D&D 5E Everything We Know About The Ravenloft Book

Here is a list of everything we know so far about the upcoming Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.

Art by Paul Scott Canavan​

• May 18th, 256 pages
• 30 domains (with 30 villainous darklords)
• Barovia (Strahd), Dementlieu (twisted fairly tales), Lamordia (flesh golem), Falkovnia (zombies), Kalakeri (Indian folklore, dark rainforests), Valachan (hunting PCs for sport), Lamordia (mad science)
• NPCs include Esmerelda de’Avenir, Weathermay-Foxgrove twins, traveling detective Alanik Ray.
• Large section on setting safe boundaries.
• Dark Gifts are character traits with a cost.
• College of Spirits (bard storytellers who manipulate spirits of folklore) and Undead Patron (warlock) subclasses.
• Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood lineages.
• Cultural consultants used.
• Fresh take on Vistani.
• 40 pages of monsters. Also nautical monsters in Sea of Sorrows.
• 20 page adventure called The House of Lament - haunted house, spirits, seances.

​

D&D 5E - Full Wraparound Cover Art For Ravenloft

We've seen the cover already, but here's a look at the full wraparound art by Anna Podedworna. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/ https://www.enworld.org/threads/heres-the-ravenloft-alternate-cover.678414/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Here's the Ravenloft Alternate Cover!

As usual, there is an alternate hobby-store exclusive cover for the upcoming Ravenloft book. Here's a look at it! And here's the full wraparound art. https://www.enworld.org/threads/updated-with-cover-the-d-d-book-is-van-richtens-guide-to-ravenloft.678411/...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - [Updated with cover!] The D&D Book Is.... Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft!

Yesterday's hints that a new D&D book would be announced today have born fruit -- we now have a product description and a title! It's a Ravenloft setting book, with tools and new rules for horror-themed games, and new horror-themed character options. I'll update this post with a product image as...

www.enworld.org

 

[Bedrockgames]

IMO, 2E and 3E Ravenloft always seemed more akin in its presentation to a Theme Park MMORPG rather than a Sandbox MMORPG.

I totally understand why you would see it this way. For what it is worth, I don't want Ravenloft to feel like a theme park MMORPG either (I don't play video games so I especially find it off-putting when RPGs look video gamey to me). But I do think what comes off as 'theme park'-like is not going to be the same for everyone. There is a big difference between a kitchen sink setting and a theme park setting, and a balance to strike to avoid slipping from one to the other. For me, Ravenloft has enough of all those classic horror tropes and monsters, characters with the serial numbers filed off, camp, terror, horror, etc that it all works just right for me. But I can see how it would have landed differently for someone else.

Also for the record, never really saw Ravenloft as a sandbox setting. I didn't really run it that way (I would certainly let my players go off and do things if they wanted to, but usually i liked to run it with clear scenarios).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They weren't corny parodies, though.

As @Paul Farquhar pointed out, actually, some later ones were. The initial ones weren't, sure. And I'm sorry, but Hammer was always corny. My parents saw it was corny - it's something we talked about when Hammer stuff came back on the TV in the '90s here. They're in their 70s now. So don't be trying to tell me it wasn't corny at the time, that's revisionist nonsense, I've got people who were actually watching it in cinemas, mate. Parodies maybe not, but they bordered on them at times, again, even for the time.

Maybe that is true. And if so, it is fine. But I think they are missing an opportunity to get CoS fans and Classic fans. If they at least have a core, and have Islands of terror, I don't see why that wouldn't get you both audiences.

You ever looked at the figures for the age ranges on D&D players these days? I'm assuming you're, at a minimum, 40-ish, like me. If not considerably older.

Someone can haul out the correct figures, but we're like 10-15% of the market, currently. Yeah, that low. And the percentage of that number who are serious 2E Ravenloft fans? It's going to be more like a quarter of that or less, so say 3-4% of total D&D players.

