in Ravenloft (D&D module) helped it to become a Good Article, and may assist it in its journey to Featured.
• The new Expedition page contained almost identical content to the section on it in this one, meaning that it was a stub. WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons does not need any more stubs unless they truly deserve their own article.

-Drilnoth (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

November 16-22 Weekly Focus

This article if the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons weekly article focus, with the goal being to get it a few steps closer to FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we merge in Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill? -Drilnoth (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea; I'll spread the word around to people who have worked on this article. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Merged. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll just say right now, that the page flow is currently terrible due to the placement of various images. I could even see it failing a GA re-review over that, it's so bad. :o BOZ (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll see what can be done. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How's that? -Drilnoth (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Much better. :) BOZ (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added more refs and replaced the silver anniversary image with a picture of the other version of the anniversary edition; I don't think that the change has made its way to the article yet, but it should soon. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

-remove indent-Added another review of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The silver anniversary cover art change has now taken effect in the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

November 19th, 2008 Class Reassessment

Many improvements have been made to this article since it became GA-class (Diff), and I think that it probably qualifies for A-class. Meeting the A-class criteria requires the support of at least two uninvolved editors; what do you all think? -Drilnoth (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's give it a shot. :) BOZ (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic. Love to see it. Web Warlock (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Two agreements: Assessment is now A-class. What do you think needs to be done before we go for FA-class? -Drilnoth (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did put it in for a peer review... ;) Let's see how that goes and proceed on from there? BOZ (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added it to the Peer Review section of the announcements (so far that format seems to be doing good in brining attention to articles!) -Drilnoth (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does. Just don't overload it so people can focus on a few things at a time. BOZ (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I know; I think that the level of announcements we have right now is good, although we could probably handle a couple more. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a semi-automated review available now; I don't know if that's all we're going to get, but it's got some pointers there. BOZ (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of those points have already been dealt with, except maybe the lead section could be a little longer. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm personally not expecting more than what we got on the semi-automated review, so I'm going to look at that and kick a little work into it. BOZ (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've gotten all that I'm going to get out of that review; some of it was helpful, some of it not applicable. As time permits, I'm going to go through all of the listed sources that I can access and see what I can correct or expand upon. After that, I don't know how much more I can do for the article without more input, so you can go ahead and nominate it. :) You might want to see what you can do for source-thin areas, particularly the novels spin-off section. BOZ (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Great improvements there BOZ! I'll take a look at the fiction section today or tomorrow and put it up for FA review as soon as the Peer Review is archived. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've actually removed the novel spin-off section because, after looking for sources, I couldn't find any that could be considered reliable. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this thread for any help people there might have to offer. :) BOZ (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone has a White Dwarf issue offering to help with information and/or references form it in that thread. shadzar-talk 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that (IIRC, he's User:Ant Brooks here) - what do we need again? :) BOZ (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him if he can add more detail about the review to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, geez... :( Well, we can always work on it more and then try again another time! BOZ (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I think that part of the problem here was that so much work still needed to be done when it was nominated that people didn't want to vote for or against its promotion. Maybe in a few weeks or 1-2 months we can finish any remaining cleanup issues and re-nominate it, without as much discussion about the use of images, references, external links, etc. -Drilnoth (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - we've got enough going on now to keep us busy until after New Years. :) BOZ (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Vampire with m-u level -- innovative?

The article currently includes "Strahd is notable for his then-innovative combination of monster and character, having the abilities of both vampires and magic-users.[8] In this release he is a level 10 magic-user, whereas the first edition rules only allowed selected humanoid races to acquire character classes.[7]"

