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]

See, the problem you're facing is that the lens is now inherently part of the camera system possessed by many/most younger people, just as older people (i.e. 40+) possess a lens that allows them to see racist-as-hell stuff where some older-still people (60+ or 70+) might have some difficulty seeing how stuff that is obviously racist to you is "racist". A good example would be the Black & White Minstrel show (which in the UK ran waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long because old people). To someone my parents age (70), that's obviously and shockingly racist. To someone my grandad's age (who would be like 100 now), it wasn't obviously racist, and people his age would have said "BUT I LOVE BLACK PEOPLE!".

So when you're dismissing this because you think people "require knowledge of the lens", maybe think on how people might have that lens built in, and just because you didn't, doesn't mean they don't.

My point is it is possible the lens isn't an accurate one. What I am trying to warn against is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You say there should be counter examples. I am sure if WOTC redoes this stuff, they will balance it all out. But I am much more of an advocate for the lone designer, the co-writing team with a vision. I think when you engage in writing and design that way, consistent themes emerge from your subconscious, or from things you are consciously grappling with. My point is the issue this lens creates is it makes it very difficult for creative people to consciously grapple with themes connected to their own lives, or to grapple with subconscious themes. If it is coming from the one person, or from a co-writing team, you are going to see tropes repeat, and possibly not be balanced out. I gave an example earlier (because the trope of women wanting babies, and baby death, came up) of how my mother lost a baby when I was a child. And this impacted me and the way I write about things. If I had written the 91 boxed set, there would probably be even more of that kind of content in the material. That wouldn't be because I think women need to have babies to be complete, it is because I am bringing my own issues into the horror I would be writing (which is what I want horror writers to do----and what I want horror game designers to do). That isn't always going to be clean and align with what the lens wants.

All this stuff is not necessarily equating to a message that the lens says. And that is the problem. The lens is always reading these things in negative ways. And I think if the lens creates a vast system of etiquette and rules for writing, that is hard to navigate (and I would posit that it is because I personally can no longer navigate all this stuff myself as a creative person: I realized a while ago it is pretty pointless), then it is creatively stifling. And I can see and feel it in the content coming. Stuff just isn't as interesting to me any more when it takes the approach of not aggrieving the lens

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point is it is possible the lens isn't an accurate one. What I am trying to warn against is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You say there should be counter examples. I am sure if WOTC redoes this stuff, they will balance it all out. But I am much more of an advocate for the lone designer, the co-writing team with a vision. I think when you engage in writing and design that way, consistent themes emerge from your subconscious, or from things you are consciously grappling with. My point is the issue this lens creates is it makes it very difficult for creative people to consciously grapple with themes connected to their own lives, or to grapple with subconscious themes. If it is coming from the one person, or from a co-writing team, you are going to see tropes repeat, and possibly not be balanced out. But they are not necessarily equating to a message that the lens says. And that is the problem. The lens is always reading these things in negative ways. And I think if the lens creates a vast system of etiquette and rules for writing, that is hard to navigate (and I would posit that it is because I personally can no longer navigate all this stuff myself as a creative person: I realized a while ago it is pretty pointless), then it is creatively stifling. And I can see and feel it in the content coming. Stuff just isn't as interesting to me any more when it takes the approach of not aggrieving the lens

It's absolutely an accurate one. It's just not one you like.

No-one has to "throw the baby out with the bath water". That's a choice. You can say "I can see that Soul Man is kinda racist, but I still love that dumb movie!". That's fine. But the problem you're having is a refusal to even accept the premise that it's racist, because you're trapped in a mindset, that if something is "bad" or "problematic", that to be thrown on a pyre.

Not many people think that.

The idea of "problematic faves" exists for a reason! It's like, Dirty Harry is pretty problematic movie, so is Conan The Barbarian, but I love both of them - the difference is, I acknowledge they're problematic, whereas you're here just trying to dismiss that they're problematic, because you seem to be unable to face the prospect of liking something which is problematic.

Or for god's sake, HP Lovecraft. Loads of people, including people of ethnic groups he rails against, enjoy Lovecraft's work overall, the completely wild vibe, the fact that there's nothing like it, indeed it's even been reclaimed to some extent. But it's racist as hell, it's super-racist it's almost so racist it's funny, but it's still racist.

It seems like you couldn't enjoy Lovecraft if you said "Well yeah that's incredibly racist..." - whereas I can go "That is mind-blowingly racist, but his body of work is interesting...". I think my position is the open-minded one here.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's absolutely an accurate one. It's just not one you like.

No-one has to "throw the baby out with the bath water". That's a choice. You can say "I can see that Soul Man is kinda racist, but I still love that dumb movie!". That's fine. But the problem you're having is a refusal to even accept the premise that it's racist, because you're trapped in a mindset, that if something is "bad" or "problematic", that to be thrown on a pyre.

For the final time Ruin Explorer: I am not defending Soul Man. I am arguing against having a lens that constantly scans for problematic material and doesn't seem to consider other possible readings. Two totally different things

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For the final time Ruin Explorer: I am not defending Soul Man. I am arguing against having a lens that constantly scans for problematic material and doesn't seem to consider other possible readings. Two totally different things

If that's all you got from my post, you're the king of missing the point lol. I'm literally just using it as an example no-one cares about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It seems like you couldn't enjoy Lovecraft if you said "Well yeah that's incredibly racist..." - whereas I can go "That is mind-blowingly racist, but his body of work is interesting...". I think my position is the open-minded one here.

No I can and do enjoy Lovecraft even though I knew his stories were racist since I first read them (which maybe being a New Englander, it was easier for me to spot as I realize not everyone felt that way about him growing up). But what I am saying is this idea that we are going to purify media over time, is, I think, a very bad one. And I think taking a hyper critical lens to media, where people are clearly finding things that might not be problematic and filing them as such is an issue. And I think there is also an argument to be made we are quickly moving away from being allowed to have problematic faves. Guess what I may be trying to say here is the quest for perfection is starting to feel a bit fanatical to me (at the very least a bit censorious)

 

[Bedrockgames]

If that's all you got from my post, you're the king of missing the point lol. I'm literally just using it as an example no-one cares about.

I felt it was important to push back against because of how the internet works. It is a game of telephone. By the end of this thread, the take away for many would have been Bedrockgames was defending Soul Man's depiction of race.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But what I am saying is this idea that we are going to purify media over time, is, I think, a very bad one.

It's not an idea anyone has been promoting though, so I guess have fun with that...

And I think there is also an argument to be made we are quickly moving away from being allowed to have problematic faves.

No, I don't think so. On the contrary, in fact.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I felt it was important to push back against because of how the internet works. It is a game of telephone. By the end of this thread, the take away for many would have been Bedrockgames was defending Soul Man's depiction of race.

ROFL fair enough <3

 

[Bedrockgames]

ROFL fair enough <3

Not trying to be a jerk or anything (and not saying you were trying to do that). I have just had that experience on twitter with telephone (once something like that sticks against you, it sticks, there is really nothing you can do to undo it)

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not an idea anyone has been promoting though, so I guess have fun with that...

A lot of what is going on in this thread is an effort to purify Ravenloft. Is it not?