So you're proposing that instead of making Ravenloft as good as possible for 96% of D&D players, as appealling as possible, that sacrifice that, for the sake of a 3-4% of players who want something pretty different and extremely old-fashioned. And I'm sorry if you don't even play 5E and aren't going to (not sure if that's the case), maybe stop hitting the thread with dozens of responses to minor points? I mean two or three in a row is one thing... five or six seems excessive and makes it hard for others to have a discussion - it's inconsiderate - if I'm going to go on and on (as I sometimes do), I at least trying to keep my responses in one post (or two if it's being bad). This thread is about 5E Ravenloft.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You ever looked at the figures for the age ranges on D&D players these days? I'm assuming you're, at a minimum, 40-ish, like me. If not considerably older.

Someone can haul out the correct figures, but we're like 10-15% of the market, currently. Yeah, that low. And the percentage of that number who are serious 2E Ravenloft fans? It's going to be more like a quarter of that or less, so say 3-4% of total D&D players.

I haven't looked them. I am 44 (which again I would maintain is not that old at all). But still 10-15 percent of the market isn't nothing, and if you are talking about making a game specifically for Ravenloft, then obviously that is going to attract the interest of long time fans and potentially pull them in (so I would think it might still not be a massive number but it isn't just a portion of the existing 10-15 percent who buy these books---you would have lapsed fans who maybe play OSR alternatives that might be pulled back in if it is done right: like me)

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you're proposing that instead of making Ravenloft as good as possible for 96% of D&D players, as appealling as possible, that sacrifice that, for the sake of a 3-4% of players who want something pretty different and extremely old-fashioned. And I'm sorry if you don't even play 5E and aren't going to (not sure if that's the case), maybe stop hitting the thread with dozens of responses to minor points? I mean two or three in a row is one thing... five or six seems excessive and makes it hard for others to have a discussion - it's inconsiderate - if I'm going to go on and on (as I sometimes do), I at least trying to keep my responses in one post (or two if it's being bad). This thread is about 5E Ravenloft.

That isn't what I am proposing. I am proposing they balance it out so they can both groups. Maybe that is impossible. Perhaps the gulf in taste is too extreme. I would think something like a core isn't a bridge too far though.

I am allowed to respond when people respond to me Ruin Explorer. I am not trying to muck up the thread, but it is my favorite setting, of course I am going to have options. I don't ask others to shut up about their opinions. And I invite discussion with people who disagree with me, and only ever push back when it seems folks are not being cordial (and that isn't to be rude, but simply because I don't want to post an impulsive angry response, so my method is to clearly say to the poster: I can't engage you if you are going to post with me this way). I am happy to try to continue engaging with you. If you are going to attack my posting style, I won't be able to do so (at least for a time).

 

[Bedrockgames]

In a sandbox players can generally choose to explore and do stuff or not.

If the players choose to stay in one area it is not less sandboxy. If players have no choice but to be in one area it is less sandboxy.

Curse of Strahd has lots of stuff players can choose to explore and do or not do so I would agree it has elements that work with a sandbox style of play and is deep and open enough to go many different ways based on PC choices.

If Curse of Strahd was just the Castle and one village it would be less sandboxy than it is.

If Curse of Strahd had less secondary areas to choose to explore or not it would be less sandboxy than it is.

But also if Curse of Strahd had more areas but the PCs had to explore them that would be less sandboxy.

If players had to explore every area in a certain order that would be less sandboxy.

If Barovia was part of some bigger setting and players could choose to leave that would be more of a sandbox than Curse of Strahd is out of the box.

A haunted house domain would probably be less of a sandbox than Barovia in Curse of Strahd.