While I realize WP gives great deference to sourced material, these two sentences at best should be heavily qualified, and at worst are flat-out false. The second sentence is clearly false, as 1st ed AD&D explicitly allows vampires to have m-u levels -- see DMG 179, footnote to Monster Table X (it is also implied in the next-to-last paragraph of the 1st ed MM entry on the vampire). Also, contrary to the first sentence, module Q1 includes Vlad Tolenkov, a 15th level magic-user vampire with a complete stat write-up. Maybe this was notable to the authors of the cited sources, but surely Wikipedia can improve on those sources. I don't have a suggestion for how to fix this (except the obvious route of simply cutting those sentences), but something should be done. Truly Trivial (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of those sentences use very reliable sources for referencing, and module Q1 came out three years after Ravenloft, so the design of the vampire magic-user may have been innovative when I6 was released, but not Q1. I'll take a look at my 1e DMG and see how all of the information should be reorganized or cut; thanks for pointing that out! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You have that backwards. Q1 came out in 1980, Ravenloft came out in 1983. Strahd is notable for treating the main antagonist as a character, rather than a monster. Vlad Tolenkov was given MM style "monster" stats while Strahd's write-up was more like a "character". Web Warlock (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not the fact that he had MU levels that was innovative, but how he was supposed to be played that was. Web Warlock (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... the Wiki article on Q1 says 1986 (that's the only source I looked at). -Drilnoth (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very insightful, gentlemen. He was treated as a real adversary than just "something to kill". Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits came out in 1980; the Q1-7 Queen of the Spiders compliation came out in 1986. BOZ (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! My bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reanimated this topic and rewritten the offending sentence. I was tempted to cut it entirely, but I suppose you could defend it as Webwarlock does above. It still remains patently false that Strahd was the first published instance of a vampire with magic-user levels (he's maybe the 3rd or 4th!). Truly Trivial (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kill to Defeat

On the 3rd paragraph of the Original edition section. If citation doesn't specifically say "kill" as distinct from "defeat" within the context of the citation (I don't have source of citation) maybe it will be best to change kill with defeat.--LexCorp (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added the ref, although I don't have the book right now, and I'm fairly sure that it said "kill," although I'm not positive. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

The module was reviewed in the following magazines (although it looks like some of these are listed already): Dragon #205 (1994), Dragon #81 (1984), Space Gamer V1, #72 (1985), White Dwarf #55 (1984), White Wolf #42 (1994) 71.194.32.252 (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OR Removed

I removed this from the article as OR made from observing the game and drawing conclusions from its content: " While the I6 Ravenloft module is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Ravenloft campaign setting materials, the fictional timeline given in these materials suggests that the events depicted in the module would have played out a couple hundred years prior to the events depicted in the campaign settings."

Notes

I do not believe we can include anything here that sources merely suggest. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers

Would there be any opposition to my cleanup up the page's style by using a citation format similar to the one used in the main Dungeons & Dragons article, rather than having the inline numbers? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest this. Please do. Scartol • Tok 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

This looks really solid, though I must defer to others on how comprehensive it is. For a module that's been so important it seems like there are only a few sources consulted. But if that's all there is, then that's all there is.

I recommend getting Awadewit to take a quick look before re-nominating it to FAC — assuming she has time (which she might not). She's probably the most thorough reviewer on Wikipedia at the moment.

• I'd suggest making the first link like this: adventure module, rather than having a separate link to the list of modules. (It's best to avoid "bumping links" in general.)

• I wonder if we should have a very brief (2-3 sentences) history of D&D's rules evolution, so that neophyte readers will understand the difference between D&D and AD&D.

• I recommend ending the last sentence of the first paragraph with "...as a 32-page book with maps of important game locations." Then we should have a paragraph which describes the setting, characters, and plot of the adventure. (Sort of like how articles about novels give a plot summary.)

• The adventure was play-tested every Halloween for five years... By whom?

Good luck with this! Scartol • Tok 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit and the comments. There are surprisingly few good, reliable sources for D&D-related topics online... most are print, especially for the older books, so they're harder to add. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On my browser, the lead appears underneath the infobox, instead of to the left. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a bug with the div tags... are you using Internet Explorer? Anyway, I'll try to fix it; thanks for mentioning it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, IE; much better now! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for letting us know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuff removed from article

We may want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

David Gibson of the fan review site Fraternity of Shadows criticized the revised module, especially its gameplay. As it was printed as a part of the Ravenloft campaign setting, many pertinent details found elsewhere in the box set are not provided. This, Gibson claims, makes it difficult to run House of Strahd as a stand-alone adventure.

but makes no mention of how to use it in the Ravenloft campaign setting. The maps for Castle Ravenloft were rendered in 3-D orthogonal effect, similar to the maps in the original Ravenloft adventure.

