Review thread of VRGtRL 5e

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

While I think it was not possible to do something that would compare to the level of love and care the Kargatane did for Ravenloft Gazeteers for 3e, I agree that this product could have been better. Some ideas I really like, like Saidra's domain but even these, require care to flourish and to fill the gaps. Long story short it's a cashgrab running on the coattails of Curse of Strahd without coming close to the quality of even that, standalone, product.

It didn’t have to reach the levels of the gazetteers, but with a similar page count to Domains of Dread, that’s what it SHOULD have been. A 5e DoD, not a hackneyed, badly written knockoff.

[alhoon]

While I think it was not possible to do something that would compare to the level of love and care the Kargatane did for Ravenloft Gazeteers for 3e, I agree that this product could have been better. Some ideas I really like, like Saidra's domain but even these, require care to flourish and to fill the gaps. Long story short it's a cashgrab running on the coattails of Curse of Strahd without coming close to the quality of even that, standalone, product.

It didn’t have to reach the levels of the gazetteers, but with a similar page count to Domains of Dread, that’s what it SHOULD have been. A 5e DoD, not a hackneyed, badly written knockoff.

I want to argue. I don't have arguments though.
That said, I liked that badly written knockoff, despite its flaws. Did I fell in love with it as when I read DoD? Nope. Not at all. If I wasn't a Ravenloft fan it wouldn't have captured me in the mists.

[Jeremy16]

All right, people, it's time to put this one to bed. Onward to better things in 2022!


SUMMARY - PART 2


I never even mentioned the fact that there are no Dark Powers checks anymore. Ditto for augmented spells and effects. Plus, no Vistani curses or any sign of fear, horror, and madness checks. Basically, none of the mechanics that used to set this world apart. So, what exactly makes this Ravenloft besides the label on the cover? It's pretty much just every other D&D setting with a few horror trappings... oops, I mean “dark gifts”... thrown in.

Another poster said that the developers were attempting to recreate the success of Curse of Strahd by using the same adventure structure – having a major goal, a neat gimmick to hang it on, and an uber bad guy to defeat in the end – and repeating it over and over again. If that was the intent then this book is a marvelous success.

But to me, it's a completely linear and antiseptic approach to adventures that borders on railroading. There's no NPC allies, no unique monsters, no secret conspiracies, no sidetreks at all. All you get is one set of monsters grouped by horror trope, one kinda interesting scenario to explore, then your PCs are assumed to split town. That's good if you are looking for a one-time weekend-in-hell session, but it's not worldbuilding. Plus, it's a serious regression in the campaign setting's evolution.

And to that effect... Does anyone really believe this was a sincere effort at making a version of Ravenloft that respects the source material? In reality it is just an exercise in keeping corporate trademark rights alive. (This is a very common thing in comic book publishing. Every 7-10 years some also-ran character gets a new miniseries with a revamped costume and origin that literally no one was asking for.) I wonder how the authors here will feel in 10 years when their work is revised again? Probably nothing, since it seems to be just another paycheck to them. I definitely don't see the “love” of the setting that was talked about so much. This is the reason I think older fans like myself have such a poor reaction to this lukewarm offering.

I know the focus on fantasy horror rather than gothic horror was intentional, but I think this approach was a mistake. First, all the fantasy tropes here really seem to crowd out the horror elements (wyverns and giants are way too high fantasy for my Ravenloft campaigns). Second, disaster horror takes on an out-sized role for most of the domains covered (Darkon, Hazlan, etc.).

Plus, there's a subtle but pervasive whitewashing of everything that makes horror truly horrific. It's hard for me to put into words, but I would characterize it as a bland and lifeless presentation. Every darklord is a cypher or symbol of some other bad thing (war, disease, fame, etc.) with barely any personality of their own. This is the exact opposite of the approach that originally drew me to this setting.

I understand D&D wanted an all ages approach to horror in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. But, it's handled really ineptly. Other horror RPGs such as the Call of Cthuthlu and World of Darkness settings deal with madness and other adult situations and are just as popular and profitable. It's like the developers don't trust players and DMs to be mature enough to handle real terror. The “...and they all died,” endings I complained about earlier highlight that, as the authors seem to think a high body count is the only way to show someone is really evil.

In the end, I both love and hate this book. I love it because it is Ravenloft, and I love anything written for this setting whether good or bad. And, I hate it because it isn't the Ravenloft I grew up with and overall it is just a pale imitation of the setting I have come to know and love.

[alhoon]

Another poster said that the developers were attempting to recreate the success of Curse of Strahd by using the same adventure structure – having a major goal, a neat gimmick to hang it on, and an uber bad guy to defeat in the end – and repeating it over and over again. If that was the intent then this book is a marvelous success.