My understanding from the people I know who were introduced to Ravenloft through CoS, is the sandbox element is pretty important. And I can see that reading through it. For me it is just that the particulars of how it was done never really quite grabbed me. I would think going forward, sandbox might be an element they need to retain for that reason. That said I don't think classic ravenloft was particularly sandbox, it was described accurately IMO in the Feast of Goblyns module as a 'living adventure', where the focus is less on players exploring a sandbox and more on the GM treating the NPCs as living characters who respond believably and change their plans according to players actions. Note you can very easily combine those two ideas, which I do in most of my sandboxes, for a really great sandbox campaign. Still what I've heard from younger players I know makes me think sandbox is going to have to be a feature. For that reason, if they do go with classic Ravenloft stuff, Domains of Dread 1997 might be a better book to work off of for the core, because that was one where it is more feasible to run a sandbox.

 

[Bedrockgames]

..., for the sake of a 3-4% of players who want something pretty different and extremely old-fashioned.

one minor point on this: Ravenloft was meant to be old fashioned horror. The whole point was it was going against the prevailing horror trends of the time (that is why you see such strong expression against things like slasher films in the black box—I like slasher movies but I got the point they were trying to make).

 

[MGibster]

As @Paul Farquhar pointed out, actually, some later ones were. The initial ones weren't, sure. And I'm sorry, but Hammer was always corny. My parents saw it was corny - it's something we talked about when Hammer stuff came back on the TV in the '90s here.

Yeah, they were corny. I didn't want them until I was a kid in the 80s but they were corny. Good fun though. And who doesn't love Ingrid Pitt?

Someone can haul out the correct figures, but we're like 10-15% of the market, currently. Yeah, that low. And the percentage of that number who are serious 2E Ravenloft fans? It's going to be more like a quarter of that or less, so say 3-4% of total D&D players.

I'll be honest with you, I absolutely loved Ravenloft ever since I played the original module back in 1987 or 1988 (and it came out in 1983 I think). But it's been so long since I've played it that I'm very, very fuzzy on some of the details. I'm wondering how many of WotC's primary demographics have even seen a Hammer horror movie. I'm completely onboard with updating the setting to modern sensibilities. I don't expect any vampire movie released in 2021 to be like one released in 1992. Why should I expect Ravenloft to remain unchanged?

 

[Faolyn]

As @Paul Farquhar pointed out, actually, some later ones were. The initial ones weren't, sure. And I'm sorry, but Hammer was always corny. My parents saw it was corny - it's something we talked about when Hammer stuff came back on the TV in the '90s here. They're in their 70s now. So don't be trying to tell me it wasn't corny at the time, that's revisionist nonsense, I've got people who were actually watching it in cinemas, mate. Parodies maybe not, but they bordered on them at times, again, even for the time.

The Domains were treated seriously, most of the time, even if the source material wasn't.

Now, Curse of Strahd having a crypt for "Sir Klutz Tripalotsky: He fell on his own sword"--that's corny. And stupid.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, they were corny. I didn't want them until I was a kid in the 80s but they were corny. Good fun though. And who doesn't love Ingrid Pitt?


I'll be honest with you, I absolutely loved Ravenloft ever since I played the original module back in 1987 or 1988 (and it came out in 1983 I think). But it's been so long since I've played it that I'm very, very fuzzy on some of the details. I'm wondering how many of WotC's primary demographics have even seen a Hammer horror movie. I'm completely onboard with updating the setting to modern sensibilities. I don't expect any vampire movie released in 2021 to be like one released in 1992. Why should I expect Ravenloft to remain unchanged?

I saw Ravenloft as the Peter Vincent of D&D. There is value in revisiting the old. For example Ravenloft was often delving back to old black and white and silent influences (stuff that was pretty old already by 1990)

 

[Remathilis]

I want to point something out: I may be regarded as part of the old school crowd, but I am only 44. That isn't that old. Plenty of people in their 40s are WOTC customers. I am not saying they should just re-issue the black box with updated mechanics. But they should respect the prior material and they should avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Again this is the lesson of 4th edition. Yes you need to bring the game and settings forward for present day audiences. I am not suggesting you shouldn't. But you can do that in a way that brings in new fans while retaining the old fans (otherwise you split your customers up)

Hi. I'm 41. Started with the Red Box and I've been using my much-abused copy of Domains of Dread throughout this conversation. I