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is the first 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons adventure which provides Dungeon Masters with a new format for combat scenarios and encounters; each encounter has a two-page spread on which all pertinent statistics for monsters, terrain, and traps can be found. This format has been criticized because of how much information must be repeated from one spread to another, and how much unnecessary material seems to be used to fill two pages in many cases. John Cooper criticized the adventure's artwork, noting that some pieces were used more than once in the book, and that several pieces were reused from previous Dungeons & Dragons books. Cooper also criticized the artwork's departure from that of the original work, citing how it alternately depicts Strahd as a feeble old man and then as a young man with long hair and elven ears.

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft

Rules required	Dungeons & Dragons version 3.5
Character levels	6–9
Campaign setting	Generic Dungeons & Dragons
Authors	Bruce Cordell and James Wyatt
First published	2006
Linked modules
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, Expedition to Undermountain, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk

Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill

Code	I10
Rules required	Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition
Character levels	8–10
Campaign setting	Generic Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
Authors	Tracy & Laura Hickman
First published	1986
Linked modules
I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6, I7, I8, I9, I10, I11, I12, I13, I14

The module also featured a gypsy fortune-telling session, which randomly determined certain plot elements so that factors such as Strahd's motivations could change between games.

In 1990, TSR based a horror-themed second edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting on the module. The setting's first edition boxed set was titled Realm of Terror, but was later changed to Ravenloft. It has been published in several editions and has inspired various module, supplement, novel, and video game adaptations. The campaign setting moves Barovia from an unnamed location to a demiplane, an alternate dimension called variously "Ravenloft" or "the Demiplane of Dread". Barovia is the central and, chronologically, the first of many cursed lands to have been moved from their original location to this demiplane. Still, descriptions of Barovia and Strahd generally match those of the original module.

The module was well received by players and Dungeon Masters, and the orthogonal maps of Castle Ravenloft earned fan's admiration.

The revised version contained a 64-page book with a fold-out map. While the layout was mostly redone, Nesmith reused much of the original text and artwork, with additional art by James Crabtree and a new cover by Dana M. Knutson.

It was originally called Vampyr,

Written by Bruce Cordell and James Wyatt with cover art by Kev Walker, the book returns to the original Ravenloft module's plot and conventions, removing the demiplane setting used in the Ravenloft campaign setting.

References

Possible refs

[1][2][3]Can't find daystar nexus, but maybe internet archive has it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wired.com did a review, but I can't find it. http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2007/12/top-10-dd-mod-1/ similar to http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/01/top-10-dd-mod-1/ and http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2007/12/top-10-dd-mod-3/ - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we got us a challenge! I did some searching and found columns for In Search of the Unknown, Danger at Dunwater, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, The Lost City, Ghost Tower of Inverness, and White Plume Mountain. They must have done some url-shuffling or something... I note that Tomb of Horrors is linked to from our article, but that is gone now! Also we have a link that is supposed to go to Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, but that now points to In Search of the Unknown. So we have two MIA columns... and that leaves two unknowns, so it's certainly possible that one of those two was Ravenloft. Anyone better at searching than I care to look around and see? :) BOZ (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh, I needed to look a little closer - Against the Giants is in with the Danger at Dunwater one, so that's one less MIA. I'll fix the link on that article. BOZ (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan is in with "Sinister Secret". :) BOZ (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Ravenloft was not one of these. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dummies has more info in it.[4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So does the Fantastic Vampire book.[5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"No wonder the original module not only fetched high prices at auctions but was revised for 2nd edition AD&D (unwisely hidden under the title RM4 House of Strahd) by one of TSR’s finest designers, Bruce Nesmith, creator with Andria Hayday of the Ravenloft campaign setting. Nor that another version (with the original name and designator now restored) was released in 1999 as part of TSR’s Silver Anniversary series."[6] May be better than current ref 19. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[7] Hardcover? Why would it be adapted for 2nd edition in 1999? Was that the current edition? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[8] Not reliable, but at least it did exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I see.[9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Next FA attempt

Sounds good! I'll help out where I can. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this sentence, because I'm having trouble working it into the general narrative. I was thinking about putting it in the main Ravenloft article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1986, Ravenloft was adapted into the gamebook Master of Ravenloft, #6 in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Gamebooks series. In the book, the reader must defeat Count Strahd von Zarovich and save a young girl from becoming one of the undead.

