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

 

[Paul Farquhar]

no

Edit: I was trying to make the point that sometimes you can go overboard with description trying to achieve horror. And to be clear, this is just say own opinion about GMing based on my experience, I don't doubt people get different results doing different things (for example there may be a GM in this thread who has a really great voice like Vincent Price, and I think that person is going to get much different results giving rich involved descriptions than my much more dry delivery). I think this lesson applies to other types of campaigns. For horror things are going to be different because horror is the goal (and in a typical campaign you are not expected to deliver horror every single session: though you will certain still have moments of horror and some campaigns incorporate more horror than others). But the longer I GM, the more I move away from what I call 'writer advice for GMs', where the rules of what make a good description in a book, IMO, don't necessarily translate to good description at the GM chair. I notice that i tend to get bored for explore if GMs deliver long, atmospheric descriptions. So I aim for shorter descriptions and focus more on choosing the perfect word to describe key things

This is the thing - I always try to make my descriptions as atmospheric as possible. I don't have a great voice like Vincent Price, but if I did I would use it all the time. There is no "turn it up to 11" because the knob is always jammed as high as it will go. All monsters are terrifying (at least as terrifying as I can make them), not just the ones that happen live in Ravenloft.

Do some people not do that? Do they say ""meh, it's only another dragon"?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is the thing - I always try to make my descriptions as atmospheric as possible. I don't have a great voice like Vincent Price, but if I did I would use it all the time. There is no "turn it up to 11" because the knob is always jammed as high as it will go. All monsters are terrifying (at least as terrifying as I can make them), not just the ones that happen live in Ravenloft.

Do some people not do that? Do they say ""meh, it's only another dragon"?

YmmV: for me I find I am less affected by GM styles where dramatic narration to create atmosphere is emphasized, and an more impacted by efficient description that picks the right details and word (usually singular) to highlight those details. Again this is just my preference for horror presently

 

[overgeeked]

I think we have to assume most people in this equation are over 12, especially as when released the movies had ratings ensuring on adults could watch them!

Who and Hammer both are notable as being sometimes still able to be creepy as hell despite being corny as hell though. Not all the time but some of it. NuWho has an a practically Ravenloft worthy monster with the Weeping Angels too, which were certainly both.

Yes, upon release in 1958. That’s 63 years ago. But those films have been watched by younger people since their initial release. As mentioned some had X ratings on release but are now G or PG-13 (in the US at least). So again, what adults find corny, kids can still find amazing and terrifying. A kid screaming about a Dalek is met with an adult rolling their eyes at a wheely-bin with a plunger on. All I’m saying is corny is subjective. And nostalgia goes a long way to cover for corny.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, upon release in 1958. That’s 63 years ago. But those films have been watched by younger people since their initial release. As mentioned some had X ratings on release but are now G or PG-13 (in the US at least). So again, what adults find corny, kids can still find amazing and terrifying. A kid screaming about a Dalek is met with an adult rolling their eyes at a wheely-bin with a plunger on. All I’m saying is corny is subjective. And nostalgia goes a long way to cover for corny.

I think people are overemphasizing the corniness and camp of Hammer, and not giving it enough credit. It is also worth pointing out that while hammer could be campy at times, they also did work, especially in those older films, to have a strong atmosphere and tight script. Horror of Dracula is very much a straightforward horror film, and I would argue a scary one, with a few comedic moments (but that kind of humor was common in a lot of movies from the time). These films frequently had quite a bit more blood than other films at the time, they introduced sexuality as well (if I recall the actress who plays Mina in horror of Dracula was instructed to act like she had just had great sex after being fed on). Many of these elements increased, and there are hammer movies you definitely wouldn't want to show to kids today (Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is not a kids movie at all).

Here are some reviews pulled right out of the wikipedia reaction section on Horror of Dracula when it came out:

"Of all the 'Dracula' horror pictures thus far produced, this one, made in Britain and photographed in Technicolor, tops them all. Its shock impact is, in fact, so great that it may well be considered as one of the best horror films ever made. What makes this picture superior is the expert treatment that takes full advantage of the story's shock values."

"Hammer Films, the same British production unit which last year restored Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to its rightful place in the screen's chamber of horrors, has now even more successfully brought back the granddaddy of all vampires, Count Dracula. It's chillingly realistic in detail (and at times as gory as the law allows). The physical production is first rate, including the settings, costumes, Eastman Color photography and special effects."

"serious approach to the macabre theme...adds up to lotsa tension and suspense."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who and Hammer both are notable as being sometimes still able to be creepy as hell despite being corny as hell though. Not all the time but some of it. NuWho has an a practically Ravenloft worthy monster with the Weeping Angels too, which were certainly both.

I think humor and camp often compliment horror because of the contrast. Evil Dead II was funny as hell but also one of the scariest movies I had seen when it came out (and I think part of the reason was the comedy: both because of the contrast but because you feel like the shift in tones means you are in the hands of a psychopath director). Return of the Living Dead is another good example I think. That film is hysterical, but it scared me more than almost any other zombie movie, because despite the comedy a lot of the imagery reminds you of your own mortality (at least for me it had that effect). Obviously these are not films going for the kind of horror ravenloft was, but I think they illustrate the point about humor and tone in horror

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I think people are overemphasizing the corniness and camp of Hammer, and not giving it enough credit. It is also worth pointing out that while hammer could be campy at times, they also did work, especially in those older films, to have a strong atmosphere and tight script. Horror of Dracula is very much a straightforward horror film, and I would argue a scary one, with a few comedic moments (but that kind of humor was common in a lot of movies from the time). These films frequently had quite a bit more blood than other films at the time, they introduced sexuality as well (if I recall the actress who plays Mina in horror of Dracula was instructed to act like she had just had great sex after being fed on). Many of these elements increased, and there are hammer movies you definitely wouldn't want to show to kids today (Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed is not a kids movie at all).

