D&D 5E My critic on VRGtR

[Minigiant]

It’s a tricky line to walk, right? On the one hand, options are always good, and options for significantly de-powered PCs would be highly appropriate for a horror toolbox book. On the other hand, how far can you take it before it feels like “why are we playing D&D instead of CoC in a fantasy setting?” I think the Survivor rules strike a nice balance. A great option for one-offs, the idea to use them to play out flashbacks and nightmares is awesome, and if you want super low-power PC options, they fit the bill.

I think one of the strengths of D&D and especially 5e is that it can do multiple genres and flavors decently without going bland. Most horror or dark fantasy RPGs deep dive into the genre and only work one way. With Ravenloft, they could have explored Ravenloft as Dark Heroic Fantasy, Dark Swords and Sorcery, Dark Grim Fantasy, Dark War Fantasy, and Dark Mythic Fantasy. By not offering the dial, they kind of fell into that trap they were trying to avoid.

 

[TrueAlphaGamer]

What would you prefer, a detailed listing of minority groups typically stigmatized in this way? It would be immediately outdated and unhelpful and however well done. Seems like criticism for the sake of criticism rather than something you've actually considered. Also, dude, I dunno if you've ever read Lovecraft, but let me give you a rundown on all the minority groups he stigmatized:

Literally every single one which wasn't White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.

I'm not kidding. He even presents Scotsmen and Irish people in terms pretty similar to black people and asian people, and all of them he presents as monstrous. He even kinda nails small-town East Coast folk who presumably are WASPs, but are poor, and poorly-spoken, so obviously creepy to good old HP (who, let's be real, would be writing creepypasta on 4chan, if not 8kun, were he around today, and utterly obscure - of course horror would be pretty different without him, and D&D and RPGs would be missing a bunch of stuff).

I'm not sure what's so difficult - it's merely a straightforward exhortation to not fall into the same trap as HP Lovecraft, and present everyone different to you or mentally ill as dangerous and/or actual monsters.

I feel as though the advice of "don't be racist or bigoted when creating adventures" is somewhat self-explanatory. I don't read much Lovecraft, so I think a reader like me who has more modern sensibilities would just be left with more questions at that line.

The point about mental illness also seems peculiar in how brief it is. If it included commentary/revision on the DMG Madness rules, or something to that extent, I think it would be more helpful. Overall I was using it more as an example of how the book doesn't give as much in terms of deep advice on setting design.

Also re: Monsterhearts, I just don't agree, having read it, and I feel like you're bullshitting for effect there, and trusting that most of us haven't.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Maybe it's just because the system is better built around horror themes, but I found the DM advice there was as good if not better than what Van Richten's gives.

 

[Zaukrie]

I love the new bard. Bards are historians, not just entertainers. When those rules were introduced, I used them to create a leader type for orcs in Eberron, that called upon the spirits of their ancestors to help the warriors in the area fight better (among other things)....

 

[Helldritch]

It’s a tricky line to walk, right? On the one hand, options are always good, and options for significantly de-powered PCs would be highly appropriate for a horror toolbox book. On the other hand, how far can you take it before it feels like “why are we playing D&D instead of CoC in a fantasy setting?” I think the Survivor rules strike a nice balance. A great option for one-offs, the idea to use them to play out flashbacks and nightmares is awesome, and if you want super low-power PC options, they fit the bill.

I certainly wouldn’t mind more such options, but there’s the question of what to cut for them. Personally I’d be fine with more stuff along those lines taking the place of, like, the spirit bard. But new subclasses sell books, so I understand why they wouldn’t want to do that. The domains are already trying to squeeze a lot of information into very small page counts, I wouldn’t want them to be cut down. The travelers in the mists section feels perfect to me, enough to give you some ideas without taking up a ton of real-estate.

Agreed. And as you said, for a book of this magnitude, the page "count" is a bit low. The two best setting they have printed so far are Wildemount and Ravnica both around 300+ pages. The 256 page mark is a bit low for a setting book. These 46 pages missing means a lot was left off. Hell, I count with the inside covers, at least 6 black pages that could have been used for tables and/or index. But at this point, this is a bit on the nitpicking side.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Agreed. And as you said, for a book of this magnitude, the page "count" is a bit low. The two best setting they have printed so far are Wildemount and Ravnica both around 300+ pages. The 256 page mark is a bit low for a setting book. These 46 pages missing means a lot was left off. Hell, I count with the inside covers, at least 6 black pages that could have been used for tables and/or index. But at this point, this is a bit on the nitpicking side.

I have to admit I do find it deeply bizarre that Ravnica got 300+ pages. It could fit into fewer far more easily than Ravenloft.

 

[Helldritch]

I love the new bard. Bards are historians, not just entertainers. When those rules were introduced, I used them to create a leader type for orcs in Eberron, that called upon the spirits of their ancestors to help the warriors in the area fight better (among other things)....

I would way more have like for them to have created an entirely new archetype, the shaman with the spiritualist in there than the bard. Being an historian does not make you a spirit talker all of a sudden. A shaman type archetype would have been way better for that. And no, I do not hate bards.

 

[Helldritch]

I have to admit I do find it deeply bizarre that Ravnica got 300+ pages. It could fit into fewer far more easily than Ravenloft.

Fully agree on that. But Ravnica did brought new rules and idea on how to run organisations and these rules were great! And I mean very great. I use them for just about any organisations in any settings. The fact that they went with full pages for each organizations was a good choice and gave us a lot to work with. I do not play in Ravnica, but the book was really inspiring. Just as Wildemount struck a nice chord in my heart (and no I was not, and still not is a fan of CR) as the setting was really good. Enough for me to consider buying the previous setting Lore something...

Edit: Ravnica is at 256 pages, but its add on maps bring about 30 additional pages. Yes I bought that one. Could not resist.

 

[Zaukrie]

I would way more have like for them to have created an entirely new archetype, the shaman with the spiritualist in there than the bard. Being an historian does not make you a spirit talker all of a sudden. A shaman type archetype would have been way better for that. And no, I do not hate bards.

So just call this bard a shaman.......that's pretty much what I did.

 

[Helldritch]

So just call this bard a shaman.......that's pretty much what I did.

It is a way of doing it. But the game lacks a true shaman archetype. A fighter can do a decent barbarian, it does not mean that we should throw the archetype down the drain. Same with the shaman. Somehow, druid and cleric do not fill the bill for the shaman...

 

[Gradine]

The point about mental illness also seems peculiar in how brief it is. If it included commentary/revision on the DMG Madness rules, or something to that extent, I think it would be more helpful. Overall I was using it more as an example of how the book doesn't give as much in terms of deep advice on setting design.

This I think is a fair critique. I haven't read the book myself yet, but if that's literally all the book says about it (less than a sentence, a clause really) than it's woefully insufficient. Cosmic Horror is built from the ground up around a definition of "madness" that, at best, makes light of a thing that for many people is quite serious, and at worst, perpetuates negative, harmful stereotypes about people living with such challenges as schizophrenia, paranoia, or delusions.

I think it's possible to play with the underlying tensions and horror that comes from intellectual and spiritual degradation and corruption without falling back on tired "madness" tropes, or something as asinine as rolling on a table of "mental illnesses".