Nope, it was not.
CoS was a good adventure, a "bloody love letters sent to the Hickmans". I don't agree with everything there, like the Dark Powers in the Amber something, but Curse of Strahd was good and it had devotion and love put in the making.
I liked this product, but it's not CoS. It's a gathering of things that were domains and that frankly, many of them can be inserted easily in every kind of setting. I have already added Saidra's city as an island city in my world, where food comes and goes through ships and from farms outside.

But to me, it's a completely linear and antiseptic approach to adventures that borders on railroading. There's no NPC allies, no unique monsters, no secret conspiracies, no sidetreks at all

there, I respectfully disagree. No 3-page description would have that. If you want to run a decent adventure in these places you can fill in the gaps.
It is a seed my dear friend, that can grow to an adventure. Same for say half the places in Forgotten Realms. Did we get in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, not the expansions or place-focused adventures etc, several sidetrecks, secret conspiracies etc when it comes to places?
I dare say that in the FR campaign setting I had (back in 2e) Calimport, or Vaasa etc got much less attention than most of the detailed domains in VRGtRL.

[Jeremy16]

But to me, it's a completely linear and antiseptic approach to adventures that borders on railroading. There's no NPC allies, no unique monsters, no secret conspiracies, no sidetreks at all

there, I respectfully disagree. No 3-page description would have that. If you want to run a decent adventure in these places you can fill in the gaps.
It is a seed my dear friend, that can grow to an adventure. Same for say half the places in Forgotten Realms. Did we get in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, not the expansions or place-focused adventures etc, several sidetrecks, secret conspiracies etc when it comes to places?
I dare say that in the FR campaign setting I had (back in 2e) Calimport, or Vaasa etc got much less attention than most of the detailed domains in VRGtRL.

I was commenting on the domain descriptions as if they were adventures in the CoS vein. As a sourcebook, the details provided are adequate. Trying to thread the needle between both approaches is another reason why this book doesn't work for me.

[alhoon]

I don't know if that's what you want to say, so I will say it:
I think the book is not Ravenloft as a setting and more a bunch of 3-page articles that could have appeared in the Dungeon magazine one at a time. It's more of a compilation of disjoined articles than a single book with chapters.

DoD 2e or 3e had pages for the domains that were even less detailed, but it was a SETTING book. This is... "here are a lot of domains, bye".
Some of the domains were good. Others were not. But it's not a setting book IMO.

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

And to that effect... Does anyone really believe this was a sincere effort at making a version of Ravenloft that respects the source material?

In brief, I do. I agree with a lot of your points, but here we disagree. I have a long review I've been trying to finish for months now, hopefully soon, where I elaborate. But for now suffice to say that I think there was sincere effort and love of the source material, just that the goal was a revamp for the current zeitgeist, and that goal was pursued hard, to the detriment of old school fans like us.

[Joël of the FoS]

I also do, I think there are too many old names used to say otherwise. But the whole thing got scrambled in a way that makes it unrecognizable, but for new fans discovering RL, it is working.

[Five]

I am finally getting around to giving VRGtR a thorough read and have just got into the entry on I'Cath. From other reviews I've read mostly positive things about its new update, so I was going in with some heightened expectation. But after the first two paragraphs I had to stop reading for I was hit with a sense deja vu. But I couldn't place it. So I got the monkies in my brain up off their asses (I blame it on myself for introducing them to coffee) and got them to go scour the back of the library, to go dust off some books I like to hold onto. And this is what they dug up:

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0601051h.html

Intentional or not I couldn't say (and don't really care) but nice touch! Double points for the few minutes of deja vu...especially considering the material at hand! Heh

[Jester of the FoS]

Re: Godefroy

Wokeness Level – (0) how in the world did this crusty old white guy make the cut?

He's actually black.



(Like the Weathermay-Foxgroves)

[FiranDarcalus]

Where did you find that pic Jester? I never saw it in the actual book.

[Jester of the FoS]

Where did you find that pic Jester? I never saw it in the actual book.

Concept art shared by the artist:
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1394783124668616705

There's a few of his pieces floating about:
https://twitter.com/wizards_dnd/status/ ... 80?lang=en
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1385339215764803587
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1387434227310862344
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1393226858905276417
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1390765716714909699
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1390084223776608260
https://twitter.com/thesgw/status/1386735128160837638

[alhoon]

How can you tell he's black from these pics?

[Joël of the FoS]

His look

Lips, nose, general face feel. It's not a common archetypical black, agreed.

[Mephisto of the FoS]

How can you tell he's black from these pics?

His socks?...