Has a lot more to do with the module than it does with the setting, I'd think. It can be mentioned here, or just leave it to the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Gamebooks list. If you can find a way to work it back in that makes sense and isn't too clunky, might as well. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Correct section

Should the paragraph

The chief antagonist, Count Strahd, has become one of the most infamous and well-known villains in the Dungeons & Dragons game.[20] and has appeared in various novels and rulebooks since his debut in Ravenloft.[26] Strahd's character revolutionized Dungeons & Dragons by introducing a combination monster-character, with the abilities of a vampire and a magic-user.[10] This design enables him to combine his own powers with the surrounding environment, making him a difficult opponent to defeat.[5]

Go in Publication history or Reception? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tough call. I'd say if all of that is sourced to indepdendent secondary sources, put it in reception. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It's not independent. Maybe I'll attribute each statement and put it in Pub hist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module) is close to FA

The main thing left, besides a bit of copy editing, is the image. Three image options: say the cover in the infobox depicts Strahd and he's kinda important plus it IDs the module, in the body of the article show a picture of the maps which are commented on quite a bit in secondary sources, or include both two non-free images. Thoughts? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use what you've got? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can try. People sometimes oppose a cover if their isn't something specifically discussing it and its looks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Crazy! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say use the cover image, but not one of Strahd. He has his own article with an image, and reusing the image here would probably fail WP:NFCC. A single cover image which functions as identification of a work is usually accepted, even if it technically fails WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant just the cover, which luckily features Strahd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I misread your original comment. Anyway, I'd say that a map would fail WP:NFCC#8... they are commented on as being praised multiple times, yes, but how would seeing them significantly increase the readers' understanding of that? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the the maps probably have a better rational per NFCC#8 than the cover, unless book covers automatically get a free pass, which they might. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A single book cover generally gets a "free pass" for identification of the book; additional covers need strong rationales, however. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this useful? From Roger E. Moore's editorial in Dragon #156 (April 1990): "Those of you who enjoy instilling real fear into your AD&D campaigns should look for a certain boxed set called Ravenloft this May, from designer Bruce Nesmith and editor Andria Hayday; it encompasses the superb Tracy Hickman module, as well as many other wonderful things." 67.175.176.178 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, a more direct statement from "The Game Wizards" in #160 (August): "TSR’s classic AD&D adventure, I6 Ravenloft, inspired this world’s creation." 67.175.176.178 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say "You can probably fit it in if you want. The problem is that it's not independent, so we have to be careful. "it encompasses the superb Tracy Hickman module, as well as many other wonderful things" would probably be the best part (leaving out the "superb" and "wonderful" commentary). Do you know what he means by "encompasses" in this case? I'm not totally clear on what the boxed set did with the module, other than what this article says. If you sign up for an account, there's a gadget that makes creating refs easy, I might add."

But I would say that second ref is more useful. Go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding it. The rest of that article might have more useful stuff for this article, but it's more likely to be more useful for the main Ravenloft article, of course. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note of ref

Need to check WD87 quote, since it isn't perfect grammar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked it; it's verbatim. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd have to fail that review if it was on wiki. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, House of Strahd was reviewed in White Wolf magazine #42. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Castle Ravenloft game

Wizards of the coast have released a stand alone game based on this module. See: http://wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/207790000 Gill smoke (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! That should be added. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take care of that. :) BOZ (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3.0/3.5 Sword and Sorcery edition

Is there any particular reason why there's no mention of the third-party licensed version of Ravenloft produced for D&D 3.0/3.5 by the Sword & Sorcery imprint from White Wolf?MythicFox (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a source that talks about it, then I figure that would be a worthy add. Maybe check the main Ravenloft page? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, y'know what? I'm an idiot. I'd stepped away from the computer or something after loading up the article, got distracted, and forgot that there was a separate article for Ravenloft as a whole and that this was just for the original module. I retract my question.MythicFox (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :) 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the adventure game that uses the campaign setting, but I see that it's already covered in Ravenloft, so I'll remove it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ravenloft (module). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726054507/http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/HandC.html to http://www.trhickman.com/Intel/HandC.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd%2Fdx20020121x9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ravenloft (module). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050907200918/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2435 to http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2435

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)