Here are some reviews pulled right out of the wikipedia reaction section on Horror of Dracula when it came out:

"Of all the 'Dracula' horror pictures thus far produced, this one, made in Britain and photographed in Technicolor, tops them all. Its shock impact is, in fact, so great that it may well be considered as one of the best horror films ever made. What makes this picture superior is the expert treatment that takes full advantage of the story's shock values."

"Hammer Films, the same British production unit which last year restored Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to its rightful place in the screen's chamber of horrors, has now even more successfully brought back the granddaddy of all vampires, Count Dracula. It's chillingly realistic in detail (and at times as gory as the law allows). The physical production is first rate, including the settings, costumes, Eastman Color photography and special effects."

"serious approach to the macabre theme...adds up to lotsa tension and suspense."

Yeah I think this is pretty accurate. Obviously if you put on a Hammer film today, it's not that scary. But when it was released and these were some of the first films of its kind, folks did get scared. It has less to do with kids vs. adults, and more that Hammer films were scary for the 1960s audience, and are not very scary for today's.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah I think this is pretty accurate. Obviously if you put on a Hammer film today, it's not that scary. But when it was released and these were some of the first films of its kind, folks did get scared. It has less to do with kids vs. adults, and more that Hammer films were scary for the 1960s audience, and are not very scary for today's.

I still find them kind of scary, because you get invested in them. I came to horror in the 80s as a kid, and we were surrounded by 70s and 80s gore, but the hammer movies still had a big impact on me. Well done horror can still be timeless. There are always fads and fashions, and I think sometimes people make too big a thing about "horror evolving". I hear that all the time in reference to current films, but I genuinely don't find newer horror movies that scary (there are a lot of jump scares, a lot of reliance on sound effects, and CGI, and often they are too smart for their own good IMO). There have definitely been effective new horror movies, but I think sometimes people don't realize they are also living in a time that will pass and what looks really scary to them right now, will look more corny than stuff 30 years old to 60 years old in ten or twenty years (I am definitely seeing this watching a lot of films from the early 2000s, which I had a much different reaction to the first time I saw). The good ones will stand the test of time. Movies that are too weighted down by present trends, in any era, whether it is the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 2010s, or today, will feel dated and corny eventually. Good horror feels more timelsss IMO

 

[overgeeked]

That's not unfair. Even Call of Cthulhu has an opportunity for Investigators' actions to have a positive impact on the world.

Yes, but that impact is very small and very limited. You can stop this cultist but not this cult. You can stop this cult but not all cults. You can stop this ritual to summon the thing that ends the world but not all rituals. You can save this person but not their family. You can save this family but not this town. And most of the saving you do is limited by time. You can save them today but there are more threats out there. Most that you could ever stop in dozens of lifetimes. You’re also playing as a frail human with low hit points and diminishing sanity. Insanity and death are inevitable. This is a horror game in a horror setting with horror endings.

Anyone else think a Cthulhu by Gaslight game set in Ravenloft would be the perfect combination?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but that impact is very small and very limited. You can stop this cultist but not this cult. You can stop this cult but not all cults. You can stop this ritual to summon the thing that ends the world but not all rituals. You can save this person but not their family. You can save this family but not this town. And most of the saving you do is limited by time. You can save them today but there are more threats out there. Most than you could ever stop in dozens of lifetimes. You’re also playing as a frail human with low hit points and diminishing sanity. Insanity and death are inevitable. This is a horror game in a horror setting with horror endings.

Anyone else think a Cthulhu by Gaslight game set in Ravenloft would be the perfect combination?

The way I see it in Ravenloft is the players can make an impact on a small scale. They can stop the ghost haunting the village, stop the flesh golem stalking the bogs, even kill a domain lord or two....but Ravenloft will go on. It definitely isn't meant to be a setting where the players change the world, rather one where they can just bring some light to it.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I still find them kind of scary, because you get invested in them. I came to horror in the 80s as a kid, and we were surrounded by 70s and 80s gore, but the hammer movies still had a big impact on me. Well done horror can still be timeless. There are always fads and fashions, and I think sometimes people make too big a thing about "horror evolving". I hear that all the time in reference to current films, but I genuinely don't find newer horror movies that scary (there are a lot of jump scares, a lot of reliance on sound effects, and CGI, and often they are too smart for their own good IMO). There have definitely been effective new horror movies, but I think sometimes people don't realize they are also living in a time that will pass and what looks really scary to them right now, will look more corny than stuff 30 years old to 60 years old in ten or twenty years (I am definitely seeing this watching a lot of films from the early 2000s, which I had a much different reaction to the first time I saw). The good ones will stand the test of time. Movies that are too weighted down by present trends, in any era, whether it is the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 2010s, or today, will feel dated and corny eventually. Good horror feels more timelsss IMO

Yeah, that's just your nostalgic childhood memories coming to haunt you. My adult sister still tenses up and closes her ears when I mention this fellow from Wallace & Gromit;